Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes and his utter confusion . aka : Clueless in Dallas !

17 views
Skip to first unread message

cdddraftsman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 8:37:00 PM6/25/06
to
Its been my utter misfortune to have run afoul of that up to the minute
, virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . If he'd spend half of
his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods , than PF, AM and RH
all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
, further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire ! Naa ,
on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing , if it
weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
your average American 8th grade learning skills , I'll bet you get that
warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
say , 90% of Americans , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?
It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
believe in strange things . Tom Lowry

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 9:56:34 PM6/25/06
to
In article <1151282220.5...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...

>
>Its been my utter misfortune to have run afoul of that up to the minute
>, virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
>priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . If he'd spend half of
>his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
>as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods ,


Oh? Were they "falsehoods", you'd be quick to QUOTE them... but you can't, can
you?

>than PF, AM and RH
>all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
>the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
>be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
>, further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
>involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
>heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
>he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
>bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
>his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire ! Naa ,
>on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing ,


Pointing out that you, and most LNT'ers, are too cowardly to answer simple
questions, and deal with the *evidence* in this case?

That's what I'm doing. And quite well enough to make *you* look like a fool.

>if it
>weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
>and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
>non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
>your average American 8th grade learning skills , I'll bet you get that
>warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
>say , 90% of Americans , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?


How embarrassing it must be to be forced, by your beliefs, to imagine that up to
90% of America are dumb.


>It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
>costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
>a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
>your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
>at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
>We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
>believe in strange things . Tom Lowry


Anyone wonder why Tom still refuses to respond to the evidence in this case?

Or have the courage to support his *own* words?

Bud

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 10:32:43 PM6/25/06
to

cdddraftsman wrote:
> Its been my utter misfortune to have run afoul of that up to the minute
> , virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
> priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes .

Look where you`re at. You can`t go to the beach and be surprised to
find sand.

> If he'd spend half of
> his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
> as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods , than PF, AM and RH
> all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
> the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
> be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
> , further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
> involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
> heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
> he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
> bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
> his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire !

That`s why Ben will never run out of material. He has the efforts of
a thousand paranoid chimps at a thousand typewriters at his disposal.
Hundreds of thousands of hours of effort to undermine and attack the
official version, in order to nullify it, so it can be replaced by some
of the worst thinking ever displayed.

> Naa ,
> on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing , if it
> weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
> and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
> non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
> your average American 8th grade learning skills

That hit a little too close to home.

> , I'll bet you get that
> warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
> say , 90% of Americans

Oh, he`ll say 90%. He just can`t support it.

> , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?
> It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
> costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
> a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
> your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
> at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
> We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
> believe in strange things . Tom Lowry

Well, the real reason I responded to this is to predict Ben`s
response. Since he (says he) has me plonked, he shouldn`t see this. I
just wonder how well I know the enemy, so here goes. Ben will allude to
all the other LNs who have run back to the moderated forum. He`ll claim
Tom is a coward who won`t address his carefully selected kook talking
points. And he won`t fail to include that LN indulge in attacks because
they are afraid to talk about the evidence. C`mon Ben, be your
predictable self, I hate to be proven wrong.

cdddraftsman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 6:18:37 AM6/26/06
to
Hit it right on the nose , put 2 dollars down on ben's horse , Ah sh--t
put 5 dollars down on shakey knees in the fifth . TL

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 10:57:16 AM6/26/06
to
All the water in the seven seas can't sink a ship if none gets
inside----and Ben runs a very tight ship. Instead of trying to assail
his ship with ideas, evidence and logic, all you guys can do is splash
aimlessly in the water------Such infantile behavior!

Bud

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:04:25 PM6/26/06
to

lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> All the water in the seven seas can't sink a ship if none gets
> inside---

No doubt that the heads of kooks are watertight. Vacuum sealed, in
fact.

>-and Ben runs a very tight ship.

No doubt he is wound too tight.

> Instead of trying to assail
> his ship with ideas, evidence and logic, all you guys can do is splash
> aimlessly in the water------

What a horrible allegory. Ben is more like the foodstuffs squirrels
bury to fend against lean times. Before trying your hand at literary
license, get a learners permit.

>Such infantile behavior!

Yet still too high brow for the task at hand.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 8:02:26 PM6/26/06
to

Isn't there *any* LNT'ers who are willing to debate the *evidence*???


In article <1151317117.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...

cdddraftsman

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 7:25:22 AM6/28/06
to
Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
common , mundane answer to these things ? You've somehow , in your
mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 9:47:42 AM6/28/06
to
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led

Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
where debates are of primary focus?


> to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> common , mundane answer to these things ?

And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
to refuse to debate?

You've somehow , in your
> mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't

Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common

1. In the Bible
2. On the Playgrounds
3. At the kitchen table
4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
5. All of the above
6. Add your own.

> geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> Ben Holmes wrote:

Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
be brought to trial to have closure? LHO was not even proved guilty by
trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
'fingered' over the years. By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
time of the shooting?

CJ

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 10:53:49 AM6/28/06
to
In article <1151493922....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...

>
>Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish .


So your goal in posting here is what?

To try making points without anyone rebutting them?


>Your questions that led
>to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies ,

Actually, many of the questions were never asked back then - we didn't know
enough of the evidence at that time.


>but don't
>you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
>common , mundane answer to these things ?


Why would I act like there's "common, mundane answers" when you can't provide
them?

>You've somehow , in your
>mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
>thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
>of a nurological problem , on your part ?

Ad hominem.


>It certainly isn't
>geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered .


