RETARDS!

[Bud]

You know who you are.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:05:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> You know who you are.

When everyone you respond to is a "retard" - the true retard probably
isn't the one you think.

Labeling somone a "retard" because you can't refute the evidence they
post simply shows that you know you lost.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:05:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You know who you are.
>
> When everyone you respond to is a "retard" -

I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write. They don`t need an "attaboy" for not being retarded, it isn`t really an accomplishment.

> the true retard probably
> isn't the one you think.

Oh, I think there is more than one here, lurkers.

> Labeling somone a "retard" because you can't refute the evidence they
> post simply shows that you know you lost.

Calling a retard a retard is merely accuracy in action, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write.

This is why Bud doesn't respond to any of the Rush to Judgement excerpts, posted daily here (although we can tell from the number of views that he reads them).

>
> > the true retard probably
> > isn't the one you think.
>
> Oh, I think there is more than one here, lurkers.

Bud accidentally says something honest, but not in the way he means it.

>
> Calling a retard a retard is merely accuracy in action, lurkers.

Bud thinks this topic was worthy of starting a thread. Bud's a retard.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 2:25:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write.
>
> This is why Bud doesn't respond to any of the Rush to Judgement excerpts,

<snicker> Another retard comes forward to apply his retard figuring to why I do what I do. All retards do is convert information into some form they are comfortable with, truth be damned.

>posted daily here (although we can tell from the number of views that he reads them).

Clues for retards!

> >
> > > the true retard probably
> > > isn't the one you think.
> >
> > Oh, I think there is more than one here, lurkers.
>
> Bud accidentally says something honest, but not in the way he means it.

Here`s one now I had in mind.

> >
> > Calling a retard a retard is merely accuracy in action, lurkers.
>
> Bud thinks this topic was worthy of starting a thread. Bud's a retard.

Did you know who you were?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:32:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 2:25:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write.
> >
> > This is why Bud doesn't respond to any of the Rush to Judgement excerpts,
>
> <snicker> Another retard comes forward to apply his retard figuring to why I do what I do. All retards do is convert information into some form they are comfortable with, truth be damned.

oh .John, er, Dudster, you haven't had a serious thing to say for 20 years. In fact, these days you're a door mat for lone nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome wishful thinking... Grow up!

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> You know who you are.

I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research. On acj he's usually just engaging in what my dreaded sixth-grade teacher called "foofaraw". (It is a real word, but I've never seen or heard it used since.)

dcw

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > You know who you are.
>
> I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research.

Man, was I bored.

> On acj he's usually just engaging in what my dreaded sixth-grade teacher called "foofaraw". (It is a real word, but I've never seen or heard it used since.)
>
> dcw

Well, I was correct, and they did know who they were. The Four Horsemen of the Asylum.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:14:41 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:05:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You know who you are.
>>
>> When everyone you respond to is a "retard" -
>
> I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write. They
> don`t need an "attaboy" for not being retarded, it isn`t really an
> accomplishment.

Since *I* am the one posting what the majority of Americans accept as
historical, and *YOU* are in the distinct minority - it's clear who
the "retard" is, isn't it?

>> the true retard probably
>> isn't the one you think.
>
> Oh, I think there is more than one here, lurkers.

No, I cannot recall anyone else with such a fondness for labeling
everyone a "retard."

Only you.

>> Labeling somone a "retard" because you can't refute the evidence they
>> post simply shows that you know you lost.
>

> Admitting I'm a retard is merely accuracy in action, lurkers.

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > You know who you are.
> >
> > I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research.
>
> Man, was I bored.

Huh?

>
> > On acj he's usually just engaging in what my dreaded sixth-grade teacher called "foofaraw". (It is a real word, but I've never seen or heard it used since.)
> >
> > dcw
>
> Well, I was correct, and they did know who they were. The Four Horsemen of the Asylum.

I have to redo my Bud assessment. He does some good research for aaj, but jumps to the wrong conclusion with it See, for instance, his latest assumption re "Photographic Proof: Rifle found on fifth floor", which assumption blows up in his face, and instead bolsters opposing argument.

dcw

[Bud]

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:14:41 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:05:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You know who you are.
> >>
> >> When everyone you respond to is a "retard" -
> >
> > I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write. They
> > don`t need an "attaboy" for not being retarded, it isn`t really an
> > accomplishment.
>
>
> Since *I* am the one posting what the majority of Americans accept as
> historical,

Empty claim, lurkers. In fact, an outright lie. Do the majority of Americans think the z-film was altered?

> and *YOU* are in the distinct minority -

More people believe what I believe occurred in this event than what bebs believes occurred, lurkers. When it comes to beb`s retarded ideas, he is an army of one, the loneliest number.

> it's clear who
> the "retard" is, isn't it?

Unfortunately for bebs, yes, it is.

>
> >> the true retard probably
> >> isn't the one you think.
> >
> > Oh, I think there is more than one here, lurkers.
>
>
> No, I cannot recall anyone else with such a fondness for labeling
> everyone a "retard."

Lurkers note that I wrote "RETARDS" and they all came running. It was like a retard roll call. "Retards assemble!"

> Only you.

It is a word I choose to use because it is both strong and accurate, lurkers.

> >> Labeling somone a "retard" because you can't refute the evidence they
> >> post simply shows that you know you lost.
> >
> > Admitting I'm a retard is merely accuracy in action, lurkers.

I`m always willing to admit that bebs is a retard, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:49:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > You know who you are.
> > >
> > > I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research.
> >
> > Man, was I bored.
>
> Huh?

I saw your retarded ideas and was ignoring them. Then, on the spur of the moment I decided to look through the crime scene photos to see what I could find. It confirmed what I knew going it, that you were playing silly games.

> >
> > > On acj he's usually just engaging in what my dreaded sixth-grade teacher called "foofaraw". (It is a real word, but I've never seen or heard it used since.)
> > >
> > > dcw
> >
> > Well, I was correct, and they did know who they were. The Four Horsemen of the Asylum.
>
> I have to redo my Bud assessment. He does some good research for aaj, but jumps to the wrong conclusion with it See, for instance, his latest assumption re "Photographic Proof: Rifle found on fifth floor", which assumption blows up in his face, and instead bolsters opposing argument.

<snicker> Retards always see things how they a comfortable seeing them.

> dcw

[donald willis]

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 1:40:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:49:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > You know who you are.
> > > >
> > > > I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research.
> > >
> > > Man, was I bored.
> >
> > Huh?
>

> I saw your PRE-TEEN RANT WORD CENSORED ideas and was ignoring them. Then, on the spur of the moment I decided to look through the crime scene photos to see what I could find. It confirmed what I knew going it, that you were playing silly games.

I think all that spur o' the moment research of yours left us with a stalemate re 5th/6th. We don't have (as I said) enough photographic evidence for a conclusion. What tips it for me is the presence of Patrolman Valentine, who said he was left to watch the FIFTH floor, not the sixth. And he did not add that he later went up a floor.

>
> > >
> > > > On acj he's usually just engaging in what my dreaded sixth-grade teacher called "foofaraw". (It is a real word, but I've never seen or heard it used since.)
> > > >
> > > > dcw
> > >
> > > Well, I was correct, and they did know who they were. The Four Horsemen of the Asylum.
> >
> > I have to redo my Bud assessment. He does some good research for aaj, but jumps to the wrong conclusion with it See, for instance, his latest assumption re "Photographic Proof: Rifle found on fifth floor", which assumption blows up in his face, and instead bolsters opposing argument.
>

> <snicker> PRE-TEEN SLUR CENSORED always see things how they a comfortable seeing them.
>
You don't even know what I am referring to. You can't until tomorrow when McAdams posts it.

Do you even know what your latest assumption was? That there were two or three bottles found on the sixth floor. Care to reconsider that?

> > dcw

[Bud]

Are you going to address where Kaiser said he found the clipboard, and that where he indicated was nearby the "5" column?

> Do you even know what your latest assumption was? That there were two or three bottles found on the sixth floor. Care to reconsider that?

I think I said there were at least two other empty bottles. Then I went on to show them, one in a photo and the other in film.

> > > dcw

[donald willis]

That you did. That you did. (chuckle)
>
> > > > dcw

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:37:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:14:41 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:05:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You know who you are.
>> >>
>> >> When everyone you respond to is a "retard" -
>> >
>> > I don`t respond much to what the reasonable people write. They
>> > don`t need an "attaboy" for not being retarded, it isn`t really an
>> > accomplishment.
>>
>> Since *I* am the one posting what the majority of Americans accept as
>> historical,
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

Anyone notice Puddy citing polls?

[BT George]

FWIW, though I probably have no higher opinion of most of your *ideas* than Bud does, I do consider you a civil CT and one who is at least willing to listen and give *some* credit to what LN's might have to say. Because of that I certainly don't slot you with the same place of "honor" that I reserve for the likes of the bebs, Boris's, Harris's, Cinque's, and Healeys of the world.

[Bud]

Do lurkers see beb supporting his claim?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I certainly don't slot you with the same place of "honor" that I reserve for the likes of the bebs, Boris's, Harris's, Cinque's, and Healeys of the world.

Not a big fan of science either, are you Captain Circus?

[BT George]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:37:49 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I certainly don't slot you with the same place of "honor" that I reserve for the likes of the bebs, Boris's, Harris's, Cinque's, and Healeys of the world.
>
> Not a big fan of science either, are you Captain Circus?

Well Donald, we must know what "Boris" thinks about your ideas, since he thinks me putting him and his pals on a lower rung indicates some kind of rejection of science.

But then again, that probably worries you about as much as it does me, because coming from a 911 Troofer, the irony of any such observation on his part is very rich indeed!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Well Donald, we must know what "Boris" thinks about your ideas, since he thinks me putting him and his pals on a lower rung indicates some kind of rejection of science.
>
> But then again, that probably worries you about as much as it does me, because coming from a 911 Troofer, the irony of any such observation on his part is very rich indeed!

Gee, a divide-and-conquer attempt followed by a strawman argument. I don't see that about a dozen times a week from LNers. So sorry you didn't "get around to" my last post. I'm sure you've been much too busy denying science to people dumb enough to believe it. Hey...let me know when Chuck starts sparring with Patrick Collins in the Fair Play FB group. For THAT, I would join.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > You know who you are.
> >
> > I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research.
>
> Man, was I bored.

nah, defeated more likely.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Actually, you said you would "spar" with me at Fair Play long before mentioning anything about Patrick Collins, whom I do not know.

What happened?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Actually, you said you would "spar" with me at Fair Play

More likely I said there would be no point, as you would be just as useless there as you would here, if not more so because you don't have the added advantage of the ad hominemn attack to resort to. Would you suddenly have "pennies" to put in my jar over there? Doubtful.

>
> long before mentioning anything about Patrick Collins, whom I do not know.

You know he's a LNer, and you know you disagree with him, and you know that is VERBOTEN in your circles, and WTF are you going to do now?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I actually did not know he thinks only two shots were fired, which I think is silly. If he thinks Oswald acted alone, he's light-years removed from your tinfoil beanie theory that thousands plotted/participated and covered it up, with the fallout from the assassination actually leading to the killing of RFK five years later, with evidence destroying teams, the involvement of LBJ, Hoover, the Secret Service, etc.

The term "pennies in your jar" refers to your penchant for asking begged questions with no answer that will satisfy you. Fix your arguments and avoid being called out on it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The term "pennies in your jar" refers to your penchant for asking begged questions with no answer that will satisfy you. Fix your arguments and avoid being called out on it.

I just checked, and the last two "not putting a penny in your jar" moments occurred when I asked you 1.) to cite a single forensic expert that supports Specter, and 2.) What Robert Frazier said about the limo windshield. Those aren't "begged questions", imbecile. Do you know what a begged question is? Why are you so unashamed of your stupidity?

[BT George]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >

> > Well Donald, we must know what "Boris" thinks about your ideas, since he thinks me putting him and his pals on a lower rung indicates some kind of rejection of science.
> >
> > But then again, that probably worries you about as much as it does me, because coming from a 911 Troofer, the irony of any such observation on his part is very rich indeed!
>
> Gee, a divide-and-conquer attempt followed by a strawman argument. I don't see that about a dozen times a week from LNers. So sorry you didn't "get around to" my last post.

"Boris" hasn't always gotten around to responding to my posts Lukers. Here is one example. :-)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9Bkn3i1efrs/ifoWj21QDAAJ

...Now watch as he scurries back to say something nonsensical to cover up for it. :-)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:51:24 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:54:47 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Well Donald, we must know what "Boris" thinks about your ideas, since he thinks me putting him and his pals on a lower rung indicates some kind of rejection of science.
> > >
> > > But then again, that probably worries you about as much as it does me, because coming from a 911 Troofer, the irony of any such observation on his part is very rich indeed!
> >
> > Gee, a divide-and-conquer attempt followed by a strawman argument. I don't see that about a dozen times a week from LNers. So sorry you didn't "get around to" my last post.
>
> "Boris" hasn't always gotten around to responding to my posts Lukers. Here is one example. :-)
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9Bkn3i1efrs/ifoWj21QDAAJ
>
> ...Now watch as he scurries back to say something nonsensical to cover up for it. :-)

No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?

