On 15 Maj, 03:24, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<c5bfd7a4-5934-4982-9de6-e41b62bfd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On May 14, 6:49 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try
to =
defend
> >> the Warren Commission Re****t. In the past, there have been only two
> >>semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by
'B=
ud' (the
> >>troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the
facts=
in most
> >> of the 'answers'.
>
> >> But first, an im****tant note:
>
> >>
**********************************************************************
> >> Im****tant Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum
who's
> >> only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to
> >> change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal
insult=
s
> >> and attacks.
>
> >> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> >> Baldoni
> >> Bigdog
> >> Bill
> >> Brokedad
> >> Bud
> >> Burlyguard
> >> Cdddraftsman
> >> Chuck Schuyler
> >> Chu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Curious
> >> David Von Pein
> >> Ed Dolan *
> >> Justme1952
> >> Martybaugh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Miss Rita
> >> much...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> much...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sam Brown
> >> Spiffy_one
> >> Timst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Todd W. Vaughan
> >> YoHarvey
>
> >> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will
simp=
ly
> >> deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before,
o=
r
> >> simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the
ki=
ll
> >> files.
>
> >> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled,
bu=
t he's
> >> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
> >>
**********************************************************************
>
> >> 30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the Autopsy
Rep=
ort
> >> contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Re****t stated that the wound
> >> extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp... this
> >> simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able to
> >> point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH
> >> photo - yet the autopsy re****t, *all* prosectors, and over 40
eyewitnes=
ses
> >> place a large wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp.
>
> >scarcely a mouse-peep, Lone Nut suckers are really ducking for cover
> >the past few day's
>
> It's gotta be embarrassing for them... knowing that only lies can keep
'em=
> afloat.
>
> I've finally gotten around to the Mark Fuhrman book - and it's downright
f=
unny
> to see all the spin and lies the guy is putting out. =A0Perhaps if I get
t=
he time,
> I'll put a few of his better whoppers in a post for people to read
about.
I suggest you deal with your own whoppers first, Ben.
You have argued that the presence of a *Lady in Yellow Pants* is proof
that the Nix and Zapruder films have been altered, haven't you? You
have also been avoiding discussion of your theory, or admitting your
mistake, for a couple of months now.
Had another poster made a blooper of that magnitude, you would have
been all over him like a cheap suit, demanding a retraction -within a
'reasonable' amount of time, of course. Then, within a day or so, you
would have started multiple threads, attacking the other poster, with
words like "liar" and "fool" in the header.
Fortunately for you, the posters who debunked your *Lady in Yellow
Pants* theory are decent folks who wouldn't dream of resorting to such
dirty tricks, and, although there are limits to their patience,
they're perfectly willing to give you a year or so to fess up to the
fact that you goofed up real bad. But why not bite the bullet sooner
rather than later, Ben?
-Mark
|