When no real investigation was conducted, and LHO was decided on as the sole
culprit within days, if not hours, then of *course* no one else was "fingered".


>You could
>also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
>Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
>fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry


Ad hominem.

Bud

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 5:30:17 PM6/28/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> cdddraftsman wrote:
> > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
>
> Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> where debates are of primary focus?

This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.

> > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > common , mundane answer to these things ?
>
> And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> to refuse to debate?

Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?

> You've somehow , in your
> > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
>
> Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
>
> 1. In the Bible
> 2. On the Playgrounds
> 3. At the kitchen table
> 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> 5. All of the above
> 6. Add your own.

Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
perspective.

> > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> be brought to trial to have closure?

We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
in very unimportant ways.

> LHO was not even proved guilty by
> trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> 'fingered' over the years.

And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.

> By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> time of the shooting?

You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
victim.

<SNIP>

Bud

unread,
Jun 28, 2006, 5:35:12 PM6/28/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151493922....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
> says...
> >
> >Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish .
>
>
> So your goal in posting here is what?
>
> To try making points without anyone rebutting them?
>
>
> >Your questions that led
> >to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies ,
>
> Actually, many of the questions were never asked back then - we didn't know
> enough of the evidence at that time.
>
>
> >but don't
> >you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> >common , mundane answer to these things ?
>
>
> Why would I act like there's "common, mundane answers" when you can't provide
> them?
>
>
>
> >You've somehow , in your
> >mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> >thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> >of a nurological problem , on your part ?
>
> Ad hominem.
>
>
> >It certainly isn't
> >geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered .
>
>
> When no real investigation was conducted, and LHO was decided on as the sole
> culprit within days, if not hours, then of *course* no one else was "fingered".

Yah, the people doing the investigating just refused to ignore all
the indications that Oz did this thing. I becomes much harder to
figure out what happened when you ignore all those indications.

tomnln

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 12:24:40 AM6/29/06
to
MIDDLE POST;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1151530217.7...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...


>
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
>> cdddraftsman wrote:
>> > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
>>
>> Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
>> where debates are of primary focus?
>
> This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
>
>> > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
>> > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
>> > common , mundane answer to these things ?
>>
>> And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
>> to refuse to debate?

============================================================================


> Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?

I gave you volume & page AIDS Breath.
==============================================================================

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 9:58:33 AM6/29/06
to
Bud wrote:
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> >
> > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > where debates are of primary focus?
>
> This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
>
It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
themselves away.

> > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> >
> > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > to refuse to debate?
>
> Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
>

Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
the assassination itself. They just don't care, and all they want to
do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
answers. They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.

> > You've somehow , in your
> > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> >
> > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> >
> > 1. In the Bible
> > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > 3. At the kitchen table
> > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > 5. All of the above
> > 6. Add your own.
>
> Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> perspective.
>

Kook! Like that?!

> > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > be brought to trial to have closure?
>
> We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> in very unimportant ways.
>

Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.

> > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > 'fingered' over the years.
>
> And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
>

They go plenty of places, but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.

> > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > time of the shooting?
>
> You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> victim.
>

He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
too. His actions speak volumes, and of course your understanding will
always get in the way.

CJ

> <SNIP>

Bud

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 3:13:04 PM6/29/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> > >
> > > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > > where debates are of primary focus?
> >
> > This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> > forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> > engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> > present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> > punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> >
> It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
> trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
> endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
> themselves away.

Lets hope thats true.

> > > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> > >
> > > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > > to refuse to debate?
> >
> > Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> > about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> > Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> > Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> >
> Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
> whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
> up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
> handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
> ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
> the assassination itself.

I suppose you should be condemned to running around in circles
with this nonsense. You will certainly never be able to establish the
least bit of it, or take it to any meaningful conclusion.

> They just don't care, and all they want to
> do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
> answers.

Asking questions isn`t progress.

> They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
> against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.

The "Oswald Handbook" is merely having the ability to view the
amazing and extraordinary claims, conjecture, scenarios you kooks make
in the context of your meager support and flimsy pretexts.

> > > You've somehow , in your
> > > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> > >
> > > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> > >
> > > 1. In the Bible
> > > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > > 3. At the kitchen table
> > > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > > 5. All of the above
> > > 6. Add your own.
> >
> > Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> > perspective.
> >
> Kook! Like that?!

Just like that.

> > > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > > be brought to trial to have closure?
> >
> > We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> > closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> > in very unimportant ways.
> >
> Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
> anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.

You don`t really think that the kook chatter here is important in
any real way, do you?

> > > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > > 'fingered' over the years.
> >
> > And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> > should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> > that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> >
> They go plenty of places,

Nowhere.

> but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
> their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.

<snicker>

> > > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > > time of the shooting?
> >
> > You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> > victim.
> >
> He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
> too.

In forty-plus years you can`t establish such a thing, and never
will. Just like you won`t be able to show that Ruby killed LHO for any
reasons but his own personal ones. You whack-jobs are left scratching
at Tippit`s car window being up or the fact that he fell on his gun to
support your crackpoy ideas, because this is all you can muster.

> His actions speak volumes,

No, kooks read volumes into his actions.

> and of course your understanding will
> always get in the way.

Yah, understanding will get in the way. You are unfettered by it.

> CJ
>
> > <SNIP>

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 3:41:43 PM6/29/06
to
>>> "He {J.D. Tippit} may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination too. His actions speak volumes." <<<


"His actions speak volumes"???????

Un-be-lievable!

Typical CT Kook-ism. Tippit is out on the Dallas streets DOING EXACTLY
WHAT HE IS TOLD TO DO (to cover the general Oak Cliff area due to other
cars being diverted to DP), and yet his "actions speak volumes" in
favor of Tippit's own involvement in the assassination plot (per CT
kooks/nuts)!