[donald willis]

I'm just less interested in mud-slinging than in honing my arguments on the counterpoints of others, CT or LN. I do get oissed now & then, though--for instance, I more or less intentionally rebuffed John R. King (on the other alt) by calling his never-ending advice "homework". To a point, I considered his criticisms of my "ideas" helpful, reasonable. But it went beyond that point for me....

dcw

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:44:08 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The term "pennies in your jar" refers to your penchant for asking begged questions with no answer that will satisfy you. Fix your arguments and avoid being called out on it.
>
> I just checked, and the last two "not putting a penny in your jar" moments occurred when I asked you 1.) to cite a single forensic expert that supports Specter, and 2.) What Robert Frazier said about the limo windshield. Those aren't "begged questions", imbecile. Do you know what a begged question is? Why are you so unashamed of your stupidity?

We had already discussed it, stupid. I'll expand the definition to encompass any of your stupidity, which is basically anything that oozes from you.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > The term "pennies in your jar" refers to your penchant for asking begged questions with no answer that will satisfy you. Fix your arguments and avoid being called out on it.
> >
> > I just checked, and the last two "not putting a penny in your jar" moments occurred when I asked you 1.) to cite a single forensic expert that supports Specter, and 2.) What Robert Frazier said about the limo windshield. Those aren't "begged questions", imbecile. Do you know what a begged question is? Why are you so unashamed of your stupidity?
>
> We had already discussed it, stupid. I'll expand the definition to encompass any of your stupidity, which is basically anything that oozes from you.

Whatever you need to do, champ. I'll just continue to post the scientific evidence (a.k.a., "stupidity", as you call it) unchallenged, and rape your faith daily. Glad to hear you don't mind. Bye now.

[BT George]

The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like. I.e., able to penetrate semi hard objects quite easily and deeply (SBT performance, where it struck no bone solidly until much of its momentum had already been spent.) yet also liable to fail completely when it strikes a large, hard bone at, or near, full velocity (as happened with the 312/313 head shot).

"Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.

As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body. He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless. But since they didn't have an endless supply of those *expensive* body surrogates to keep shooting at until they more exactly replicated the SBT, they had to be content to simply show the general *feasibility* of the SBT. And indeed, a *reasonable* and *fair* minded person---which excludes the "B" brothers---should readily be willing to admit that it did exactly that.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
>
> The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.

The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.

>
> "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.

Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.

>
> As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.

Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman. That is not the issue of the SBT (at least not the ONLY issue). In fact, one of several issues is the "straight line" you were foolish enough to bring up just now.

>
> He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.

Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not. That is, in fact, the trajectory of a bullet following the "straight line" you hold so dear. That is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Super. Let's see your "scientific evidence" tying Karyn Kupcinet to the JFK assassination, or scientific support for your invented term, "aural consilience" or the rest of your tinfoil beanie wacky stuff linking rusting shell hulks found anywhere near Dealey Plaza in subsequent years to JFK's murder, or tests showing how Zapruder's film was altered, etc.

Show us the scientific evidence. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:16:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:07:55 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:05:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>> > > You know who you are.
>> >
>> > I would join in the condemnation of Bud and his chosen topic here. But on the dreaded alt.assassination.jfk he occasionally shows some good research.
>>
>> Man, was I bored.
>
>nah, defeated more likely.

He didn't even make it through 1/4 of the book. Puddy's failed at
every attempt to show a "lie" - so he's just given up.

[BT George]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
> >
> > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
>
> The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
>

"Boris" should go back and look a little harder. I assure you that he will see an example of it fired *well* into a pine log and come out in great condition.

> >
> > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
>
> Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
>
> >
> > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
>
> Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman.

Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically* impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,

That is not the issue of the SBT (at least not the ONLY issue). In fact, one of several issues is the "straight line" you were foolish enough to bring up just now.

"Boris needs to take care to properly quote me. Here is what I said with emphasis added to a key word:

"...while maintaining a *relatively* straight line.

>
> >
> > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
>
> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.

Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory. And, of course it is irrelevant that it struck 2 demo. ribs vs. the 1 rib that was struck in Connally's case.

So in

In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.

It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.

That is, in fact, the trajectory of a bullet following the "straight line" you hold so dear.

*Relatively* straight line. Details matter Lurkers, when it comes to *accurately* describing what an experiment does or does not show.

hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed.

What they showed---though not their intention---was that even a slight miss of the target, is still enough to be *magnified* along the path of the trajectory. (Just like aiming a half an inch to the right or left, gets magnified much larger if the target it 200 yards away vs. 20 feet away.) Nevertheless, since we are talking only a few feet from JFK neck to Connally's back and chest, the difference really matters less because of the magnification of the error, than because it was just enough to cause it to strike more than one bony structure solidly before it did so in JBC. Not to mention that the strike to JBC was likely a side-swipe vs. nose first, and it is highly unlikely that that occurred with the demo, since the bullet damage to the nose was much greater even though it didn't collide (if memory serves) with the surrogate wrist.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> "Boris" should go back and look a little harder. I assure you that he will see an example of it fired *well* into a pine log and come out in great condition.

You're not supposed to be arguing for "great condition" today, moron. The bullet took on frangible properties and exploded on impact.

> >
> > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.

Boris would like to point out BT Barnum's ongoing silence here.

>
> Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically* impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,

But it *IS* physically impossible for one bullet to pierce through several layers of tissue, bone and clothing without having any tissue, blood or clothing fibers on it. That's Robert Frazier saying so, not me.

>
> "Boris needs to take care to properly quote me. Here is what I said with emphasis added to a key word:
>
> "...while maintaining a *relatively* straight line.

It doesn't matter what slick lawyerly word you slip in there. What's paramount to your position is its exit.

>
> >
> > >
> > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> >
> > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
>
> Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.

LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.

LNers are idiots, lurkers. Don't become one.

>
> In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
>
> It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.

hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.

LNers lather themselves in snake oil, lurkers. Don't be a LNer when you grow up.

>
> *Relatively* straight line. Details matter Lurkers, when it comes to *accurately* describing what an experiment does or does not show.

Cute, another "lawyer" word. Unfortunately, the geometry from a height of 60 feet is never going to change. There is no "line" whatsoever a bullet can take whereby it enters at the third thoratic vertebrae (or ANYWHERE on the back) and exits the throat from an incline position of 60 feet. There is none. None. And no test on earth will prove it can be done.

>
>
> hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed.

Yes. It was. But...that's MY argument. Not yours. LOL!!!!

Don't be a LNer kids. They get all addled and confused, trying to keep their shit together.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 4:50:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
> >
> > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
>
> The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
>
> >
> > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
>
> Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
>
> >
> > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
>
> Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman. That is not the issue of the SBT (at least not the ONLY issue). In fact, one of several issues is the "straight line" you were foolish enough to bring up just now.
>
> >
> > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
>
> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.

Show this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:28:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 4:50:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
>> >
>> > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
>>
>> The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
>>
>> >
>> > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
>>
>> Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
>>
>> >
>> > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
>>
>> Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman. That is not the issue of the SBT (at least not the ONLY issue). In fact, one of several issues is the "straight line" you were foolish enough to bring up just now.
>>
>> >
>> > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
>>
>> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
>
> Show this.

Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >>
> >> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
> >
> > Show this.
>
>
> Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.

That's why I don't bother with this asshole. Ironically, he's the one who first posted the MythBusters video. Now he wants *me* to show something *he* posted. He shouldn't have opened that can of worms, he must have known it would come back to be used against him.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:46:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:28:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 4:50:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
> >> >
> >> > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
> >>
> >> The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
> >>
> >> Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
> >>
> >> Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman. That is not the issue of the SBT (at least not the ONLY issue). In fact, one of several issues is the "straight line" you were foolish enough to bring up just now.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> >>
> >> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
> >
> > Show this.
>
>
> Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.

<snicker> Lurkers, they make these claims and as soon as you ask them to support them they misdirect towards the person asking them to support their claims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:52:38 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

This is true for most of the WC evidence too. Which explains why
believers are constantly running from the evidence.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This is true for most of the WC evidence too. Which explains why
> believers are constantly running from the evidence.

Look at this beaut.

https://youtu.be/PZRUNYZY71g?t=155

The red line is practically under the armpit. Too bad they didn't have a twisted gelatin Connally wrist turned into the bust to go with the rest of their nonsense.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:52:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
> > >
> > > Show this.
> >
> >
> > Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.
>
> That's why I don't bother with this asshole.

It was you talking out of your ass. Why can`t you support what you said?

> Ironically, he's the one who first posted the MythBusters video. Now he wants *me* to show something *he* posted.

Oh, ok.

BTW, Oswald confessed, it is in the WCR somewhere, I don`t have to show it.

> He shouldn't have opened that can of worms, he must have known it would come back to be used against him.

Use anything you like to support the things you say.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It was you talking out of your ass. Why can`t you support what you said?

See above post, which you conveniently ignored.

>
> BTW, Oswald confessed, it is in the WCR somewhere,

He said he was a patsy. That's a full-on confession to a retard.

>
> I don`t have to show it.

So what else is new?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Now he's freaked out over the red line practically under the armpit. For Boris, it's more proof JFK was assassinated by many, the plot leading to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, RFK's murder, faked moon landings and ultimately, Karyn Kupcinet cooperating with Silverstein the Jew to kill 3,000 civilians with holograms and nanothermite. More freaky looking sh!t for Boris the Truther to tremble over tonight when he's searching the home for ghosts. For the Truther, the United States is a frightening place full of evil.

Will Boris ever tell us what he thinks happened that day?

Nah. Boris will NEVER put forward a case. Ever.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:58:23 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
> > >
> > > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
> >
> > The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
> >
>
> "Boris" should go back and look a little harder. I assure you that he will see an example of it fired *well* into a pine log and come out in great condition.
>
> > >
> > > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
> >
> > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
> >
> > >
> > > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
> >
> > Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman.
>
> Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically* impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,

you almost made an argument. And then you fabricate MORE lone nut bullshit. Where and whom is claiming "...physically impossible for one bullet..."?

What a slippery shitstick you are...

[Bud]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:49:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It was you talking out of your ass. Why can`t you support what you said?
>
> See above post, which you conveniently ignored.

How did it support your claim?

> > BTW, Oswald confessed, it is in the WCR somewhere,
>
> He said he was a patsy.

Non sequitur.

>That's a full-on confession to a retard.

You aren`t addressing what I said, why is that?

> > I don`t have to show it.
>
> So what else is new?

Another retard changing my words.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:46:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically*
>> impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft
>> tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,
>
> you almost made an argument. And then you fabricate MORE lone nut
> bullshit. Where and whom is claiming "...physically impossible for
> one bullet..."?
>
>What a slippery shitstick you are...

If you want to watch some cowardice, just ask the troll to quote any
critic who even comes *close* to implying what he's claiming.

Believers can't face what critics *ACTUALLY* say, so they're
constantly inventing strawmen.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:12:00 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Will Boris ever tell us what he thinks happened that day?

This from the moron who claims not to have a scenario.

Yet keeps demanding what *HE* refuses to supply from everyone else.

What a coward!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:49:23 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:12:00 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Will Boris ever tell us what he thinks happened that day?
>
> This from the moron who claims not to have a scenario.

You're posting simply to post.

I do not have a scenario separate from the historically accepted scenario---Oswald Alone, no identifiable conspiracy or conspirators.

>
> Yet keeps demanding what *HE* refuses to supply from everyone else.
>
> What a coward!

A little jumbled there, but yes, YOU are challenging. You want to make this about the Warren Commission, but this isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane. You should be putting together a positive case for what you allege and let others ask questions that you answer.

You can't do it.

Boris the Truther can't do it.

Don Willis can't do it.

Healy from Dealey can't do it.

Laz can't do it.

None of you has ever offered anything specific. Nothing from James Fetzer, Mark Lane, Tink Thompson, etc. Zip. Zero.

Over five decades of spitballs at the Warren Commission. You've put up no case to compare to the WC. No tests for what you allege. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:14:00 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:49:23 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:12:00 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Will Boris ever tell us what he thinks happened that day?
>>
>> This from the moron who claims not to have a scenario.
>
>You're posting simply to post.
>

>I do not have a scenario...


Good of you to acknowledge that I posted the simple truth.

So tell us moron, why are you asking others for something *YOU
YOURSELF* are unwilling to answer?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Man, this gets tedious.

1.) I don't have a case separate from the historically accepted case. You are intimately familiar with it, quote from the evidence the conclusions were drawn from, know the commission exhibit numbers by heart, and so on. In fact, you know it better than I do.

2.) You're challenging. You think a massive conspiracy starting with LBJ and Hoover, involving US intel services, the DPD, elements of the Mob, and so on, killed JFK when they could've just waited a year to see if he'd even be re-elected.

