In article
<ba6d0ef0-5184-46bc-bcde-0fe150837f0a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>On May 15, 4:40=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
<94cb0a61-b3b6-4df5-8bf6-300272e44...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>com>,
>> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >The sun comes up and Ben Holmes lies!
>>
>
>"And yet, while I've quoted several provable lies from you - you can't
>seem to do the same thing for any such "lie" on my part. =A0Why is that,
>Rob?"
>
>You are the only one who thinks you have NOT been shown to be the liar
>you are. You are totally delusional. I have quoted several provable
>lies of yours and what do you do? You act like you didn't write them.
>
>
>"Interesting to note - Rob takes a page from the LNT'er camp, and
>begins top-posting... which, of course, is an excellent way to avoid
>the points made in the post."
>
>It has nothing to do with tactics, I simply am NOT going through these
>same points for the fiftieth time. You are a liar and it is proven.
>
>
>> >Ben is a moron who thinks
>> >pencils and bullets are the same,
>>
>
>"Sadly, I've never stated any such thing - and I suspect that you just
>shot whatever credibility you had - because no-one will believe this."
>
>He lies here as well. You are using a pencil for your analogy when you
>could have just used a bullet. Why?
Do everyone a favor and look up the word "analogy" in a dictionary.
>Just as no-one will believe that I *EVER* even considered, for even a
>moment, that a 44 grain
>and/or 21 grain fragment came out of CE399."
>
>Nobody really cares what you think, it is a shame you have youself
>deluded into thinking people hang on to your thoughts. You are here
>to start fights and nothing more. The fact you would argue in DEFENSE
>of the WC's position for this long and hard
And yet, strangely enough, you can't quote me "arguing in defense of the
WC's
position"
Indeed, many of my 45 Questions deal with problems of the WCR, and my
"Lies of
the WC" series is even more explicit.
But don't think that you can simply lie about testimony, and not have
someone
point it out.
>shows you are really not
>interested in the case per se, but rather the arguments you can start.
>
>"Yet you *know* that you made such an assertion... and you refuse to
>retract it. Why is that, Rob? Do you think that your problems will go
>away if only I stop posting?"
>
>I don't any such thing, as I know there was more to the quote and you
>are afraid to post it.
Oh? Coming up next, the ENTIRE post...
>> >and can be tested in the same manner.
>
>"Testing was *not* the issue. Your insane belief that if two
>fragments of a single bullet (or pencil, as in my analogy) cannot be
>*PROVEN* to have come from the same bullet (or pencil, as in my
>analogy) then they *MUST* have come from two."
>
>This is NOT insane nitwit, this is common sense.
No, Rob... it's not. Tell everyone where the second pencil is...
>Your inability to
>grasp this issue is quite funny. When they FAILED to prove they came
>from the same bullet the answer automatically became they came from
>seperate bullets.
No Rob... incorrect.
>You do not understand ballistics at all.
Evidently, far better than you. I've *told* you before to go educate
yourself
on this... so you don't keep looking stupid by confusing ballistics
testing with
NAA testing... but you evidently STILL haven't done so.
>They had
>a chance to match them, they tried and got a negative result,
Ballistics is capable of matching 50 bullets to each other. As long as
they
were fired out of the same barrel, and have enough rifling marks to
compare...
>this
>means they did NOT come from the same bullet. What is so hard to
>comprehend about this?
Your incredible ignorance...
>So I guess you will argue a negative result on
>the cheek paraffin test does NOT mean he did NOT shoot a rifle either,
>right? What does a test mean anyway, right?
Feel free to look up my posts on the topic. I have quite a few...
Question #12
deals quite explicitly with the topic.
>"In fact, just to eliminate your proposed problem of testing issues...
>I'll take a 6.5mm bullet... and using a hacksaw - saw a bullet into
>three pieces... put the middle piece into my pocket without your
>knowledge... then hand you the nose and the tail of the bullet. You
>will, of course, be unable to prove that the two pieces are from the
>same bullet (even the FBI stopped this nonsensical NAA testing
>procedure a few years back) - and will then proclaim that they are
>from two different bullets...."
>
>Well, that is their problem Ben, isn't it.
No, Rob... it's science. NAA testing is not capable of matching two
fragments
to the same bullet.
http://www.ctka.net/death_of_naa.html
is one of many citations possible.
Here's
another: http://www.assassinationweb.com/linchpin2.htm
Do some reading, Rob - so that your ignorance doesn't show so much...
>Obviously it is your
>problem too since you feel the need to defend them for 6 months. They
>used NAA to try and convince everyone LHO did the crime, so when it
>doesn't work that is their problem. The issue is they could NOT match
>them, what else does a court need to hear?