UNBELIEVABLE! As well as being a shockingly-stupid and despicable
assertion/allegation!

It's bad enough that CT Kooks/Morons try to take the noose from around
killer Lee Oswald's neck with respect to Tippit's murder -- but some
CTers then decide they'll take the Tippit thing to the next level of
unsupportable absurdity -- being the "Let's Have Tippit Actually Be The
'Badge Man' Shooter On The Knoll!" hunk of garbage.

Somebody decides they'll paint in a little "badge" on some shadows and
grain noise within a dot-sized area of an already-crappy Mary Moorman
Polaroid photo, and the next (il)logical step for the CT Kook Brigade
is to have the slain policeman in the case turn into this "Knoll
Killer".

Or, short of being Badge Man, the next best Kook theory re. Tippit is
to have him being "assigned" to rub out the Patsy (Oswald) after JFK's
murder. And the evidence for this allegation is where again?? Anybody
know (other than a CT Kook)??

Answer -- The evidence for it rests NOWHERE at all. It's non-existent,
except in the CT Kook World of Make-Believe.

Frankly, CTers spitting on the memory of a good officer like J.D.
Tippit disgusts me...greatly.

J.D. Tippit has been treated like a criminal for absolutely no reason
other than conspiracists' whack-o theories, which have no evidence in
fact to back them up.

If ANYTHING will show up a true CT Kook for what he/she is (i.e., a
"True-Blue CT Kook") it is their oddball belief that J.D. Tippit was
somehow involved in the JFK assassination (other than by merely being
an innocent victim of bastard Oswald's murderous actions, that is).

Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTer's specific status
(i.e., "Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kook but still a CTer") is to ask them
right off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"

If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 6:11:43 PM6/29/06
to
>Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTers status (i.e.,
>"Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kooky but still a CTer") is to ask them right

>off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>
>If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
>first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
>certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
>11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

A good way to see if you're dealing with a nut or not, is to see if they are
willing to discuss the evidence.

David VP

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 8:11:14 PM6/29/06
to
Kook "evidence" you mean, Ben?

Example of Ben's Kook Evidence:

Ben wants me to discuss the autopsy report (as it relates to the
so-called "BOH" wound that CTers insist was there, but, of course,
never existed in the first place). Ben insists that Humes, et al, DID
say in the actual autopsy report that there was a large hole in the
back of JFK's head. When, of course, no such BOH reference exists.

It all boils down to the word "somewhat". That one word (per Ben-Kook)
indicates, evidently, a "LARGE BOH *HOLE*, 13 CM. WIDE IN THE BOH".

That's called Kook-Logic. And Ben thrives on feeding it.

Right, Ben?

Phil Ossofee

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 9:02:03 PM6/29/06
to
Von Scum said" so-called BOH wound that cter's insist was there, but of
course never existed in the first place" Von Pein, Reitzes whoever the
hell you are, you are one lying sack of shit. All the medical personnel
said the back of the head had a large hole in it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 10:17:27 PM6/29/06
to
In article <1151626274.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>Kook "evidence" you mean, Ben?
>
>Example of Ben's Kook Evidence:
>
>Ben wants me to discuss the autopsy report (as it relates to the
>so-called "BOH" wound that CTers insist was there, but, of course,
>never existed in the first place).


"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."


Ask me what part of this you don't understand, Davey-Boy, and I'll be happy to
point out the facts.


>Ben insists that Humes, et al, DID
>say in the actual autopsy report that there was a large hole in the
>back of JFK's head. When, of course, no such BOH reference exists.


What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?


>It all boils down to the word "somewhat". That one word (per Ben-Kook)
>indicates, evidently, a "LARGE BOH *HOLE*, 13 CM. WIDE IN THE BOH".


Words have meanings. You've lost the moment the wound *touches* the occipital.
For there's no part of the occipital that's *NOT* in the back of the head.

Indeed, a wound can be *ENTIRELY* in the parietal, yet be on the *back* of the
head.

You should get together with Tony... he likes to lie about this too.

David VP

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 10:41:04 PM6/29/06
to
Thanks, Phil Sack-O-Feces.

Now perhaps you can explain why all 3 autopsy doctors signed off on the
most important documents in their lives (if it was a piece-of-shit
lie)?

All 3 of them were lying sacks, right?

And then explain why none of the autopsy photos shows the BOH wound?
All faked, right? So the HSCA photo panel (all 19 who signed off on the
"unaltered" declaration) was made up of nothing but lying sacks of dung
as well. Right?

You're goofy. But...being a CTer...what can we expect?

Dave "Scum" V.P.

David VP

unread,
Jun 29, 2006, 10:50:23 PM6/29/06
to
>> "What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?"

And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Ben-Spook-Kook.

NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) have
ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".

What part of THAT don't you understand, Bennut?

Tell me again how all three autopsy docs are rotten cover-up agents? I
like hearing that theory...over & over. It's a howl.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 10:13:04 AM6/30/06
to

Snip and run... snip and run...

Coward, aren't you?


In article <1151635823.2...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
>
>And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Ben-Spook-Kook.


Considering that you snipped the portion of my post that deals with this, you
can simply go back to it to see the complete rebuttal to this.

Why do you insist on appearing stupid?

>NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) have
>ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
>RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".


Untrue. When you need to lie about the evidence, all you've shown is that
you're a liar. I've already *quoted* the autopsy report's placement in the back
of the head...

Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
the President?
Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.

"behind", in Davey-boy's fevered imagination, means the top of the head.