3.) Since this is your position, it's incumbent on you to put forward a positive case for what you allege occurred that would unseat the Oswald Alone conclusion, which is the historically accepted case.

Get busy.

[BT George]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:46:49 PM UTC-6, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:58:23 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
> > > >
> > > > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
> > >
> > > The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
> > >
> >
> > "Boris" should go back and look a little harder. I assure you that he will see an example of it fired *well* into a pine log and come out in great condition.
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
> > >
> > > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
> > >
> > > Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman.
> >
> > Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically* impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,
>
> you almost made an argument. And then you fabricate MORE lone nut bullshit. Where and whom is claiming "...physically impossible for one bullet..."?
>

LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.

> What a slippery shitstick you are...
>

No. That's the mirror again Healy. Come out of the drug induced fog and try looking in the right direction for a change. Maybe you'll stop proving Bud right about you guys always looking at the wrong things wrongly. (As well as the *right* things *wrongly*.)

[donald willis]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 5:11:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:52:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
> > > >
> > > > Show this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.
> >
> > That's why I don't bother with this asshole.
>
> It was you talking out of your ass. Why can`t you support what you said?
>
> > Ironically, he's the one who first posted the MythBusters video. Now he wants *me* to show something *he* posted.
>
> Oh, ok.
>
> BTW, Oswald confessed, it is in the WCR somewhere, I don`t have to show it.

If you possibly could, it would be earth-shaking news! You are alone on this one, Bud! Not even your fellow LNers will back you....

(And Trump doesn't have to show the proof that his operatives in Hawaii found which proved that Obama wasn't a U.C. citizen.)

dcw

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:43:08 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:28:21 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:14:00 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:49:23 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:12:00 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Will Boris ever tell us what he thinks happened that day?
>> >>
>> >> This from the moron who claims not to have a scenario.
>> >
>> >You're posting simply to post.
>> >
>> >I do not have a scenario...
>>
>> Good of you to acknowledge that I posted the simple truth.
>>
>> So tell us moron, why are you asking others for something *YOU
>> YOURSELF* are unwilling to answer?
>
>Man, this gets tedious.

All you have to do is answer the question.

Why are you asking others for the answer to a question that *YOU
YOURSELF ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO ANSWER* ???

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:02:18 -0800 (PST), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 5:11:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:52:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
>> > > >
>> > > > Show this.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.
>> >
>> > That's why I don't bother with this asshole.
>>
>> It was you talking out of your ass. Why can`t you support what you said?
>>
>> > Ironically, he's the one who first posted the MythBusters video. Now he wants *me* to show something *he* posted.
>>
>> Oh, ok.
>>
>> BTW, Oswald confessed, it is in the WCR somewhere, I don`t have to show it.
>
> If you possibly could, it would be earth-shaking news! You are
> alone on this one, Bud! Not even your fellow LNers will back you....

Sadly, I've seen his fellow believers back Puddy on other obvious
lies... so this isn't something that can be taken for granted.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.

That's not what you said, but I'm not going to waste time nitpicking your lies with you, because if you fire a thousand bullets into a thousand pieces of wood, and 1 of them comes out undamaged, that's the one you're going to cling to for dear life. You're a zealot, so that's what you'll do.

BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence. That is, evidence left upon contact. Such as the contact that would have been made between the bullet and Kennedy's body and clothing. Also, the obvious problem of that 1 sample having to defy basic geometry as well.

So...just do what Chuck did: address nothing, insult me, and run away claiming victory. Oh wait, you've already done that too.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 9:48:51 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:46:49 PM UTC-6, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:58:23 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that's quite simple, Mr. Change the Subject Instantaneously. First you linked a video with a wrong citation, and the second time was your effort to intend to show that a medium-velocity jacketed bullet acts the same way as a high-velocity frangible bullet fired from the opposite direction. I'm surprised you're foolish enough to bring it up again. Are you now going to show us the MythBusters test that flat-out failed the SBT but pretends not to?
> > > > >
> > > > > The link demonstrated *precisely* what the varying performance of WCC Carcano bullets could look like.
> > > >
> > > > The link from the time codes you cited show bullets firing into gelatin, NOT exploding, AND leaving an entrance wound, of which there is none in the BOH photo. That's just a few problems with it that I'm willing to give the precious few more minutes that I have here today.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Boris" should go back and look a little harder. I assure you that he will see an example of it fired *well* into a pine log and come out in great condition.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Boris" would like you Lurkers to do as he does, and stupidly miss or ignore the *obvious* applicability to the LN propositions relative to the shots fired that day.
> > > >
> > > > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as the MythBusters, "Boris" would have you fail to notice what their test *did* prove. Namely, that a WCC Carcano bullet could *indeed* pass through more than one body while maintaining a relatively straight line until the point it emerged from the second body.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone knows a bullet can pass through more than one body, King Strawman.
> > >
> > > Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically* impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,
> >
> > you almost made an argument. And then you fabricate MORE lone nut bullshit. Where and whom is claiming "...physically impossible for one bullet..."?
> >
>
> LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.
>
>
> > What a slippery shitstick you are...
> >
>
> No. That's the mirror again Healy. Come out of the drug induced fog and try looking in the right direction for a change. Maybe you'll stop proving Bud right about you guys always looking at the wrong things wrongly. (As well as the *right* things *wrongly*.)
>

well, as Ben stated: "If you want to watch some cowardice, just ask the troll to quote any

critic who even comes *close* to implying what he's claiming.

Believers can't face what critics *ACTUALLY* say, so they're
constantly inventing strawmen."

eh?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 5:11:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:52:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything. In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum.
> > > >
> > > > Show this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't show water is wet to a dishonest liar.
> >
> > That's why I don't bother with this asshole.
>
> It was you talking out of your ass. Why can`t you support what you said?

sit pup, Chuckles is being undressed, have you no class?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 12:43:18 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.
>
> That's not what you said, but I'm not going to waste time nitpicking your lies with you, because if you fire a thousand bullets into a thousand pieces of wood, and 1 of them comes out undamaged, that's the one you're going to cling to for dear life.

And that's the one you're going to avoid.

>
> BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence.

Why?

>That is, evidence left upon contact. Such as the contact that would have been >made between the bullet and Kennedy's body and clothing.

Boris wants to apply CSI Miami standards to 1963. Cute.

>Also, the obvious problem of that 1 sample having to defy basic geometry as well.

How so?

>
> So...just do what Chuck did: address nothing, insult me, and run away claiming victory. Oh wait, you've already done that too.

You know, there's an easy solution. You could put forward a ca...oh, hell, we know that's not going to ever happen.

Keep firing those Nerf darts at the Warren Commission, Boris.

[BT George]

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > "Boris" should go back and look a little harder. I assure you that he will see an example of it fired *well* into a pine log and come out in great condition.
>
> You're not supposed to be arguing for "great condition" today, moron. The bullet took on frangible properties and exploded on impact.
>

Lurkers, maybe "Boris" really is this stupid that he cannot grasp what all of you other sentient beings easily understand I am saying. Well you know the old saying, "You can lead an idiot to water, but you cannot prevent him from repeatedly trying to drown himself." :-)

>
> > >
> > > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
>
> Boris would like to point out BT Barnum's ongoing silence here.
>

Brock would like to point out the "Boris" needs to make a rationally sensible point, if he expects anything in response. Alas, he seems not to be able to do that.

>
> >
> > Many CT's come very close to claiming that is is *physically* impossible for one bullet to pierce though several layers of soft tissue and some bone and emerge without being utterly destroyed,
>
> But it *IS* physically impossible for one bullet to pierce through several layers of tissue, bone and clothing without having any tissue, blood or clothing fibers on it. That's Robert Frazier saying so, not me.
>

Citation please. Because this is all I found, and it represents neither an affirmation nor a denial that there was blood found on CE399. Indeed the hint is there might have been some blood or "other substance" on it either originally, or in insignificant amounts when he first got it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

First:

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Second:

Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, there was no test made of the materials.

>
> >
> > "Boris needs to take care to properly quote me. Here is what I said with emphasis added to a key word:
> >
> > "...while maintaining a *relatively* straight line.
>
> It doesn't matter what slick lawyerly word you slip in there. What's paramount to your position is its exit.
>

Not so. Nothing in the demo. did anything to disprove the SBT. It only proved that if you hit close, but a bit off, your trajectory won't be exactly the same, and you might hit two hard bones earlier in flight rather than one. Once that happens, the exit *must* vary from the SBT alignment, both, because of the missed target, and because the added resistance will surely affect the trajectory of exit.

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> > >
> > > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
> >
> > Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.
>
> LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.
>
> LNers are idiots, lurkers. Don't become one.
>

Speaking of idiots Lurkers, the preceding babbling constitutes prime example one. You will note that is does not logically interact with my point, which "Boris" evidently truly does not get. But then again, his own ideas are often contradictory (see below links) to a degree that suggests he may suffer from MPD. So it may just be that my comments address only the CT concerns of only one of his evident multiple personalities, but not the one who happens to be answering this post. :-)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UHZ4ZudF_AY/If_EweJUCgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UHZ4ZudF_AY/jKBeW2WYCgAJ

> >
> > In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
> >
> > It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.
>
>
> hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.
>

You see Lurkers how "Boris" just embraced the very criticism of the trajectory, his last babbling suggest I was wrong to be talking about? I rest my case on the MDP I am dealing with.

> LNers lather themselves in snake oil, lurkers. Don't be a LNer when you grow up.
>

Don't leave mental problems like schizophrenic identities unaddressed Lurkers. You could end up like "Boris" embracing both ends of each logical contradiction.

> >
> > *Relatively* straight line. Details matter Lurkers, when it comes to *accurately* describing what an experiment does or does not show.
>
> Cute, another "lawyer" word. Unfortunately, the geometry from a height of 60 feet is never going to change. There is no "line" whatsoever a bullet can take whereby it enters at the third thoratic vertebrae (or ANYWHERE on the back) and exits the throat from an incline position of 60 feet. There is none. None. And no test on earth will prove it can be done.
>

As the "Boris" personality asserts without evidence. Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments. Here is one of the simplest and best from JFK The Lost Bullet. See the Larry Sturdivan segment, from about the 34:00 minute through 36:19 minute marks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw

Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.

> >
> >
> > hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed.
>
> Yes. It was. But...that's MY argument. Not yours. LOL!!!!
>
> Don't be a LNer kids. They get all addled and confused, trying to keep their shit together.

Lurkers, this idiot has apparently intentionally mangled my response, or else his viewer is haywire and he stupidly thought I couldn't tell *my* response from his babblings. Here is the correct statement and my response from my prior post at:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uVR0_OCz0-o/t2HS4MRdCgAJ

"Boris" babbled:

"[T]hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed."

BT (Brock) George responds:

"What they showed---though not their intention---was that even a slight miss of the target, is still enough to be *magnified* along the path of the trajectory. (Just like aiming a half an inch to the right or left, gets magnified much larger if the target it 200 yards away vs. 20 feet away.) Nevertheless, since we are talking only a few feet from JFK neck to Connally's back and chest, the difference really matters less because of the magnification of the error, than because it was just enough to cause it to strike more than one bony structure solidly before it did so in JBC. Not to mention that the strike to JBC was likely a side-swipe vs. nose first, and it is highly unlikely that that occurred with the demo, since the bullet damage to the nose was much greater even though it didn't collide (if memory serves) with the surrogate wrist."

Don't grow up have MPD and cluelessness Lurkers. It's not very pretty. :-)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Lurkers, maybe "Boris" really is this stupid that he cannot grasp what all of you other sentient beings easily understand I am saying. Well you know the old saying, "You can lead an idiot to water, but you cannot prevent him from repeatedly trying to drown himself." :-)

Just as you can lead a liar to the head shot, but you can't keep him from moving the goalposts to the subject of CE399 when THAT subject gets too hot. Since you're now espousing squeaky clean bullets can fire through wood (which is softer than bone, by the way), that must be what you're doing.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
> >
> > Boris would like to point out BT Barnum's ongoing silence here.

The troll continues to feign (?) a lack of understanding of the issue, that bullets fired from behind don't enter from the front. Not with Connally's wrist, not with the head shot as seen via the lead snowstorm particles, and not potentially with the neck wound either.

> >
> > But it *IS* physically impossible for one bullet to pierce through several layers of tissue, bone and clothing without having any tissue, blood or clothing fibers on it. That's Robert Frazier saying so, not me.
> >
>
> Citation please.

No need, you provided it yourself. I wonder if you've ever seen the trace evidence on a fired bullet, one that really did go through two people AND clothing fibers. This is why it was asked of Frazier if he cleaned the bullet first, and when he responded in the negative Eisenberg appears surprised...

>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
> Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

It's so non-computable he has to ask again.

>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.

If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would likewise resemble as described.

>
> Not so. Nothing in the demo. did anything to disprove the SBT. It only proved that if you hit close, but a bit off, your trajectory won't be exactly the same, and you might hit two hard bones earlier in flight rather than one. Once that happens, the exit *must* vary from the SBT alignment, both, because of the missed target, and because the added resistance will surely affect the trajectory of exit.