A court would laugh at your preconceptions... Someday, if you ever
actually
read the citations I keep throwing your way, you might even enjoy a laugh
at
what you thought you knew...
>"Where's the other bullet, Rob?"
>
>This is NOT the same thing and I can't believe you think it is. You
>are starting with a whole bullet and making pieces, but how do you
>know these two fragments came from a whole bullet? You don't, and
>CAN'T PROVE IT. Your are playing a semantics game to avoid looking
>wrong. In theory of course I see your analogy, but proving it is
>impossible, why do you NOT see the value in this?
Stupidity *IS* curable...
Okay Rob... At the risk of making you look even more stupid than the above
example does... I hand you the tail end of a bullet, and the nose end of a
bullet. There's no physical overlap, SO THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THEY CAME
FROM
ONE BULLET OR TWO BULLETS. NAA testing cannot prove anything, AS MY
CITATIONS
PROVE...
So how many bullets did I originally have, that these two fragments came
from?
>> >He thinks because he knows he starts with a whole pencil that
>> >is the same has finding two fragments that CANNOT BE LINKED to the
>> >same source.
>>
>
>"The two ends of the pencil that I hand to you CANNOT BE PROVEN TO
>HAVE COME FROM ONE PENCIL (absent my testimony to that effect).
>Therefore, you must proclaim that I had two pencils...
>where's the other pencil, Rob?"
>
>Ben, you are confused. In your scenario you know they are parts of
>the same pencil because you cut it up, but in real life, this is NOT
>the case. When you arrive at a crime scene you are not privy
>initially to all the details like this. You need ballistics to
>ascertain these things, and the bottom line is there is NO proof they
>came from the same source. This is called reasonable doubt in court.
>Continue to defend the indefensible, it is your preogative.
Stupidity *IS* curable...
Okay Rob... At the risk of making you look even more stupid than the above
example does... I hand you the tail end of a bullet, and the nose end of a
bullet. There's no physical overlap, SO THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THEY CAME
FROM
ONE BULLET OR TWO BULLETS. NAA testing cannot prove anything, AS MY
CITATIONS
PROVE...
So how many bullets did I originally have, that these two fragments came
from?
>> >Ben has NO understanding of basic science laws and priciples.
>
>"Actually, far better than you... you didn't even recognize the
>"thought experiment" that Einstein made so famous..."
>
>You are trying to side-track the issue again.
I referred PRECISELY to the "science laws and priciples" that you referred
to.
>> >He is a coward who calls people child molesters, but then backs off
>> >and says you called yourself one. Man up!
>>
>
>"Quote the statement, Rob... Let's see EXACTLY what the words are...
>Were you a "man," I wouldn't have to ask you... you'd have already
>quoted it."
>
>You think because you wrote "he claims" you are off the hook,
Did I 'call you a child molester', or did I assert that 'you claim you're
a
child molester'?
Lies like this one are just stupid.
>but of
>course I never claimed any such thing.
Tell me Rob... did I *ever* claim that the 44 grain and/or 21 grain
fragment
might have come from CE399?
A simple yes or no is all that's needed.
If you say no - then a retraction of your lie should be forthcoming.
If you say yes - then a simple citation is all you need.
>It is your sick mind at
>work.
By the way, I understand why you keep refusing to respond to the post
below...
It demonstrates, beyond all doubt... that you're a liar.
>> >On May 15, 9:45=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Just a repost of one of many snippets that Rob refuses to respond
to:
>>
>> >> >Now, you may have taken this
>> >> >to mean I thought you thought this, but that was not my point.
>>
>> >> >> And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED* put
>> >> >> those words in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone (me)
sa=
>id
>> >> >> that the fragments came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)"
>>
>> >> >I didn't put words in your mouth Ben, you interpreted it that way,
>>
>> >> What part of "He claims..." did you misunderstand?
>>
>> >> Here... let's play the semantic game... Rob thinks that the 44 & 21
gra=
>in
>> >> fragments found in the limo *must* be from separate bullets, since
ther=
>e
>> >> is no proof possible that they are from the same bullet. He claims
that=
>
>> >> he's a child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record.
>>
>> >> Did you catch that? Need I repeat it?
>>
>> >> Now... I "didn't put words in your mouth", Rob... I used PRECISELY
the =
>same
>> >> sentence construction you did, to wit: "He claims..."
>>
>> >> So you have nothing to complain about, right?
>>
>>>> (And evidently, the answer is no - since he's refused to respond to
this...
>>>> seems like he knows quite well that he put words in my mouth that I'd
never
>> >> said... embarrassing for someone who claims to be a "honest man")
>>
>>Rob is *STILL* avoiding this. It's easier to ignore the obvious than to
offer a
>> retraction for his lie.
|