>What part of THAT don't you understand, Bennut?
>
>Tell me again how all three autopsy docs are rotten cover-up agents?


They followed orders.


>I like hearing that theory...over & over. It's a howl.

"theory"?

You can't believe what the autopsy doctors *did* say.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 10:32:00 AM6/30/06
to
Bud wrote:
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> > > >
> > > > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > > > where debates are of primary focus?
> > >
> > > This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> > > forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> > > engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> > > present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> > > punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> > >
> > It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
> > trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
> > endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
> > themselves away.
>
> Lets hope thats true.
>
Oh the track record is in tact. Have Parasite Will Travel.

> > > > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> > > >
> > > > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > > > to refuse to debate?
> > >
> > > Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> > > about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> > > Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> > > Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> > >
> > Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
> > whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
> > up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
> > handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
> > ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
> > the assassination itself.
>
> I suppose you should be condemned to running around in circles
> with this nonsense. You will certainly never be able to establish the
> least bit of it, or take it to any meaningful conclusion.
>

It's been established, but the conclusions which may be obvious to some
are just too painful for others.

> > They just don't care, and all they want to
> > do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
> > answers.
>
> Asking questions isn`t progress.
>

Of course when Oswald is dead. No question is a good question.

> > They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
> > against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.
>
> The "Oswald Handbook" is merely having the ability to view the
> amazing and extraordinary claims, conjecture, scenarios you kooks make
> in the context of your meager support and flimsy pretexts.
>

You just glance at the claims and get on your soapbox. Obviously,
looking things up is not your forte.

> > > > You've somehow , in your
> > > > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> > > >
> > > > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> > > >
> > > > 1. In the Bible
> > > > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > > > 3. At the kitchen table
> > > > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > > > 5. All of the above
> > > > 6. Add your own.
> > >
> > > Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > Kook! Like that?!
>
> Just like that.
>

Better yet, if it suits you, it fits you well.

> > > > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > > > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > > > be brought to trial to have closure?
> > >
> > > We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> > > closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> > > in very unimportant ways.
> > >
> > Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
> > anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.
>
> You don`t really think that the kook chatter here is important in
> any real way, do you?
>

Well, maybe not to solve the case, but to put in people's minds that
many people will use any leverage to get their way in this country
might be a deterrant for future sheanigans.

> > > > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > > > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > > > 'fingered' over the years.
> > >
> > > And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> > > should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> > > that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> > >
> > They go plenty of places,
>
> Nowhere.
>

Bud The Quasher, yes! Bud the thinker, the investigator, nyet!

> > but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
> > their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.
>
> <snicker>
>

Kooks have low entertainment levels, folks.

> > > > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > > > time of the shooting?
> > >
> > > You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> > > victim.
> > >
> > He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
> > too.
>
> In forty-plus years you can`t establish such a thing, and never
> will. Just like you won`t be able to show that Ruby killed LHO for any
> reasons but his own personal ones. You whack-jobs are left scratching
> at Tippit`s car window being up or the fact that he fell on his gun to
> support your crackpoy ideas, because this is all you can muster.
>

That's just it. His own personal reasons are obviously NOT the case,
but you have to swallow. Tippit just doesn't choose some house out of
thousands in the neighborhood to just give a friendly honk. To you, he
must have had a hand slip off the wheel, or been in his regularly
assigned territory. Anything, but him maybe just being on the payroll
to be a currrier, or a warner...something to do with the case.

> > His actions speak volumes,
>
> No, kooks read volumes into his actions.
>

We, read the evidence and ask any question like any detective, and
build a case. You already have a case, and have nothing to do better
in life to serve your ego by 'thinking you have superiour thinking
abilities' (SirSlick). You need to do other things to make your life
have real self worth.

CJ

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 10:15:47 AM6/30/06
to
In article <1151635264....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>Thanks, Phil Sack-O-Feces.
>
>Now perhaps you can explain why all 3 autopsy doctors signed off on the
>most important documents in their lives (if it was a piece-of-shit
>lie)?


They were ordered to do so.


>All 3 of them were lying sacks, right?


Of course they were. Their obeying of lawful orders made them so.

>And then explain why none of the autopsy photos shows the BOH wound?

Actually, F8 undoubtably does. But as to the BOH photo - it's forged.


>All faked, right? So the HSCA photo panel (all 19 who signed off on the
>"unaltered" declaration) was made up of nothing but lying sacks of dung
>as well. Right?

Some of them certainly were. Others were duped.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 10:45:13 AM6/30/06
to
David VP wrote:
> >>> "He {J.D. Tippit} may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination too. His actions speak volumes." <<<
>
>
> "His actions speak volumes"???????
>
> Un-be-lievable!
>
Then explain why he waits at The Viaduct where cars from Dealey Plaza
are coming, and happens to honk at the house of one of the cars that
crosses that Viaduct, that has the patsy, or accused assassin of the
President of the U.S.A.? Thousands of houses in that neighborhood, and
he picks that one! If he had miraculous powers of knowing who
committed the act, or knew himself and wanted to get at him, why didn't
he just go in the roominghouse and get him, or wait for him to come
out? If Oswald couldn't get to the crime scene of the Tippit murder in
time, how did he get to the Texas Theater so early when that would have
been even a longer walk?

What speaks volumes is these lackeys here, just going along with the
program, refusing to ask any meaningful investigative questions.

> Typical CT Kook-ism. Tippit is out on the Dallas streets DOING EXACTLY
> WHAT HE IS TOLD TO DO (to cover the general Oak Cliff area due to other
> cars being diverted to DP), and yet his "actions speak volumes" in
> favor of Tippit's own involvement in the assassination plot (per CT
> kooks/nuts)!
>

By the conspirators? More likely, yes.