And it will NEVER vary the way Specter described, because it geometrically cannot. It did not vary by an inch or two in the demonstration, it varied by half the length of the torso. Quite an embarrassing demonstration, to anyone capable of experiencing shame.

> > > > >
> > > > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
> > >
> > > Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.
> >
> > LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.

BT Barnum again fails to defend his position. The above is a great transaction, because it's reflective of the approach they take to every piece of suspect evidence. He knows this too. That's why his only response is to deflect, and link to a sarcastic comment I made about Oswald firing the head shot, which was so clearly satirical that you would not have to be figuratively retarded to misread it, but *literally*.

And that's why I gifted it to him. :-)

>
> > >
> > > In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
> > >
> > > It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.
> >
> >
> > hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.
> >
>
> You see Lurkers how "Boris" just embraced the very criticism of the trajectory, his last babbling suggest I was wrong to be talking about? I rest my case on the MDP I am dealing with.

If the test does not show trajectory correctly, then the test FAILED. That is the whole essence of the firing test! Any master sniper with an adequate and operable weapon can hit a target from 200 feet, and any bullet can transit two aligned bodies.

>
> Don't leave mental problems like schizophrenic identities unaddressed Lurkers. You could end up like "Boris" embracing both ends of each logical contradiction.

Ad hominem fallacy, and an ironic one to call me schizophrenic, since it's clear to anyone you are arguing with yourself i.e., whether or not a bullet can transit two bodies.

> >
> > Cute, another "lawyer" word. Unfortunately, the geometry from a height of 60 feet is never going to change. There is no "line" whatsoever a bullet can take whereby it enters at the third thoratic vertebrae (or ANYWHERE on the back) and exits the throat from an incline position of 60 feet. There is none. None. And no test on earth will prove it can be done.
> >
>
> As the "Boris" personality asserts without evidence. Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments. Here is one of the simplest and best from JFK The Lost Bullet. See the Larry Sturdivan segment, from about the 34:00 minute through 36:19 minute marks:

Note above, BT Barnum continues to argue with himself about the bullet transit, because that's all the film shows. The "laser" reflects the position on the back where Ford placed the wound, which is not accurate. BUT even that is irrelevant, because even where the laser is pointed, from an inclined trajectory of 60 feet the bullet would not travel UPWARDS into the neck before traveling back down to follow through its downward line of course into Connally.

All this video proves is what I've been espousing is the issue with the MythBusters test: that the bullet will do exactly what it did there, and travel not UP to the neck, but DOWN into the sternum area. That's what happens when a bullet is fired from an INCLINE. It was proved in MythBusters, and now you've been stupid enough to prove it again!

And I can't imagine why you only wanted me to watch up to 36:19. Is it so I would miss this...

https://youtu.be/oyECKcK0uCw?t=2260

I wonder, what do you think he's pointing to on the back of his neck?

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw
>
> Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.

You were so fascinated and thrilled that they could prove a bullet could transit two bodies, that you completely missed the obvious. Any more tests showing the EXACT SAME THING you'd like to show us, buffoon?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.
> >
> > That's not what you said, but I'm not going to waste time nitpicking your lies with you, because if you fire a thousand bullets into a thousand pieces of wood, and 1 of them comes out undamaged, that's the one you're going to cling to for dear life.
>
> And that's the one you're going to avoid.

I'm not going to avoid it. I'm going to point out that it's improbably anomalous. Then I just need to combine that anomaly with five or six other anomalous events and scientific impossibilities which all need to be present at the exact same time to make your stupid theory work.

>
> >
> > BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence.
>
> Why?

Because trace evidence is inevitable when an object comes into contact with anything.

>
>
>
> >That is, evidence left upon contact. Such as the contact that would have been >made between the bullet and Kennedy's body and clothing.
>
> Boris wants to apply CSI Miami standards to 1963. Cute.

We're applying it today, and it makes no difference to your belief structure.

>
> >Also, the obvious problem of that 1 sample having to defy basic geometry as well.
>
>
> How so?

Things traveling at a downward trajectory don't also travel at an upward trajectory.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 4:19:40 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.
> > >
> > > That's not what you said, but I'm not going to waste time nitpicking your lies with you, because if you fire a thousand bullets into a thousand pieces of wood, and 1 of them comes out undamaged, that's the one you're going to cling to for dear life.
> >
> > And that's the one you're going to avoid.
>
> I'm not going to avoid it. I'm going to point out that it's improbably anomalous. Then I just need to combine that anomaly with five or six other anomalous events and scientific impossibilities which all need to be present at the exact same time to make your stupid theory work.

How does something demonstrable become impossible?

>
> >
> > >
> > > BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because trace evidence is inevitable when an object comes into contact with anything.

But it isn`t inevitable that the trace evidence would be greatly lessened by being carried in the pockets of two different people?

> >
> >
> > >That is, evidence left upon contact. Such as the contact that would have been >made between the bullet and Kennedy's body and clothing.
> >
> > Boris wants to apply CSI Miami standards to 1963. Cute.
>
> We're applying it today, and it makes no difference to your belief structure.

You can`t show that it should. You can`t retrofit investigative techniques back 55 years and try to apply them, it is retarded. Which is why you opt for this approach.

> >
> > >Also, the obvious problem of that 1 sample having to defy basic geometry as well.
> >
> >
> > How so?
>
> Things traveling at a downward trajectory don't also travel at an upward trajectory.

Whatever that means to a retard.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > I'm not going to avoid it. I'm going to point out that it's improbably anomalous. Then I just need to combine that anomaly with five or six other anomalous events and scientific impossibilities which all need to be present at the exact same time to make your stupid theory work.
>
> How does something demonstrable become impossible?

I said the condition of the bullet was "improbable," illiterate. And the trajectory and junk science *are* impossible, and have *never* been demonstrable.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because trace evidence is inevitable when an object comes into contact with anything.
>
> But it isn`t inevitable that the trace evidence would be greatly lessened by being carried in the pockets of two different people?

No. In fact, luminol testing can reveal blood trace even after an area has been scrubbed and soaped and rinsed down over and over. Even ten years after the fact. As for fiber trace from clothing, a bullet carried around in the pockets of two different people would contain even MORE trace of fiber. Not less. Wouldn't it, moron?

> >
> > We're applying it today, and it makes no difference to your belief structure.
>
> You can`t show that it should. You can`t retrofit investigative techniques back 55 years and try to apply them, it is retarded.

So forensic anthropology is also retarded?

> >
> > Things traveling at a downward trajectory don't also travel at an upward trajectory.
>
> Whatever that means to a retard.

Eloquent and profound. As always.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 2:35:19 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Lurkers, maybe "Boris" really is this stupid that he cannot grasp what all of you other sentient beings easily understand I am saying. Well you know the old saying, "You can lead an idiot to water, but you cannot prevent him from repeatedly trying to drown himself." :-)
>
> Just as you can lead a liar to the head shot, but you can't keep him from moving the goalposts to the subject of CE399 when THAT subject gets too hot. Since you're now espousing squeaky clean bullets can fire through wood (which is softer than bone, by the way), that must be what you're doing.
>

"Boris"shows his continued inability to follow a conversation, and delusional thinking that there is anything "too hot" to flee from on the head shot. For one, we have *clearly* been discussing the SBT for the past several posts. (Well at least one of the Boris' should know that.) But that "small" fact aside, *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.

"Boris" wants you folks to think he can pronounce "science" still less apply what such evidence tells him correctly. But alas, none of his personalities has shown such an ability.

> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Boris would like to point out the begged questions inherent in BT Barnum's cherry picking, and also point out that not even top experts can fire a bullet from one direction and have it enter from the other.
> > >
> > > Boris would like to point out BT Barnum's ongoing silence here.
>
> The troll continues to feign (?) a lack of understanding of the issue, that bullets fired from behind don't enter from the front. Not with Connally's wrist, not with the head shot as seen via the lead snowstorm particles, and not potentially with the neck wound either.
>

"Boris" continues to contradict what *every* ballistics and forensic/pathology expert given access to the evidence with the intention of pronouncing on it, has concluded about the direction of the bullets and what the available medical and ballistic evidence supports. He also thinks he has evidence that would stand up to *any* meaningful scrutiny about other shots or shooters. But alas, no matter which personality brings it up, or believes his nonsense, it's still nonsense.

> > >
> > > But it *IS* physically impossible for one bullet to pierce through several layers of tissue, bone and clothing without having any tissue, blood or clothing fibers on it. That's Robert Frazier saying so, not me.
> > >
> >
> > Citation please.
>
> No need, you provided it yourself. I wonder if you've ever seen the trace evidence on a fired bullet, one that really did go through two people AND clothing fibers. This is why it was asked of Frazier if he cleaned the bullet first, and when he responded in the negative Eisenberg appears surprised...
>

IOW, "Boris" has states something he cannot cite for about Frazier, and hoped no one will notice Lurkers. :-)

>
> >
> > Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
> > Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
>
>
> It's so non-computable he has to ask again.
>
>
> >
> > Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
>
> If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would likewise resemble as described.
>

But "Boris" fails to follow what Frazier even said. He is only able to cover his portion of the testimony. He never denies that there was any blood or tissue on the bullet at some point, he merely states that it didn't show anything more than *slight* residue of blood or some other material adhering when he first received it.

Note where Eisenberg had only asked him about its condition "when you received it". Thus, Frazier could have no way of knowing for sure what might have been on the bullet when it was first found at Parkland. (In between which it had already gone through the hands of more than one person.) If Eisenberg were as surprised by Frazier's answer as "Boris" is implying, then he probably should have followed up by requested more information about who handled it and where he could find out how it had been handled.

>
> >
> > Not so. Nothing in the demo. did anything to disprove the SBT. It only proved that if you hit close, but a bit off, your trajectory won't be exactly the same, and you might hit two hard bones earlier in flight rather than one. Once that happens, the exit *must* vary from the SBT alignment, both, because of the missed target, and because the added resistance will surely affect the trajectory of exit.
>
> And it will NEVER vary the way Specter described, because it geometrically cannot. It did not vary by an inch or two in the demonstration, it varied by half the length of the torso. Quite an embarrassing demonstration, to anyone capable of experiencing shame.
>
>

I don't know or care what "Boris'" babblings about Specter and alleged geometric impossibilities. *I* do know and care that any *think* person could watch the video I link below and see that the laser light trails just fine from the back of the Kennedy stand in to the back of the Connally stand in. Something "Boris" seemed to be whining wasn't possible for the 6th floor perch Oswald had.

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
> > > >
> > > > Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.
> > >
> > > LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.
>
> BT Barnum again fails to defend his position. The above is a great transaction, because it's reflective of the approach they take to every piece of suspect evidence. He knows this too. That's why his only response is to deflect, and link to a sarcastic comment I made about Oswald firing the head shot, which was so clearly satirical that you would not have to be figuratively retarded to misread it, but *literally*.
>

The position has already been defended in what I have said folks. Just because none of "Boris'" personalities is smart enough to perceive how is not my problem, nor would I bet is it yours.

> And that's why I gifted it to him. :-)
>

"Boris" certainly is a "gift" isn't he Lurkers. :-)

> >
> > > >
> > > > In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
> > > >
> > > > It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.
> > >
> > >
> > > hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.
> > >
> >
> > You see Lurkers how "Boris" just embraced the very criticism of the trajectory, his last babbling suggest I was wrong to be talking about? I rest my case on the MDP I am dealing with.
>
> If the test does not show trajectory correctly, then the test FAILED. That is the whole essence of the firing test! Any master sniper with an adequate and operable weapon can hit a target from 200 feet, and any bullet can transit two aligned bodies.
>

See how "Boris" doubled down on his admission that I was right that he was attempting to criticize the trajectory, even as he disingenuously (or cluelessly) attempted to say I had been barking up the wrong tree to address it. And I am supposed to reason with this lunacy?

> >
> > Don't leave mental problems like schizophrenic identities unaddressed Lurkers. You could end up like "Boris" embracing both ends of each logical contradiction.
>
> Ad hominem fallacy, and an ironic one to call me schizophrenic, since it's clear to anyone you are arguing with yourself i.e., whether or not a bullet can transit two bodies.
>

As "Boris" fails to demonstrate what he asserts about what I have said. Oh well, maybe one of "them" is smart enough to figure it out.

