On 15 Maj, 21:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<31225c05-8e04-4fb4-a62d-f1410acb0...@[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
tw=
o
> >>> >>semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one
b=
y 'Bud'
> >>(the
> >>> >>troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the
f=
acts in
> >>most
> >> > >> of the 'answers'.
>
> >> > >> But first, an im****tant note:
>
> >> > >>
******************************************************************=
****
> >> > >> Im****tant Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum
w=
ho's
> >> > >> only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and
attempt=
to
> >> > >> change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal
i=
nsults
> >> > >> 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
befo=
re, or
> >>> >> simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for
th=
e 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
plu=
s.
> >> > >>
******************************************************************=
****
>
> >>> >> 30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the
Autopsy=
Re****t
> >> > >> contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Re****t stated that the
woun=
d
> >> > >> extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp...
t=
his
> >> > >> simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able
t=
o
> >> > >> point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the
BO=
H
> >>> >> photo - yet the autopsy re****t, *all* prosectors, and over 40
eyewi=
tnesses
> >> > >> 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
kee=
p 'em
> >> > afloat.
>
> >>> I've finally gotten around to the Mark Fuhrman book - and it's
downrig=
ht funny
> >>> to see all the spin and lies the guy is putting out. =A0Perhaps if I
g=
et the
> >>time,
> >> > I'll put a few of his better whoppers in a post for people to read
ab=
out.
>
> >> 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...
Of course. And 80-90% of the lurkers have figured out why you won't/
can't defend your *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory against a couple of
lowly "trolls"...
> >> 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
No objections? so the above can be considered a fair representation of
your *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory?
> >> 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
the=
m are
> LNT'ers... they're all trolls.
Is that the real reason you don't want the discussion reopened?
> You have *YOUR* op****tunity to defend the authenticity of the extant
Z-fil=
m, and
> you run from it.
I'm one of the lowly "trolls" who soundly debunked your *Lady in
Yellow Pants* theory. Isn't that kind of defending the authenticity of
the extant Z-film? Care to defend *YOUR* theory, Ben?
> >> 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?
Huh? Have you seen me start any "Ben is a lying fool unless he
retracts his *Lady in Yellow Pants* lie" threads?
> >> 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. =A0They lied about the
numb=
er 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.
The question you posed was: The Zapruder film shows how many people in
the grass at Z-377. And how many people does the Nix film show *in the
same location* (my emphasis)? The correct answer is: 2 and 2, not 2
and 3. It has been shown (by a couple of lowly "trolls") that the
patch of grass occupied by the *Lady in Yellow Pants* was never filmed
by Zapruder.
Seems you're the liar, Ben.
> But should I begin debating with trolls, they'll do what they've always
do=
ne...
> lie and run away. =A0It takes very little intelligence to see that...
Be a man about it and admit your mistake, Ben.
-Mark
|