> UNBELIEVABLE! As well as being a shockingly-stupid and despicable
> assertion/allegation!
>

Wow, this one wants on stage during Academy time.

> It's bad enough that CT Kooks/Morons try to take the noose from around
> killer Lee Oswald's neck with respect to Tippit's murder -- but some
> CTers then decide they'll take the Tippit thing to the next level of
> unsupportable absurdity -- being the "Let's Have Tippit Actually Be The
> 'Badge Man' Shooter On The Knoll!" hunk of garbage.
>

Can you absolutely be sure that he wasn't?

> Somebody decides they'll paint in a little "badge" on some shadows and
> grain noise within a dot-sized area of an already-crappy Mary Moorman
> Polaroid photo, and the next (il)logical step for the CT Kook Brigade
> is to have the slain policeman in the case turn into this "Knoll
> Killer".
>

Maybe they should have looked at Tippit's hands to see if they were
dirty too, huh?

> Or, short of being Badge Man, the next best Kook theory re. Tippit is
> to have him being "assigned" to rub out the Patsy (Oswald) after JFK's
> murder. And the evidence for this allegation is where again?? Anybody
> know (other than a CT Kook)??
>

Doubtful, when he could have rubbed him out at the roominghouse, huh?

> Answer -- The evidence for it rests NOWHERE at all. It's non-existent,
> except in the CT Kook World of Make-Believe.
>
> Frankly, CTers spitting on the memory of a good officer like J.D.
> Tippit disgusts me...greatly.
>

You have no personal knowledge of the man. Many think he was a most
undesirable character, with his affairs on the job, and working in
seedy places of mob figures.

> J.D. Tippit has been treated like a criminal for absolutely no reason
> other than conspiracists' whack-o theories, which have no evidence in
> fact to back them up.
>

It's just another case of people willing to make a hero out of someone
to make that a reason not to look at evidence. It's been around a long
time. It's called The End Run.

> If ANYTHING will show up a true CT Kook for what he/she is (i.e., a
> "True-Blue CT Kook") it is their oddball belief that J.D. Tippit was
> somehow involved in the JFK assassination (other than by merely being
> an innocent victim of bastard Oswald's murderous actions, that is).
>
> Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTer's specific status
> (i.e., "Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kook but still a CTer") is to ask them
> right off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>
> If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
> first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
> certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
> 11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Many who wrote on the case in
the sixties thought he was involved. Many will continue to do so.

CJ

David VP

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 2:31:56 PM6/30/06
to
>> "Can you absolutely be sure that he {Tippit} wasn't {the BM shooter, per CT Kooks}?"

Beautiful. I have to prove he wasn't there. Nice.

And, yes, the weight of the evidence re. Tippit's movements on 11/22
certainly suggests that he was not even close to DP at 12:30 PM. But
don't let that tidbit stop you kooks from accusing him of various evil
deeds. Please.

There are ZERO pieces of evidence to support Tippit's "involvement" in
JFK's death, which must mean (per kooks) that Tippit WAS involved.
(It's that "badge" thing that White and Mack came up with no doubt. If
they had painted on a little pair of wings, then the kooks would claim
it was Dave Ferrie behind that fence...he was a pilot you see....so who
else COULD it have been, per the kook quick-trigger thought process. A
drawn-in Fedora would have equalled Ruby as the Knoll shooter. A really
skinny gunmen drawn in would have meant Frank Sinatra was taking aim.
It's obvious.)

There's nothing uglier than a CT kook who wants to smear Tippit and
free Saint Oswald too. A double-bill of absurdity.

Wanna try for a triple-bill and place Tippit's wife in the Dal-Tex with
a gun too?

MPAA -- You listening here??

I'm not spreading this LN disinformation for nothin', ya know! By God.

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 5:28:08 PM6/30/06
to
>>> "Dr. Humes WC Testimony: "Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind"." <<<


I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from
heaven.

However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt.
testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).

Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to
convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the exact
words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim TWICE.
He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF THE KILLER in BOTH of
his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks.

A CT-kook wants to jump on this statement by Humes as something odd or
"conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks here in
the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring up all
the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and evidence that
surrounds the JFK & Tippit murders?

It's what CT-Kooks do best....i.e., muddy the waters, in order to try
to free guilty Presidential assassins.

tomnln

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 6:13:06 PM6/30/06
to
WHO "muddys the waters"?

The WCR who published those Facts?
OR,
Those who "Quote" those Facts?

Apparently your ass in at the top of your head which explains why nothing
but feces comes outta you.

I warned you about aligning yourself with Bud & your other AIDS buddies.

Unless you're just here to Promote Nazi/Communist Justice.

NOW tell us why the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard photo?

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151702888....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 6:16:04 PM6/30/06
to
WOW:
Talk about a "Magic Bullet".

Now the AIDS Distributers want us to believe that a bullet Exits from the
Same hole it Enters>

Only in AIDS Land.

Now tell us why the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard photo?


"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1151702406.0...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...


>>> "HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired
>>> from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
>

> I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from
> heaven.
>
> However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt.
> testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
> was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
> misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
> THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).
>

> Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks there might very well have meant
> to convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN (and he probably DID
> mean just that, the more I ponder his somewhat-convoluted
> statement....because of the wording: "From Other Than Behind", which he


> says verbatim TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF
> THE KILLER in BOTH of his consecutive "from other than behind"

> remarks).
>
> A CT-kook wants to jump on this Humes' statement as something odd or


> "conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks here in
> the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring up all
> the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and evidence that

> surrounds the JFK & Tippit murders.
>
> It's what CT-Kooks do best....i.e., muddy the waters.
>


Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 6:27:43 PM6/30/06
to

Snip and run... snip and run. The coward snips, and having snipped - runs on.