>
> > >
> > > Cute, another "lawyer" word. Unfortunately, the geometry from a height of 60 feet is never going to change. There is no "line" whatsoever a bullet can take whereby it enters at the third thoratic vertebrae (or ANYWHERE on the back) and exits the throat from an incline position of 60 feet. There is none. None. And no test on earth will prove it can be done.
> > >
> >
> > As the "Boris" personality asserts without evidence. Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments. Here is one of the simplest and best from JFK The Lost Bullet. See the Larry Sturdivan segment, from about the 34:00 minute through 36:19 minute marks:
>
> Note above, BT Barnum continues to argue with himself about the bullet transit, because that's all the film shows. The "laser" reflects the position on the back where Ford placed the wound, which is not accurate. BUT even that is irrelevant, because even where the laser is pointed, from an inclined trajectory of 60 feet the bullet would not travel UPWARDS into the neck before traveling back down to follow through its downward line of course into Connally.
>

As "Boris" continues to spout off utter nonsense about the trajectory that *clearly* works. Simply put, "Boris" has no clue what he is talking about with his horse hockey about the bullet needing to travel upwards into the neck. As this shows, any reasonable person can determine that back entrance wound sat above the neck exit wound. Not only were all the pathologists and forensic pathologists *clear* in their description of this reality, here is a simple little exercise that demonstrates the relative physical alignment of the wounds:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=crimp

> All this video proves is what I've been espousing is the issue with the MythBusters test: that the bullet will do exactly what it did there, and travel not UP to the neck, but DOWN into the sternum area. That's what happens when a bullet is fired from an INCLINE. It was proved in MythBusters, and now you've been stupid enough to prove it again!
>

It proves no such thing folks. But I am sure that at least *you* can understand that. :-)

> And I can't imagine why you only wanted me to watch up to 36:19. Is it so I would miss this...
>
> https://youtu.be/oyECKcK0uCw?t=2260
>
> I wonder, what do you think he's pointing to on the back of his neck?
>

I wonder what his isolated non-explained picture has to do with anything meaningful Lurkers? The illustration that the trajectory in fact *was* possible was very clear from the video. Let Boris prove what this out-of-context picture proves about anything. Just more silliness where anything they do not understand the purpose of becomes "proof" that what they *do* ---or at least *should*---understand is meaningless.

Here is a good example of that. The 3rd picture at this link shows something just as unexplained and out-of-context that "Boris" will doubtlessly want to jump onto with beanie blades in full whir, in order to try to prove that CE903 is somehow invalidated by it. Of course, the meaning and intent of this particular picture is unclear, though any thinking individual should easily see that the inclusion of it in the documentary record makes *zero* sense if the WC was trying to cover up for the (visually non-evident) "deception" of CE903:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

>
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw
> >
> > Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.
>
>
> You were so fascinated and thrilled that they could prove a bullet could transit two bodies, that you completely missed the obvious. Any more tests showing the EXACT SAME THING you'd like to show us, buffoon?

I have plenty of tests showing what *I* am asserting. Very few illustrating "Boris'" delusions about what I am asserting, or that support his strained interpretations of things. :-)

Ooops! "Boris snipped one of his more embarrassing moments. (I know that is a very difficult thing top isolate folks.) Here is the part of the prior post he apparently isn't to proud of:

Prior post excerpt on--------------------------------------------------/

> > hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed.
>
> Yes. It was. But...that's MY argument. Not yours. LOL!!!!
>
> Don't be a LNer kids. They get all addled and confused, trying to keep their shit together.


Lurkers, this idiot has apparently intentionally mangled my response, or else his viewer is haywire and he stupidly thought I couldn't tell *my* response from his babblings. Here is the correct statement and my response from my prior post at:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uVR0_OCz0-o/t2HS4MRdCgAJ

"Boris" babbled:

"[T]hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed."

BT (Brock) George responds:

"What they showed---though not their intention---was that even a slight miss of the target, is still enough to be *magnified* along the path of the trajectory. (Just like aiming a half an inch to the right or left, gets magnified much larger if the target it 200 yards away vs. 20 feet away.) Nevertheless, since we are talking only a few feet from JFK neck to Connally's back and chest, the difference really matters less because of the magnification of the error, than because it was just enough to cause it to strike more than one bony structure solidly before it did so in JBC. Not to mention that the strike to JBC was likely a side-swipe vs. nose first, and it is highly unlikely that that occurred with the demo, since the bullet damage to the nose was much greater even though it didn't collide (if memory serves) with the surrogate wrist."

Don't grow up have MPD and cluelessness Lurkers. It's not very pretty. :-)

Prior post excerpt off--------------------------------------------------/

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 3:19:40 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LOL! *Every* time you guys trot out an argument that CE399 after having passed through both men it had to come out looking mangled, you are, in fact, making an argument that comes very close to claiming that it was *physical* impossibility for it to do so without being destroyed. ...Which is *exactly* what I said.
> > >
> > > That's not what you said, but I'm not going to waste time nitpicking your lies with you, because if you fire a thousand bullets into a thousand pieces of wood, and 1 of them comes out undamaged, that's the one you're going to cling to for dear life.
> >
> > And that's the one you're going to avoid.
>
> I'm not going to avoid it. I'm going to point out that it's improbably anomalous.

So are jets hitting skyscrapers.

>Then I just need to combine that anomaly with five or six other anomalous >events and scientific impossibilities which all need to be present at the >exact same time to make your stupid theory work.

What you turds need to do is present your own theory. Stop worrying about the case you disagree with and present the case you agree with.

>
> >
> > >
> > > BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because trace evidence is inevitable when an object comes into contact with anything.

Was it common to perform these tests in this type of situation in late 1963? And didn't Frazier say there were some faint traces of what could be possible human residue?

>
> >
> >
> >
> > >That is, evidence left upon contact. Such as the contact that would have been >made between the bullet and Kennedy's body and clothing.
> >
> > Boris wants to apply CSI Miami standards to 1963. Cute.
>
> We're applying it today, and it makes no difference to your belief structure.

Nor does the absence mean a conspiracy killed JFK.

>
> >
> > >Also, the obvious problem of that 1 sample having to defy basic geometry as well.
> >
> >
> > How so?
>
> Things traveling at a downward trajectory don't also travel at an upward trajectory.

Then explain Connally's wrist wounds. Or run.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 4:46:59 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not going to avoid it. I'm going to point out that it's improbably anomalous. Then I just need to combine that anomaly with five or six other anomalous events and scientific impossibilities which all need to be present at the exact same time to make your stupid theory work.
> >
> > How does something demonstrable become impossible?
>
> I said the condition of the bullet was "improbable," illiterate. And the trajectory and junk science *are* impossible, and have *never* been demonstrable.

But the discussion was about a bullet being fired into wood and remaining pristine. And that was demonstrated. Your mind drifts. And making a pile of empty claims doesn`t constitute an argument.

> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT...in addition to that 1 sample being undamaged, it would also have to be free of trace evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because trace evidence is inevitable when an object comes into contact with anything.
> >
> > But it isn`t inevitable that the trace evidence would be greatly lessened by being carried in the pockets of two different people?
>
> No.

No? Not lessened? Explain how removal of trace evidence doesn`t lessen the ability to detect it.

> In fact, luminol testing can reveal blood trace even after an area has been scrubbed and soaped and rinsed down over and over.

Apply the forensic techniques available in 1963. It did not stay the same from 1928 when it was discovered to today.

> Even ten years after the fact. As for fiber trace from clothing, a bullet carried around in the pockets of two different people would contain even MORE trace of fiber. Not less. Wouldn't it, moron?

What would the fibers from the pockets of the two people who had the bullet in their pockets add to the understanding of this event?

And I have coins in my pocket, are they covered in fiber?

> > >
> > > We're applying it today, and it makes no difference to your belief structure.
> >
> > You can`t show that it should. You can`t retrofit investigative techniques back 55 years and try to apply them, it is retarded.
>
> So forensic anthropology is also retarded?

Your understanding of any science is. And I wouldn`t mind seeing modern forensic techniques be applied to the evidence in this case. It can only lead to you desperately trying to explain more things that don`t fit your ideas. But it isn`t the lack of information in this case that is the problem, it is your inability to correctly process what is available.

> > >
> > > Things traveling at a downward trajectory don't also travel at an upward trajectory.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a retard.
>
> Eloquent and profound. As always.

And accurate.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.

You're an absolute liar. And since you bring up Wecht specifically...

Dr. WECHT. The physical relationship of the two men clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of the trajectory attributed to Commission exhibit 399, specifically the horizontal and vertical angles with which it would have had to have struck the President and Governor Connally. Absolutely impossible.
[....]
Dr. WECHT. That is very easy, sir, in this case. The fact, the pattern that you set forth, would indeed be extremely applicable, for instance, to the head wound. What about the President, did he move backward, how could he have moved backward, should he have moved forward, and so on? That is indeed something that I have always said I can't be sure of, whether it is opisthotonos, a neuromuscular reaction or whatever. But given the wound, Mr. Dodd, in the President's back, and knowing its trajectory, and knowing that it did not strike bone, and knowing it was moving slightly upward, then it doesn't make any difference, sir, what we may postulate about Mr. Kennedy's or Mr. Connally's movements. We know in looking at the pictures and from their eye witness testimony, and from all of the bystanders and everybody, we know that there is just no way in the world that----
Mr. DODD. Did I understand your statement, it doesn't 'make any difference?
Dr. WECHT. No sir, not in this case. Not in this case because we have the bullet moving upward through President Kennedy and then moving downward at a 25 degree angle of declination. There is just no way in the world that the bullet could have done that. I have never heard of an explanation from my colleagues, they just come back to the plausibility and argument---
Mr. DODD. You misunderstood me. I was using your testimony that those various frames and body movements were part of the evidence to indicate that it would be impossible for a single bullet to pass through both individuals.
Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired but the witness can finish his answer.
Dr. WECHT. Thank you, Mr. Dodd. I apologize for not understanding your question. I agree with what you just said, and that is evidence that clearly demonstrates to me that it was impossible for 399 to have done what is attributed to it under the single bullet theory.


I have to believe you knew about this testimony going in, because you can't explicitly say the trajectory is provable, which is why you keep repeating over and over that strawman about transit (note the 25 degree angle of declination comment).

Anyone else you'd care to lie about?

> >
>
> IOW, "Boris" has states something he cannot cite for about Frazier, and hoped no one will notice Lurkers. :-)

Maybe you can't read? The testimony is right there.

> >
> > >
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
> >
> >
> > It's so non-computable he has to ask again.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
> >
> > If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would likewise resemble as described.
> >
>
> But "Boris" fails to follow what Frazier even said. He is only able to cover his portion of the testimony. He never denies that there was any blood or tissue on the bullet at some point, he merely states that it didn't show anything more than *slight* residue of blood or some other material adhering when he first received it.

Apparently I have to say it again? If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would not be unthinkable to have "slight residue" on it from that. It is not reflective of the condition of a bullet fired through two people. Why do you think Eisenberg had to ask twice? He liked the sound of his voice?

And out of curiosity, why do you hold the ballistic test into that piece of wood so much more dear than the ballistic tests run by the Warren Commission via Edgewood, ALL OF WHICH failed to produce a healthy-looking bullet? Ten human cadaver wrists and a goat rib. And for those efforts, Dolce doesn't get called to testify, and the Edgewood arsenal report buried barring threat of lawsuit? And you are forced to whine about a block of wood.

> > >
> > > Not so. Nothing in the demo. did anything to disprove the SBT. It only proved that if you hit close, but a bit off, your trajectory won't be exactly the same, and you might hit two hard bones earlier in flight rather than one. Once that happens, the exit *must* vary from the SBT alignment, both, because of the missed target, and because the added resistance will surely affect the trajectory of exit.
> >
> > And it will NEVER vary the way Specter described, because it geometrically cannot. It did not vary by an inch or two in the demonstration, it varied by half the length of the torso. Quite an embarrassing demonstration, to anyone capable of experiencing shame.
> >
> >
> I don't know or care what "Boris'" babblings about Specter and alleged geometric impossibilities. *I* do know and care that any *think* person could watch the video I link below and see that the laser light trails just fine from the back of the Kennedy stand in to the back of the Connally stand in.

You can call it "babbling," "alleging," and use whatever strawman you like. No amount of whining and repeating the lie is going to show that laser, or MythBusters red line, or any other laser or line, transiting from the third thoratic vertebrae INTO his neck. That tra-jec-tor-y is not possible. Wecht echoed this, and I quoted him here. And I certainly trust those to-scale tests over Specter holding his baton.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.

I still love this transaction. Moving the Goalposts 101. Pure desperation, borne of dishonesty right from the beginning.

>
> The position has already been defended in what I have said folks. Just because none of "Boris'" personalities is smart enough to perceive how is not my problem, nor would I bet is it yours.

Repeating the lie over and over won't convince anyone, Herr Goebbels.

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You see Lurkers how "Boris" just embraced the very criticism of the trajectory, his last babbling suggest I was wrong to be talking about?

While it's true, I fully embrace when you're stupid enough to **admit you're completely wrong** without realizing it...the fact is...you need to REALIZE you're doing it, or else it doesn't count as honesty.

> >
> > If the test does not show trajectory correctly, then the test FAILED. That is the whole essence of the firing test! Any master sniper with an adequate and operable weapon can hit a target from 200 feet, and any bullet can transit two aligned bodies.
> >
>
> See how "Boris" doubled down on his admission that I was right that he was attempting to criticize the trajectory, even as he disingenuously (or cluelessly) attempted to say I had been barking up the wrong tree to address it. And I am supposed to reason with this lunacy?

