In article
<31225c05-8e04-4fb4-a62d-f1410acb0d60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 15, 2:33 am, much...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> 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 'Bud'
>>(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
insults
>> > >> 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
simply
>> > >> deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided
before, or
>>> >> simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for
the kill
>> > >> files.
>>
>>> >> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be
killfiled, but
>>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
Re****t
>> > >> 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
eyewitnesses
>> > >> 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 funny
>>> to see all the spin and lies the guy is putting out. Perhaps if I get
the
>>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.
Running from the evidence won't convince anyone... if you can't deal with
the
evidence, then the 80-90% in the polls will rise even further...
>> 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.
Actually, there are those who seem to want to reopen it... but none of
them are
LNT'ers... they're all trolls.
You have *YOUR* op****tunity to defend the authenticity of the extant
Z-film, and
you run from it.
>> 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.
By all means... do whatever you feel compelled to do.
>> 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,
ROTFLMAO!!!
When you have to lie, all you've proven is that you're a liar, eh?
>> 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
>
>ya need to focus son, the question #30.... gird those loins (you do
>have some, eh?) and all that stuff. Hiding won't do! Simply shows the
>coward in you..... Carry on Munchless... you graduate this year or do
>we have a few more semesters with you, a simple minded idjit?
Yeah... the trolls simply have nothing to say. They lied about the number
of
people visible in a particular frame - but they think they have me "on the
run"
because the only kooks who want to debate are trolls.
But should I begin debating with trolls, they'll do what they've always
done...
lie and run away. It takes very little intelligence to see that...
|