In article <1151702406.0...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired
>> from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
>
>I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from
>heaven.


And yet, you'll still deny that the prosectors knew that the wound was in the
BACK of the head.

>However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt.
>testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
>was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
>misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
>THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).


Feel free to quote it.


>Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks there might very well have meant
>to convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN (and he probably DID
>mean just that, the more I ponder his somewhat-convoluted
>statement....because of the wording: "From Other Than Behind", which he
>says verbatim TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF
>THE KILLER in BOTH of his consecutive "from other than behind"
>remarks).

Yep... everyone knows that JFK turned and was looking back at the TSDB. That's
what was reported...


>A CT-kook wants to jump on this Humes' statement as something odd or
>"conspiratorial" I guess.


Nope. His statement was merely one out of dozens of others. I refer to it
because you tried asserting that the prosectors can't be used to show a wound on
the *BACK* of the head.

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 7:31:05 PM6/30/06
to
The more I ponder Dr. Humes' Double-"FROM OTHER THAN BEHIND" verbiage,
it's obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he
was referring SOLELY to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was
hit in the back of the head "From Behind".

Paint Humes as a liar if you please (and you do)....it's typical
CT-ism. But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From
Behind" comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for
once. .....

"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

He obviously CANNOT mean that a bullet has ENTERED the back of JFK's
head AND EXITED from the same place.

With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense
(although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking
here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's car).

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 8:34:42 PM6/30/06
to
In article <1151709477.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>The more I ponder Humes' Double-"FROM OTHER THAN BEHIND" verbiage, it's

>obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he was
>referring SOLELY to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was hit
>in the back of the head "From Behind".
>
>Paint Humes as a liar if you please (and you do)....it's typical
>CT-ism. But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From
>Behind" comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for
>once.
>
>"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
>other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
>
>He obvious CANNOT mean that a bullet has gone into the back of JFK's

>head AND EXITED from the same place.

He didn't *say* that. He said that the bullet could not have exited from
*other* than behind. Not from the same point as the entry.

This illustrates the flaws of not having adversarial process more than any other
example I can think of.


>With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense
>(although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking
>here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's car).


Sounds like you're in the 'Tony' camp. "There was no exit hole in the back of
the head. The wound extends somewhat into the Occipital... No part of the
occipital can be described as *other* than the back of the head... There was no
large hole in the back of JFK's head."

Rather silly .. but most LNT'ers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital".

David VP

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 8:57:59 PM6/30/06
to
>>> "He didn't *say* that. He said that the bullet could not have exited from *other* than behind. Not from the same point as the entry." <<<

OK, Ben, so WHICH one of Humes' "from behind" comments do you think he
was mistaken about (per your thinking that BOTH comments are not
referring solely to the location of the assassin)?

Because he's GOTTA be simply "mistaken", therefore, about one of the
two "from other than behind" comments....because both can't be right
(per your reasoning).

Or was Humes just talking gobbledy-gook?

David VP

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 9:01:00 PM6/30/06
to
>>> "Most LNT'ers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital"." <<<

Certain CT-kooks gag on the word "somewhat", too.

Bud

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 10:31:07 PM6/30/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >>> "He {J.D. Tippit} may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination too. His actions speak volumes." <<<
> >
> >
> > "His actions speak volumes"???????
> >
> > Un-be-lievable!
> >
> Then explain why he waits at The Viaduct where cars from Dealey Plaza
> are coming, and happens to honk at the house of one of the cars that
> crosses that Viaduct, that has the patsy, or accused assassin of the
> President of the U.S.A.? Thousands of houses in that neighborhood, and
> he picks that one! If he had miraculous powers of knowing

Miraculous that you know he was there when you don`t have one single
witness saying he was.

> who
> committed the act, or knew himself and wanted to get at him, why didn't
> he just go in the roominghouse and get him, or wait for him to come
> out? If Oswald couldn't get to the crime scene of the Tippit murder in
> time, how did he get to the Texas Theater so early when that would have
> been even a longer walk?
>
> What speaks volumes is these lackeys here, just going along with the
> program, refusing to ask any meaningful investigative questions.

You don`t ask meaningful questions. You ignore the meaningful
information, and give weight to evidence that doesn`t exist.

> > Typical CT Kook-ism. Tippit is out on the Dallas streets DOING EXACTLY
> > WHAT HE IS TOLD TO DO (to cover the general Oak Cliff area due to other
> > cars being diverted to DP), and yet his "actions speak volumes" in
> > favor of Tippit's own involvement in the assassination plot (per CT
> > kooks/nuts)!
> >
> By the conspirators? More likely, yes.
>
> > UNBELIEVABLE! As well as being a shockingly-stupid and despicable
> > assertion/allegation!
> >
> Wow, this one wants on stage during Academy time.
>
> > It's bad enough that CT Kooks/Morons try to take the noose from around
> > killer Lee Oswald's neck with respect to Tippit's murder -- but some
> > CTers then decide they'll take the Tippit thing to the next level of
> > unsupportable absurdity -- being the "Let's Have Tippit Actually Be The
> > 'Badge Man' Shooter On The Knoll!" hunk of garbage.
> >
> Can you absolutely be sure that he wasn't?

Can you be absolutely positive that JFK didn`t arrange to have
himself murdered?

