Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
ask Ben some simple questions first.
1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
months now?
2) What is more im****tant to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
ego?
3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
used? (see below)
4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
conclusion?
5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
fragments damaged the wind****eld and the chrome according to the WC?
6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
head shot?
7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
middle section? (see below)
It is time for school little Bennie, sit down as the bell has rung. I
will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
are meant to be used.
You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet. IOW, your example
breaks a complete pencil into three parts =96 nose/point, base, and
middle section =96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
they could NOT match the two fragments. Therefore, the nose could
have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
This is why Bennie=92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not
in evidence or proven.
Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
cir***stances, but his does not follow this pattern. A great analogy
would be this (and I=92m not wi****ng anything bad on you Ben):
Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=92s office, and
they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
negative. This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
have cancer. IOW, they can=92t say he does have cancer, but they can=92t
say he doesn=92t have cancer. Would you accept this Ben? Would you
ever go to this doctor again? This is what the WC wants us to accept
with the two fragments. They were covering all there bases but in
medicine and science things don=92t work this way. They CAN'T be both
NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
Ben won=92t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
fragments, he says this is silly. Why I ask when he keeps insisting
the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. It is
a perfectly valid question to ask =96 where is the middle section? Prove
it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
certainly are not of the same origin. In his analogy they are in my
pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
he runs from explaining where it is, why?
The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet, besides
the failed ballistic tests to prove they were, is the fact they
contain NO DNA from JFK at all. Explain how they could have been
INSIDE him yet have NO DNA on them? No LNer can explain it so let=92s
see how Bennie does.
I won't put any nasty comments in the title like he does either.
|