What is it you're criticizing specifically, versus what you're defending? Because here, you're saying the trajectory works....

> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments.
> >
>

> As "Boris" continues to spout off utter nonsense about the trajectory that *clearly* works.

You don't even know your own position.

>
>
>
> > All this video proves is what I've been espousing is the issue with the MythBusters test: that the bullet will do exactly what it did there, and travel not UP to the neck, but DOWN into the sternum area. That's what happens when a bullet is fired from an INCLINE. It was proved in MythBusters, and now you've been stupid enough to prove it again!
> >
>
> It proves no such thing folks. But I am sure that at least *you* can understand that. :-)

MythBusters was even foolish enough to draw a line. Here's the line...

https://youtu.be/PZRUNYZY71g?t=156

Feel free to use that to "prove" the bullet exited JFK's neck.

>
> > And I can't imagine why you only wanted me to watch up to 36:19. Is it so I would miss this...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/oyECKcK0uCw?t=2260
> >
> > I wonder, what do you think he's pointing to on the back of his neck?
> >
>
> I wonder what his isolated non-explained picture has to do with anything meaningful Lurkers?

Not my fault if your OWN CITATION fails to explain what it's showing in its production. I think it's more likely he was pointing to the spot where the bullet would ACTUALLY had to have entered from 60 feet up, to come out the front of the neck. Or he was pointing to a pimple, right?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
>
>You're an absolute liar.

All believers are.

Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
name anyone they believe is honest.

This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.

Liars and cowards... every one.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:05:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
> >
> >You're an absolute liar.
>
>
> All believers are.
>
> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
> name anyone they believe is honest.

I know someone who isn`t honest, lurkers. Mark Lane. The guys lied so much bebby can`t even support the things he said.

> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.
>
> Liars and cowards... every one.

Or... beb is just retarded, lurkers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
> >
> >You're an absolute liar.
>
>
> All believers are.

You're a believer. Conspiracism is your religion, the 'Magic Bullet' one of your religious artifacts, the Grassy Knoll your Calvary, JFK your martyred saint.

>
> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
> name anyone they believe is honest.

Can you? Mark Lane, maybe?

>
> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.

They stated Oswald shot and killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT. No conspiracy could be found.

>
> Liars and cowards... every one.

Liars and cowards and beb, OH MY! Liars and cowards and beb, OH MY!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
>> >
>> >You're an absolute liar.
>>
>>
>> All believers are.
>
> You're a believer. Conspiracism is your religion, the 'Magic Bullet'
> one of your religious artifacts, the Grassy Knoll your Calvary, JFK
> your martyred saint.

You're lying.

The difference is quite clear. Critics go where the evidence leads
them, believers **ONLY** go where the Warren Commission led. The
*ONLY* time you'll ever hear a believer talking about the Clark Panel
or the HSCA is when they're in agreement with the Warren Commission.

You'll be totally unable and unwilling to cite any examples that show
otherwise.

Believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge any evidence that
contradicts the Warren Commission's theory, even if only in the
slightest.

Believers refuse to castigate the Warren Commission for **ANY**
wrongdoing...

You have faith - you aren't interested in evidence.

Critics are only interested in the evidence, not what someone else has
put together... we're perfectly capable of adding the evidence
together ourselves.

If you *WEREN'T* a believer, then you'd be able to judge the evidence
apart from the Warren Comission.

But you can't.

>> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
>> name anyone they believe is honest.
>
>Can you? Mark Lane, maybe?

I stand prepared to point out actual lies for anyone you dare to name
as honest.

You can't do the same.

Why not?


WHY CAN'T YOU NAME AN "HONEST" BELIEVER?

They do exist... but only in the ignorant form. People who learned by
rote in school, and never got interested enough to actually read the
WCR & evidence.

But it's not possible to be both honest *AND* knowledgeable on the
case evidence.

You, and every other believer reading these words who refuses to name
anyone they consider "honest" proves the point.

>> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
>> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.
>
> They stated Oswald shot and killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT.
> No conspiracy could be found.

What did they state about Oswald's use of the iron sights or scope?


Run coward... RUN!!!

>> Liars and cowards... every one.
>

>Liars and cowards and I, OH MY! Liars and cowards and I, OH MY!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
> >> >
> >> >You're an absolute liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> All believers are.
> >
> > You're a believer. Conspiracism is your religion, the 'Magic Bullet'
> > one of your religious artifacts, the Grassy Knoll your Calvary, JFK
> > your martyred saint.
>
> You're lying.
>
> The difference is quite clear. Critics go where the evidence leads
> them,

Which seems to be everywhere, which proves this is a game, not a quest for a better understanding of 11-22-63.

believers **ONLY** go where the Warren Commission led. The
> *ONLY* time you'll ever hear a believer talking about the Clark Panel
> or the HSCA is when they're in agreement with the Warren Commission.

Really? How does the Clark Panel or HSCA harm the case that Oswald Alone fired the shots that wounded and killed that day?

>
> You'll be totally unable and unwilling to cite any examples that show
> otherwise.
>
> Believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge any evidence that
> contradicts the Warren Commission's theory, even if only in the
> slightest.
>
> Believers refuse to castigate the Warren Commission for **ANY**
> wrongdoing...
>
> You have faith - you aren't interested in evidence.
>
> Critics are only interested in the evidence, not what someone else has
> put together... we're perfectly capable of adding the evidence
> together ourselves.
>
> If you *WEREN'T* a believer, then you'd be able to judge the evidence
> apart from the Warren Comission.
>
> But you can't.
>
>
>
> >> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
> >> name anyone they believe is honest.
> >
> >Can you? Mark Lane, maybe?
>
>
> I stand prepared to point out actual lies for anyone you dare to name
> as honest.

What weird, retarded games you play.

>
> You can't do the same.
>
> Why not?
>
>
> WHY CAN'T YOU NAME AN "HONEST" BELIEVER?
>
> They do exist... but only in the ignorant form. People who learned by
> rote in school, and never got interested enough to actually read the
> WCR & evidence.

Yet the WC concluded Oswald Alone.

>
> But it's not possible to be both honest *AND* knowledgeable on the
> case evidence.

Sometimes you really hit the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally.

>
> You, and every other believer reading these words who refuses to name
> anyone they consider "honest" proves the point.

Okay, I'll play. How about Robert Frazier?

>
>
> >> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
> >> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.
> >
> > They stated Oswald shot and killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT.
> > No conspiracy could be found.
>
>
> What did they state about Oswald's use of the iron sights or scope?

That he did nice work with them? Still waiting for you to go somewhere with this. You keep brining it up; there must be some sort of reason.
>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:30:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
>> >> >
>> >> >You're an absolute liar.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All believers are.
>> >
>> > You're a believer. Conspiracism is your religion, the 'Magic Bullet'
>> > one of your religious artifacts, the Grassy Knoll your Calvary, JFK
>> > your martyred saint.
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>> The difference is quite clear. Critics go where the evidence leads
>> them,
>
> Which seems to be everywhere, which proves this is a game, not a
> quest for a better understanding of 11-22-63.

Word salad.

>> believers **ONLY** go where the Warren Commission led. The
>> *ONLY* time you'll ever hear a believer talking about the Clark Panel
>> or the HSCA is when they're in agreement with the Warren Commission.
>
> Really? How does the Clark Panel or HSCA harm the case that Oswald
> Alone fired the shots that wounded and killed that day?

You prove my point. (What a moron!)

>> You'll be totally unable and unwilling to cite any examples that show
>> otherwise.

And you were. (Such cowardice!)

>> Believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge any evidence that
>> contradicts the Warren Commission's theory, even if only in the
>> slightest.

And so did Chuckles.

>> Believers refuse to castigate the Warren Commission for **ANY**
>> wrongdoing...

And so did Chuckles.

>> You have faith - you aren't interested in evidence.
>>
>> Critics are only interested in the evidence, not what someone else has
>> put together... we're perfectly capable of adding the evidence
>> together ourselves.
>>
>> If you *WEREN'T* a believer, then you'd be able to judge the evidence
>> apart from the Warren Comission.
>>
>> But you can't.

And didn't.

>> >> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
>> >> name anyone they believe is honest.
>> >
>> >Can you? Mark Lane, maybe?
>>
>> I stand prepared to point out actual lies for anyone you dare to name
>> as honest.
>

> I'm a retard playing games.


Yet you still refuse to name any "honest" believer.

>> You can't do the same.
>>
>> Why not?

Dead silence.

>> WHY CAN'T YOU NAME AN "HONEST" BELIEVER?
>>
>> They do exist... but only in the ignorant form. People who learned by
>> rote in school, and never got interested enough to actually read the
>> WCR & evidence.
>
>Yet the WC concluded Oswald Alone.

The WC refused to accept much of the evidence, twisted much of it, and
intentionally came to the "conclusion" of a lone assassin.

As do you.

>> But it's not possible to be both honest *AND* knowledgeable on the
>> case evidence.
>
>Sometimes you really hit the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally.

Sometimes you're too stupid to understand that I'm speaking of
believers... that was, of course, the topic.

>> You, and every other believer reading these words who refuses to name
>> anyone they consider "honest" proves the point.
>
>Okay, I'll play. How about Robert Frazier?

Okay... cite that he accepted the Warren Commission's conclusions, and
I'll take a look.

**YOU** don't believe him, however...

Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
"Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.

>> >> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
>> >> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.
>> >
>> > They stated Oswald shot and killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT.
>> > No conspiracy could be found.
>>
>> What did they state about Oswald's use of the iron sights or scope?
>
> That he did nice work with them? Still waiting for you to go
> somewhere with this. You keep brining it up; there must be some sort
> of reason.

Yep... complete and total COWARDICE!

I'm surprised that such yellow cowardice doesn't make you sick. I
would think that you'd want to commit suicide rather than be such a
blatant coward in a public forum. Does your district know what a
coward you are?

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:03:50 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:30:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
>
> **YOU** don't believe him, however...
>
> Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
> "Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
> liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.
>

19e is apparently NOT a believer--thinks that the DPD picked up Oswald & held him so he couldn't get an alibi for Tippit. Also thinks that some shots came from the 5th floor (as do I)....

dcw

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Word salad.

How about putting a case up for consideration?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:09:01 -0800 (PST), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:03:50 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:30:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> **YOU** don't believe him, however...
>>
>> Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
>> "Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
>> liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.
>>
>19e is apparently NOT a believer--thinks that the DPD picked up
> Oswald & held him so he couldn't get an alibi for Tippit. Also thinks
> that some shots came from the 5th floor (as do I)....
>
>dcw

One of the surest ways to label someone is to watch who's attacking
their posts.

I quite quickly killfiled him as a troll, and noted that he's never
criticized by other believers... That's why I put him in that
category.

I daresay that this troll would disagree with 75% or more of the
things I post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:14:21 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

This shut Chuckles up!

>> >> You'll be totally unable and unwilling to cite any examples that show
>> >> otherwise.
>>
>> And you were. (Such cowardice!)

Chuckles couldn't deny it.

>> >> Believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge any evidence that
>> >> contradicts the Warren Commission's theory, even if only in the
>> >> slightest.
>>
>> And so did Chuckles.

Chuckles tacitly admits that he can't offer any criticism of the WCR,
no matter how minor.

>> >> Believers refuse to castigate the Warren Commission for **ANY**
>> >> wrongdoing...
>>
>> And so did Chuckles.

Ditto.

>> >> You have faith - you aren't interested in evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Critics are only interested in the evidence, not what someone else has
>> >> put together... we're perfectly capable of adding the evidence
>> >> together ourselves.
>> >>
>> >> If you *WEREN'T* a believer, then you'd be able to judge the evidence
>> >> apart from the Warren Comission.
>> >>
>> >> But you can't.
>>
>> And didn't.

And can't defend that cowardice.

>> >> >> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
>> >> >> name anyone they believe is honest.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you? Mark Lane, maybe?
>> >>
>> >> I stand prepared to point out actual lies for anyone you dare to name
>> >> as honest.
>> >
>> > I'm a retard playing games.
>>
>> Yet you still refuse to name any "honest" believer.

The cowardice 'round here is quite smelly.

>> >> You can't do the same.
>> >>
>> >> Why not?
>>
>> Dead silence.

Once again, my words stop Chuckles dead in his tracks, with no
response to make...

>> >> WHY CAN'T YOU NAME AN "HONEST" BELIEVER?
>> >>
>> >> They do exist... but only in the ignorant form. People who learned by
>> >> rote in school, and never got interested enough to actually read the
>> >> WCR & evidence.
>> >
>> >Yet the WC concluded Oswald Alone.
>>
>> The WC refused to accept much of the evidence, twisted much of it, and
>> intentionally came to the "conclusion" of a lone assassin.
>>
>> As do you.

Chuckles couldn't even deny it.