> > Somebody decides they'll paint in a little "badge" on some shadows and
> > grain noise within a dot-sized area of an already-crappy Mary Moorman
> > Polaroid photo, and the next (il)logical step for the CT Kook Brigade
> > is to have the slain policeman in the case turn into this "Knoll
> > Killer".
> >
> Maybe they should have looked at Tippit's hands to see if they were
> dirty too, huh?

Maybe you should have someboidy pop open the hood and check you
brain.

> > Or, short of being Badge Man, the next best Kook theory re. Tippit is
> > to have him being "assigned" to rub out the Patsy (Oswald) after JFK's
> > murder. And the evidence for this allegation is where again?? Anybody
> > know (other than a CT Kook)??
> >
> Doubtful, when he could have rubbed him out at the roominghouse, huh?
>
> > Answer -- The evidence for it rests NOWHERE at all. It's non-existent,
> > except in the CT Kook World of Make-Believe.
> >
> > Frankly, CTers spitting on the memory of a good officer like J.D.
> > Tippit disgusts me...greatly.
> >
> You have no personal knowledge of the man. Many think he was a most
> undesirable character, with his affairs on the job, and working in
> seedy places of mob figures.

<snicker> They`re all bad people. Just not Saint Oz.

> > J.D. Tippit has been treated like a criminal for absolutely no reason
> > other than conspiracists' whack-o theories, which have no evidence in
> > fact to back them up.
> >
>
> It's just another case of people willing to make a hero out of someone
> to make that a reason not to look at evidence. It's been around a long
> time. It's called The End Run.

It`s called kooks indulging in a sick hobby.

> > If ANYTHING will show up a true CT Kook for what he/she is (i.e., a
> > "True-Blue CT Kook") it is their oddball belief that J.D. Tippit was
> > somehow involved in the JFK assassination (other than by merely being
> > an innocent victim of bastard Oswald's murderous actions, that is).
> >
> > Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTer's specific status
> > (i.e., "Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kook but still a CTer") is to ask them
> > right off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
> >
> > If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
> > first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
> > certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
> > 11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Many who wrote on the case in
> the sixties thought he was involved. Many will continue to do so.

Kooks will blather.

> CJ

Bud

unread,
Jun 30, 2006, 11:09:47 PM6/30/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > > > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > > > > where debates are of primary focus?
> > > >
> > > > This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> > > > forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> > > > engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> > > > present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> > > > punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> > > >
> > > It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
> > > trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
> > > endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
> > > themselves away.
> >
> > Lets hope thats true.
> >
> Oh the track record is in tact. Have Parasite Will Travel.

Don`t leave home without it.

> > > > > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > > > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > > > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> > > > >
> > > > > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > > > > to refuse to debate?
> > > >
> > > > Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> > > > about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> > > > Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> > > > Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> > > >
> > > Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
> > > whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
> > > up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
> > > handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
> > > ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
> > > the assassination itself.
> >
> > I suppose you should be condemned to running around in circles
> > with this nonsense. You will certainly never be able to establish the
> > least bit of it, or take it to any meaningful conclusion.
> >
> It's been established, but the conclusions which may be obvious to some
> are just too painful for others.

No, it hasn`t been established, and you can`t tell that it hasn`t.

> > > They just don't care, and all they want to
> > > do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
> > > answers.
> >
> > Asking questions isn`t progress.
> >
> Of course when Oswald is dead. No question is a good question.

I`d like to ask him if it hurt when Ruby shot him. Looked like it
did.

> > > They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
> > > against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.
> >
> > The "Oswald Handbook" is merely having the ability to view the
> > amazing and extraordinary claims, conjecture, scenarios you kooks make
> > in the context of your meager support and flimsy pretexts.
> >
> You just glance at the claims and get on your soapbox. Obviously,
> looking things up is not your forte.

The "things" aren`t the problem.

> > > > > You've somehow , in your
> > > > > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > > > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > > > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> > > > >
> > > > > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. In the Bible
> > > > > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > > > > 3. At the kitchen table
> > > > > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > > > > 5. All of the above
> > > > > 6. Add your own.
> > > >
> > > > Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> > > > perspective.
> > > >
> > > Kook! Like that?!
> >
> > Just like that.
> >
> Better yet, if it suits you, it fits you well.

Yah, what kind of kook would think that just because all those
people selected Oz as the person they saw kill Tippit, or run from the
scene, that that might mean they actually saw the person they said they
had, doing the things they said they saw him do.

> > > > > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > > > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > > > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > > > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > > > > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > > > > be brought to trial to have closure?
> > > >
> > > > We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> > > > closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> > > > in very unimportant ways.
> > > >
> > > Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
> > > anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.
> >
> > You don`t really think that the kook chatter here is important in
> > any real way, do you?
> >
> Well, maybe not to solve the case, but to put in people's minds that
> many people will use any leverage to get their way in this country
> might be a deterrant for future sheanigans.

But you folks are inept and useless. Your incompetence can only tend
to encourage these kinds of "sheanigans".

> > > > > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > > > > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > > > > 'fingered' over the years.
> > > >
> > > > And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> > > > should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> > > > that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> > > >
> > > They go plenty of places,
> >
> > Nowhere.
> >
> Bud The Quasher, yes! Bud the thinker, the investigator, nyet!

You`d rather read into the evidence than read the evidence.

> > > but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
> > > their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.
> >
> > <snicker>
> >
> Kooks have low entertainment levels, folks.

You do not. You never cease to amaze.

> > > > > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > > > > time of the shooting?
> > > >
> > > > You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> > > > victim.
> > > >
> > > He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
> > > too.
> >
> > In forty-plus years you can`t establish such a thing, and never
> > will. Just like you won`t be able to show that Ruby killed LHO for any
> > reasons but his own personal ones. You whack-jobs are left scratching
> > at Tippit`s car window being up or the fact that he fell on his gun to
> > support your crackpoy ideas, because this is all you can muster.
> >
> That's just it.

I know it is.

> His own personal reasons are obviously NOT the case,
> but you have to swallow. Tippit just doesn't choose some house out of
> thousands in the neighborhood to just give a friendly honk.

Who said they saw Tippit at Oz`s boardinghouse?

> To you, he
> must have had a hand slip off the wheel, or been in his regularly
> assigned territory. Anything, but him maybe just being on the payroll
> to be a currrier, or a warner...something to do with the case.

After 40-plus years you`ve got in narrowed down to "something"?
Good work!

> > > His actions speak volumes,
> >
> > No, kooks read volumes into his actions.
> >
> We, read the evidence and ask any question like any detective,

Any detective that barks up the trees you do is in the wrong
profession.

> and
> build a case.

You will never build a case. You can only chase your tail.

> You already have a case, and have nothing to do better
> in life to serve your ego by 'thinking you have superiour thinking
> abilities' (SirSlick).

I`m not here for my ego,. I perform a public service.

> You need to do other things to make your life
> have real self worth.

Well, it not like finding a cure for cancer, but kook-bashing might
do some good. Perhaps it will stop being cool to blurt out the stupiest
shit and be considered sagely and wise.

tomnln

unread,
Jul 1, 2006, 12:40:46 PM7/1/06
to
Wre all know what you AIDS Distributors Gag on.

Is that why you never address the FBI withholding evidence from the WC?

Do you Condone those Felonies?

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1151715660....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 1, 2006, 12:59:38 PM7/1/06
to

Snip and run... snip and run... Coward to the very end, right; Davey-boy?

In article <1151715479.3...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> He didn't *say* that. He said that the bullet could not have exited from
>> *other* than behind. Not from the same point as the entry.
>
>OK, Ben,

So you admit that Humes DID NOT SAY what you asserted... good.

My job is done.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 1, 2006, 1:01:38 PM7/1/06
to

The coward snips, and having snipped, moves on...

In article <1151715660....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> Most LNT'ers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital".
>
>Certain CT-kooks gag on the word "somewhat", too.


What you refuse to deal with - is that the wound could have been just *ONE
MILLIMETER* into the occipital, and it would *PROVABLY* be a wound in the back
of the head.

For that matter, it can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, and be in the back of the
head.

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Jul 2, 2006, 5:55:01 PM7/2/06
to
Ben-Kook said earlier:

>>> "His {Dr. Humes} statement was merely one out of dozens of others. ....He {Humes} said that the bullet could not have exited from OTHER than behind." <<<

DVP now responds:

So, Ben, was Dr. Humes lying, or merely mistaken, or is he just
flat-out out stupid when he claimed in the same breath that the bullet
that ENTERED Kennedy's head could not possibly have been fired from a
location other than from BEHIND the President, and then a second later
claimed that the bullet had to have exited "from behind" as well?*

* = Which is an "Other Than Behind" statement that CT-kooks take to
mean "exited the back of JFK's skull" -- which, of course, Humes did
NOT mean there, quite obviously, based on the first portion of his
"other than behind" testimony. Humes was talking only about the
direction from which the bullet had to have come in order to have
achieved the exit wound that was observed on JFK's head -- i.e., the
bullet that caused the exit wound in JFK's skull had to have come "FROM
BEHIND" the President.

So....which is it, Ben?

Was Humes an honest man, trying to tell the truth to the WC in '64? Or
was he a lying SOB who was "in" on a cover-up operation from Day 1?

You seem to want Humes to be BOTH of the above things.

On one hand, per CT-kooks, Humes is a lying mother-fucker, who told
numerous lies to the Warren Commission (et al) and who deliberately
faked the autopsy report.

But on the other hand, Ben and other assorted kooks treat Humes as a
"teller of the truth" when it comes to the rather ambiguous-sounding
"from behind"/"from behind" double statement made by Humes. Ben seems
to think that Humes is telling the TRUTH in this one rare instance
(when it suits his pro-conspiracy needs, of course...and only then).

You can't have it both ways, Benji. Humes is either a fraud and a cheat
or he isn't. Which do you want to choose (this time)?


Ben-Kook also said this in a prior posting:

>>> "They {including James Humes} followed orders." <<<

Evidently not well enough for Ben, however. Otherwise that sneaky
double "From Behind" thing would never have escaped Humes' lips.


Ben-Kook also said this in a prior posting:

>>> "You can't believe what the autopsy doctors DID say." <<<

But, evidently, Ben-boy CAN pick and choose what to believe and
disbelieve re. Humes' statements (i.e., what the kooks perceive as
being the real Humes truth vs. what are merely conspiratorial lies on
Humes' part). In the "from behind" example, Ben wants to "believe" what
Humes said (adding in his own pro-CT spin concerning the statement, of
course).

In that one instance, Doctor Humes is a truth-teller. All other times
-- he's a rotten scumbag of a liar, bent on subverting the true facts
re. JFK's wounds.

This kind of double-standard thinking by CT-kooks shows their true
desires and intentions -- i.e., make everything look as shady and
suspicious as possible and maybe some of this will stick in people's
minds as the truth.

It's the "Throw Spaghetti At The Wall" kind of logic. Typical for
CTers, I must say. Sad, but typical.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 2, 2006, 5:58:59 PM7/2/06
to