>> >> But it's not possible to be both honest *AND* knowledgeable on the
>> >> case evidence.
>> >
>> >Sometimes you really hit the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally.
>>
>> Sometimes you're too stupid to understand that I'm speaking of
>> believers... that was, of course, the topic.

Don't cry, Chuckles... just pay more attention.

>> >> You, and every other believer reading these words who refuses to name
>> >> anyone they consider "honest" proves the point.
>> >
>> >Okay, I'll play. How about Robert Frazier?
>>
>> Okay... cite that he accepted the Warren Commission's conclusions, and
>> I'll take a look.

Once again, a believer who, when challenged, runs off and sulks...

>> **YOU** don't believe him, however...

Clearly a true statement that Chuckles couldn't deny.

>> Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
>> "Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
>> liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.

Of course, none of them are mad at you, because *THEY* wouldn't name
any of the others either.

>> >> >> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
>> >> >> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.
>> >> >
>> >> > They stated Oswald shot and killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT.
>> >> > No conspiracy could be found.
>> >>
>> >> What did they state about Oswald's use of the iron sights or scope?
>> >
>> > That he did nice work with them? Still waiting for you to go
>> > somewhere with this. You keep brining it up; there must be some sort
>> > of reason.
>>
>> Yep... complete and total COWARDICE!
>>
>> I'm surprised that such yellow cowardice doesn't make you sick. I
>> would think that you'd want to commit suicide rather than be such a
>> blatant coward in a public forum. Does your district know what a
>> coward you are?
>
>Word salad.
>
>How about putting a case up for consideration?

In just as much detail, with just as many citations... as **YOU** are
willing to post.

But you don't *have* a case, do you coward?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More word salad.

Put a case up. How many shots? From where? Cobble something together.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:31:58 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

It would take only *one* believer posting his scenario to get mine.

It's been done three times in the past.

Judging from your cowardice, it may never happen again.

Run coward, RUN!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's all games. beb is like the little girls at the teen sleepover party: "Show me yours and I'll show you mine!"

How about you just post your scenario? I'm not even asking for your "research."

beb: "Multiple assassins."

[BT George]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:16:48 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:09:01 -0800 (PST), donald willis
> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:03:50 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:30:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> **YOU** don't believe him, however...
> >>
> >> Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
> >> "Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
> >> liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.
> >>
> >19e is apparently NOT a believer--thinks that the DPD picked up
> > Oswald & held him so he couldn't get an alibi for Tippit. Also thinks
> > that some shots came from the 5th floor (as do I)....
> >
> >dcw
>
>
> One of the surest ways to label someone is to watch who's attacking
> their posts.
>
> I quite quickly killfiled him as a troll, and noted that he's never
> criticized by other believers... That's why I put him in that
> category.
>

If the idiot hadn't killfiled me he would know the idiot know as 19e... said this to me:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9Bkn3i1efrs/WOGkb31gBgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9Bkn3i1efrs/VkyS2X5WCwAJ


...So much for this loon's love of "fellow" LN's. Also, somebody at AAJFK called him "Saintly Oswald" the other day. If true, the idiot is certainly no believer in Oswald's guilt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:22:30 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

Chuckles took my advice and ran again! :)

> It's all games. beb is like the little girls at the teen sleepover
> party: "Show me yours and I'll show you mine!"

Ad hominem simply shows that *YOU* know you can't provide the scenario
you keep begging me for.

Of course, I've already provided one three times now... and stand
ready to do so again for any believer brave enough to post his.

> How about you just post your scenario? I'm not even asking for your
> "research."

How many times do I have to explain it to you? It doesn't matter
*WHAT* I post, you'll complain about it.

So I simply demand that believers post first.

You can't complain if I'm duplicating (in length, detail, and number
of citations) *YOUR* scenario. You can't complain that I didn't cite
if I cite just as many times as you.

You can't complain that it's not in detail if I've provided just as
much detail as you.

You can't complain that the length of my explanation was too short.

You can't complain - period.

Which is why you're still whining and refusing to provide your
scenario... You **KNOW** that I have a point here... you KNOW what a
coward you are.


>beb: "Multiple assassins."


There were indeed. That's what the evidence shows.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 6:49:12 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
>
> You're an absolute liar. And since you bring up Wecht specifically...
>

Oh really folks? Let's see about the claims from my lad "Boris" that I lied! Here is what the Rockefeller Commission stated he told them. All emphasis mine:

Dr. Wecht testified that the *available* evidence *all* points to the President being struck only by *two bullets* coming from his *rear*, and that **no support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car**.

In a 1974 article written by Dr. Wecht and an associate, an article which was made an exhibit in his testimony, Dr. Wecht stated that “if any other bullet struck the President’s head, whether before, after, or simultaneously with the known shot, there is *no evidence for it* in the *available* autopsy materials.”

And what did I say Wecht agreed to that made "Boris" accuse me of being a liar like him and beb?:

"All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion."

Moreover, Lurkers, since Wecht tried to weasel his way out of the weight of his own words, here is an essay that is quite fair, and indicates there is no reason to believe the Rockefeller Commission misrepresented him, especially since they included his observations and question that went contrary to the accepted autopsy findings:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.htm

And just as an added bonus, Bugliosi confronted him with these very words in the 1986 Mock Trail, where, under oath, Wecht had to agree he said it, but point out that he placed emphasis (just as I did above) on the word "available".

Now if you were "Boris" were an honorable person, he would apologize for calling me a liar. But since he trucks with the likes of beb and Lane, I think we can count on him ignoring his gross error.

> Dr. WECHT. The physical relationship of the two men clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of the trajectory attributed to Commission exhibit 399, specifically the horizontal and vertical angles with which it would have had to have struck the President and Governor Connally. Absolutely impossible.
> [....]
> Dr. WECHT. That is very easy, sir, in this case. The fact, the pattern that you set forth, would indeed be extremely applicable, for instance, to the head wound. What about the President, did he move backward, how could he have moved backward, should he have moved forward, and so on? That is indeed something that I have always said I can't be sure of, whether it is opisthotonos, a neuromuscular reaction or whatever. But given the wound, Mr. Dodd, in the President's back, and knowing its trajectory, and knowing that it did not strike bone, and knowing it was moving slightly upward, then it doesn't make any difference, sir, what we may postulate about Mr. Kennedy's or Mr. Connally's movements. We know in looking at the pictures and from their eye witness testimony, and from all of the bystanders and everybody, we know that there is just no way in the world that----
> Mr. DODD. Did I understand your statement, it doesn't 'make any difference?
> Dr. WECHT. No sir, not in this case. Not in this case because we have the bullet moving upward through President Kennedy and then moving downward at a 25 degree angle of declination. There is just no way in the world that the bullet could have done that. I have never heard of an explanation from my colleagues, they just come back to the plausibility and argument---
> Mr. DODD. You misunderstood me. I was using your testimony that those various frames and body movements were part of the evidence to indicate that it would be impossible for a single bullet to pass through both individuals.
> Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired but the witness can finish his answer.
> Dr. WECHT. Thank you, Mr. Dodd. I apologize for not understanding your question. I agree with what you just said, and that is evidence that clearly demonstrates to me that it was impossible for 399 to have done what is attributed to it under the single bullet theory.
>
>
> I have to believe you knew about this testimony going in, because you can't explicitly say the trajectory is provable, which is why you keep repeating over and over that strawman about transit (note the 25 degree angle of declination comment).
>
> Anyone else you'd care to lie about?
>

A question better fielded by "Boris", as I have just shown.

>
> > >
> >
> > IOW, "Boris" has states something he cannot cite for about Frazier, and hoped no one will notice Lurkers. :-)
>
> Maybe you can't read? The testimony is right there.
>

And I have never seen where it says what "Boris" claims it said. But I might have missed something. If so my lad "Boris" needs to cite where or shut up.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's so non-computable he has to ask again.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
> > >
> > > If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would likewise resemble as described.
> > >
> >
> > But "Boris" fails to follow what Frazier even said. He is only able to cover his portion of the testimony. He never denies that there was any blood or tissue on the bullet at some point, he merely states that it didn't show anything more than *slight* residue of blood or some other material adhering when he first received it.
>
> Apparently I have to say it again? If a bullet was found on Connally's bloodied stretcher, amid bloodied clothing, it would not be unthinkable to have "slight residue" on it from that. It is not reflective of the condition of a bullet fired through two people. Why do you think Eisenberg had to ask twice? He liked the sound of his voice?
>

Then why did he not follow up folks, as I said above. Clearly he didn't think it as inevitable or significant as "Boris" wants it to be and for him to think.

> And out of curiosity, why do you hold the ballistic test into that piece of wood so much more dear than the ballistic tests run by the Warren Commission via Edgewood, ALL OF WHICH failed to produce a healthy-looking bullet? Ten human cadaver wrists and a goat rib. And for those efforts, Dolce doesn't get called to testify, and the Edgewood arsenal report buried barring threat of lawsuit? And you are forced to whine about a block of wood.
>

Because the tests by the WC---which Commission I supposedly never criticize---were ill designed to prove the point. Firing directly into a cadaver bone nose first and not tumbling is going to produce far more damage to the bullet than what would have been expected based on the path proposed for CE399.

That bullet per the SBT would have first passed through several layers of tissue, side swiped a rib and shattered it (thus flattening as CE399 clearly is) and since it was tumbling when it left Connally's chest (as experimentation shows it almost surely had been since it left Kennedy's neck) appears to have struck his wrist rear first (thus extruding some lead) and at a significantly *reduced* rate of speed. Clearly quite different vs. going in nose first straight into a solid bone as done in the Edgewood experiments.

But there is an even greater mystery for "Boris" and others who believe in the WC was a sham to consider. Why in the world, would a group just playing around and determined to deviously frame a Patsy at any cost *ever* document and photograph for the evidence record the "proof" that their thesis was hogwash? In fact, CT's have spent the last 55 years mostly slobbering over errors real and perceived that they wouldn't even *know* about if the WC had simply documented only what appeared to support their cause!

>
> > > >
> > > > Not so. Nothing in the demo. did anything to disprove the SBT. It only proved that if you hit close, but a bit off, your trajectory won't be exactly the same, and you might hit two hard bones earlier in flight rather than one. Once that happens, the exit *must* vary from the SBT alignment, both, because of the missed target, and because the added resistance will surely affect the trajectory of exit.
> > >
> > > And it will NEVER vary the way Specter described, because it geometrically cannot. It did not vary by an inch or two in the demonstration, it varied by half the length of the torso. Quite an embarrassing demonstration, to anyone capable of experiencing shame.
> > >
> > >
> > I don't know or care what "Boris'" babblings about Specter and alleged geometric impossibilities. *I* do know and care that any *think* person could watch the video I link below and see that the laser light trails just fine from the back of the Kennedy stand in to the back of the Connally stand in.
>
> You can call it "babbling," "alleging," and use whatever strawman you like. No amount of whining and repeating the lie is going to show that laser, or MythBusters red line, or any other laser or line, transiting from the third thoratic vertebrae INTO his neck. That tra-jec-tor-y is not possible. Wecht echoed this, and I quoted him here. And I certainly trust those to-scale tests over Specter holding his baton.
>

"Boris" will never demonstrate this supposed impossibility Lurkers. Nor will he ever convince you to ignore your eyes vs. the video demonstration I linked to that demonstrated it is a simple question of distance, alignment, and the body posture of the men in the limo. The autopsy evidence is clear that the path of injury tracks from the back to the neck, bruising, but not puncturing the right lung. (An impossibility if the entry were as low as many CT's are constantly trying to convince themselves it was.) And since the only contact with a bone was---at most---a glancing contact with the outside of on of JFK's neck vertebrae, as a WCC FMJ bullet, it *had* to come out of his neck and continue on to hit the limo seat, the floorboard, or Connally. (And just "guess" where the only bullet or bullet hole was found folks?)

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He would also like to pretend that simply because the shot missed the back target by a small margin (thus not quite taking the exact SBT route) and received more damage (for the same reason) because it struck *TWO* ribs instead of one, that the whole test was valueless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, the test was quite valuable...for CTers. Doesn't matter than the bullet missed the red mark....that's nitpicking suitable for a LNer desperate to point out anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure folks, missing the target *never* causes a different trajectory.
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! Lurkers will note what just happened. Besides moving the goalposts here, BT Barnum also prematurely predicted I would nitpick the fact that MythBusters missed the back target by a small margin. Not only did I not do that, my exact words were that such measures were done by "LNers desperate to point out anything." Then, once he was counterpointed with something more severe...he goes and does EXACTLY that.
>
> I still love this transaction. Moving the Goalposts 101. Pure desperation, borne of dishonesty right from the beginning.
>

Assessments from dishonest persons like "Boris" who partner with beb and admire the work of Mark Lane mean little Lurkers. I have already demonstrated *my* honesty in this very response. You can be the character judges.

>
> >
> > The position has already been defended in what I have said folks. Just because none of "Boris'" personalities is smart enough to perceive how is not my problem, nor would I bet is it yours.
>
> Repeating the lie over and over won't convince anyone, Herr Goebbels.
>

Heil Idiot! The 911 Troofer has spoken?

>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In their test, the exit of the bullet occurs halfway down the sternum. Not the neck. Now you can pretend that's a little thing, but of course we both know it's not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not little if I were claiming the test showed the SBT trajectory correctly. But I certainly did not make such a claim, as I have clearly acknowledged the trajectory was not the same.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hahahahaha!! Look how FAST the LN troll throws the MythBusters test under the bus. He makes a claim that the bullet doesn't show trajectory, yet points to the very same test to "prove" the SBT.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You see Lurkers how "Boris" just embraced the very criticism of the trajectory, his last babbling suggest I was wrong to be talking about?
>
> While it's true, I fully embrace when you're stupid enough to **admit you're completely wrong** without realizing it...the fact is...you need to REALIZE you're doing it, or else it doesn't count as honesty.
>

But repeating and doubling down on your nonsense as "Boris" continues to do *does* count as *stupidity* folks. :-)

>
> > >
> > > If the test does not show trajectory correctly, then the test FAILED. That is the whole essence of the firing test! Any master sniper with an adequate and operable weapon can hit a target from 200 feet, and any bullet can transit two aligned bodies.
> > >
> >
> > See how "Boris" doubled down on his admission that I was right that he was attempting to criticize the trajectory, even as he disingenuously (or cluelessly) attempted to say I had been barking up the wrong tree to address it. And I am supposed to reason with this lunacy?
>
> What is it you're criticizing specifically, versus what you're defending? Because here, you're saying the trajectory works....
>
> > > > >

As "Boris" demonstrates that he doesn't grasp the difference between an *on target* shot and one that clearly missed it's mark. I am sure your brain cells are still functioning and can easily grasp that I am saying the *actual* trajectory of a FMJ bullet from the 6th floor window, fired when it was, and with the men in the position they were in, works.

But an attempt to duplicate it, that missed the target which represented Oswald's strike, can only validate the missiles ability to perform the penetrations proposed for Oswald's shot and to follow a *similar* track up to the point it encountered a different anatomical structure. (I.e. 2 ribs vs. 1.) That much the experiment showed, but it did not, and could not, show the *true* trajectory which (ignoring some other variables like the differences in atmospheric conditions and the models vs. the real human beings involved) could only have been achieved by an *on target* strike.

> > > >
> > > > Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments.
> > >
> >
> > As "Boris" continues to spout off utter nonsense about the trajectory that *clearly* works.
>
> You don't even know your own position.
>

Need I link back to the clear evidence of "Boris'" MPD disorder folks? :-)

> >
> >
> >
> > > All this video proves is what I've been espousing is the issue with the MythBusters test: that the bullet will do exactly what it did there, and travel not UP to the neck, but DOWN into the sternum area. That's what happens when a bullet is fired from an INCLINE. It was proved in MythBusters, and now you've been stupid enough to prove it again!
> > >
> >
> > It proves no such thing folks. But I am sure that at least *you* can understand that. :-)
>
> MythBusters was even foolish enough to draw a line. Here's the line...
>
> https://youtu.be/PZRUNYZY71g?t=156
>
> Feel free to use that to "prove" the bullet exited JFK's neck.
>

Lurker I don't give a *rip* what they did or didn't claim. Pure and simple, they missed the target narrowly, but just enough that the trajectory simply was not quite the same. The only way for the test to have properly validated that, was what I stated above.

> >
> > > And I can't imagine why you only wanted me to watch up to 36:19. Is it so I would miss this...
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/oyECKcK0uCw?t=2260
> > >
> > > I wonder, what do you think he's pointing to on the back of his neck?
> > >
> >
> > I wonder what his isolated non-explained picture has to do with anything meaningful Lurkers?
>
> Not my fault if your OWN CITATION fails to explain what it's showing in its production. I think it's more likely he was pointing to the spot where the bullet would ACTUALLY had to have entered from 60 feet up, to come out the front of the neck. Or he was pointing to a pimple, right?

LOL! "Boris" will never carry his burden of proof about this 60 feet up nonsense he continues to spout. But of course he did snip the rest of my post, just to "prove" he didn't have to latch on to the unexplained photo in the CE903 documentation like he would have otherwise been *dying* to do had I not said this:

"The 3rd picture at this link shows something just as unexplained and out-of-context that "Boris" will doubtlessly want to jump onto with beanie blades in full whir, in order to try to prove that CE903 is somehow invalidated by it."

And of course he snipped where I restored the earlier post he was embarrassed about. Here is everything he just snipped again:

"The illustration that the trajectory in fact *was* possible was very clear from the video. Let Boris prove what this out-of-context picture proves about anything. Just more silliness where anything they do not understand the purpose of becomes "proof" that what they *do* ---or at least *should*---understand is meaningless.

Here is a good example of that. The 3rd picture at this link shows something just as unexplained and out-of-context that "Boris" will doubtlessly want to jump onto with beanie blades in full whir, in order to try to prove that CE903 is somehow invalidated by it. Of course, the meaning and intent of this particular picture is unclear, though any thinking individual should easily see that the inclusion of it in the documentary record makes *zero* sense if the WC was trying to cover up for the (visually non-evident) "deception" of CE903:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html




>
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw
> >
> > Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.
>
>
> You were so fascinated and thrilled that they could prove a bullet could transit two bodies, that you completely missed the obvious. Any more tests showing the EXACT SAME THING you'd like to show us, buffoon?

I have plenty of tests showing what *I* am asserting. Very few illustrating "Boris'" delusions about what I am asserting, or that support his strained interpretations of things. :-)

Ooops! "Boris snipped one of his more embarrassing moments. (I know that is a very difficult thing to isolate folks.) Here is the part of the prior post he apparently isn't to proud of:

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:34:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:49:11 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *EVERY* forensic or pathological specialist who has reviewed the body or photos and X-rays from the autopsy agrees that a shot hit JFK from behind in the head. All of them---even Wecht---have agreed that the *available* medical evidence allows no other conclusion.
> >> >
> >> >You're an absolute liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> All believers are.
> >
> > You're a believer. Conspiracism is your religion, the 'Magic Bullet'
> > one of your religious artifacts, the Grassy Knoll your Calvary, JFK
> > your martyred saint.
>
> You're lying.
>
> The difference is quite clear. Critics go where the evidence leads
> them,

Lurkers...

https://youtu.be/Q1v0jB3OswM

> believers **ONLY** go where the Warren Commission led.

Professional criminal investigators determined Oswald committed these crimes before the Warren Commission was ever formed, lurkers. It can easily be done, as long as one is not retarded.

> The
> *ONLY* time you'll ever hear a believer talking about the Clark Panel
> or the HSCA is when they're in agreement with the Warren Commission.

Conspiracy retards reject anything that goes against their silly ideas, lurkers.

> You'll be totally unable and unwilling to cite any examples that show
> otherwise.

Can beb cite an examples of conspiracy retards agreeing with anything determined by any investigation that goes against their retarded ideas, lurkers?

> Believers ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge any evidence that
> contradicts the Warren Commission's theory, even if only in the
> slightest.
>
> Believers refuse to castigate the Warren Commission for **ANY**
> wrongdoing...

Their findings were sound, lurkers.

> You have faith - you aren't interested in evidence.

beb has a retarded hobby, lurkers, nothing more. He can`t put a compelling case on the table so why should anyone listen to anything he has to say about this event?

> Critics are only interested in the evidence, not what someone else has
> put together... we're perfectly capable of adding the evidence
> together ourselves.

Without the ability to reason this is just a retard hobby. Like children fingerpainting, they all create something that pleases them, and hope mommy will put it on the refrigerator.

> If you *WEREN'T* a believer, then you'd be able to judge the evidence
> apart from the Warren Comission.
>
> But you can't.

I can judge all the evidence correctly, lurkers. When conspiracy retards have to, over and over and over again, suggest fantastic occurrences on feeble grounds it become quite obvious they have nothing to offer.

>
> >> Not only have I never met an honest believer, even *believers* can't
> >> name anyone they believe is honest.
> >
> >Can you? Mark Lane, maybe?
>
>
> I stand prepared to point out actual lies for anyone you dare to name
> as honest.

I appoint myself as the person to determine lies, lurkers.

> You can't do the same.
>
> Why not?
>
>
> WHY CAN'T YOU NAME AN "HONEST" BELIEVER?
>
> They do exist... but only in the ignorant form. People who learned by
> rote in school, and never got interested enough to actually read the
> WCR & evidence.
>
> But it's not possible to be both honest *AND* knowledgeable on the
> case evidence.

It is not possible for anyone to believe the retarded things beb believes and be rational, lurkers. And he knows his ideas are retarded, which is why he hides them. If he thought he had the truth on his side he would do what the WC had the balls to do and publish them.

> You, and every other believer reading these words who refuses to name
> anyone they consider "honest" proves the point.

This is beb`s crooked game playing, lurkers. Let him stipulate that I am the person who gets to decide who is honest.

> >> This particular liar finally got on my killfile list for his absolute
> >> inability to acknowledge what the Warren Commission stated.
> >
> > They stated Oswald shot and killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT.
> > No conspiracy could be found.
>
>
> What did they state about Oswald's use of the iron sights or scope?

Unless beb can show that this issue provides insight into the event, why focus on it, lurkers. beb has no interest in what really happened which is why he focuses on things like this.

> Run coward... RUN!!!
>
>
> >> Liars and cowards... every one.
> >
> >Liars and cowards and I, OH MY! Liars and cowards and I, OH MY!

beb thinks lying about what people write makes him an honest person, lurkers. That shows how morally fucked up he is.

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:09:01 -0800 (PST), donald willis
> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:03:50 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:30:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> **YOU** don't believe him, however...
> >>
> >> Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
> >> "Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
> >> liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.
> >>
> >19e is apparently NOT a believer--thinks that the DPD picked up
> > Oswald & held him so he couldn't get an alibi for Tippit. Also thinks
> > that some shots came from the 5th floor (as do I)....
> >
> >dcw
>
>
> One of the surest ways to label someone is to watch who's attacking
> their posts.
>
> I quite quickly killfiled him as a troll, and noted that he's never
> criticized by other believers... That's why I put him in that
> category.
>

Is 19e actually a "him" or "he"?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:23:38 -0800 (PST), donald willis

<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 10:09:01 -0800 (PST), donald willis
>> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:03:50 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:30:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:51:20 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> **YOU** don't believe him, however...
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, you clearly accept that Puddy, Markie Ulrikkk, PT Barnum,
>> >> "Beaver Fever," Troll Burke, "19efppp," and all other believers are
>> >> liars, because you couldn't and refused to name them.
>> >>
>> >19e is apparently NOT a believer--thinks that the DPD picked up
>> > Oswald & held him so he couldn't get an alibi for Tippit. Also thinks
>> > that some shots came from the 5th floor (as do I)....
>> >
>> >dcw
>>
>>
>> One of the surest ways to label someone is to watch who's attacking
>> their posts.
>>
>> I quite quickly killfiled him as a troll, and noted that he's never
>> criticized by other believers... That's why I put him in that
>> category.
>>
>Is 19e actually a "him" or "he"?

An assumption, but a logical one.

[donald willis]

And we'll keep BRINING it up, Chick. Must be a reference to the briny deep....

[BT George]

Donald, before "brining" or "bringing" it up, do you know where (in particular) Cap'n beb is going with this line of inquiry he endlessly keeps wanting us to follow him down the worm hole on? You surely know that none of us are tied solidly to the scope vs. iron sites debate, so just curious if you can---scary thought---understand beb's line of thinking?
...Assuming (purely for hypothetical purposes)---he actually has one for a change. :-)

[Bud]

It`s an "AH-HA!" moment from the bebster, you can believe that.

> You surely know that none of us are tied solidly to the scope vs. iron sites debate, so just curious if you can---scary thought---understand beb's line of thinking?
> ...Assuming (purely for hypothetical purposes)---he actually has one for a change. :-)

It is the kind of trivia the retards focus on. After you determine that Oswald made his shots (easily done), what does it matter?

[BT George]

True. But sometimes, even in the mazes of their own distorted thinking, there is an underlying rationale the direction of which is "vaguely" explicable in human terms. ...Though I suppose that really is a bit much to ask concerning the likes of beb's and company. :-)

[Bud]

Like a smoking monkey?

[BT George]

...Sometimes on a good day.

[Bud]

"smoking monkey" came to mind because what they do has some semblance to normal human activity but it also has unnatural, foreign aspects.

https://youtu.be/3DVR27dKuQY

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Most lone nut cowards end up accusing researchers/critics of misguided thinking, they always do, they're scared shitless regarding this cases' evidence.

The lone nuts are ever reminding us exactly the type of pud puller they are. This particular grouping of pud pullers are terrified of Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, I wonder why! LMFAO!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

troll, you've been lying since you returned to the .John fold. Who are you trying to kid... What a novice!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

yeah, sure it did Maybe an old-time racist meandering on your part, son?