On May 16, 6:39=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<3d0ca007-bff2-4c8c-a672-4d208bc8c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>
> >Ben, you have proven for all to see what kind of person you are, I'm
> >sure most already knew anyway. =A0You are NOT worth the time to write,
> >and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
>
"Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. =A0In many of the
questions below, all I asked is that you sup****t your words... yet you
can't. =A0Understandable, since many of them were simply outright lies."
In your dreams I'm running. You are pathetic. I was at work, I can't
spend all day at work on here like you, no wonder you have had so many
jobs (that and your winning personality)!
"But that's okay... I've provided the cites... you can lead a child
molester to water, but you can't make him drink."
You are right, I have tried to give you a drink many times, but you
won't take it. I hear you were the lead platoon "rifle" inspector
when you were in the Marines. You cleaned many a "rifle" from what I
hear.
>
> >On May 16, 1:51=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> In article
<748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >om>,
> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase
and=
> >> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>
> >> I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point...
you=
've=3D
> > shown
> >> that you're a coward...
>
> >> >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?
>
> >> Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. =3DA0(I've asked
thi=
s rep=3D
> >eatedly,
> >> and you STILL refuse to cite)
>
> >> Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified
to =
can=3D
>
> >> hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. =3DA0You lied repeatedly
about =
what =3D
> >Frazier
> >> testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. =3DA0But that
can=
hard=3D
> >ly be
> >> labeled a defense of the WC.
>
> >> I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the
materi=
al
> >> contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and
hardly=
a
> >> "defense" of the WC.
>
> >> So go ahead and QUOTE IT! =3DA0Let everyone see my "defense" of the
WC.=
>
> >> >2) What is more im****tant to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
> >> >ego?
>
> >> The truth. =3DA0As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that
c=
larit=3D
> >y is
> >> more im****tant than agreement. =3DA0I agree.
>
> >> You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know
them.=
=3D
> >=3DA0Shall I
> >> quote a few of them in my next post?
>
> >> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
> >> >used? (see below)
>
> >> Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept.
=
=3DA0I=3D
> >'ve
> >> asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to
as=
ser=3D
> >t that
> >> I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...
>
> >> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
> >> >conclusion?
>
> >> Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it
can =
tes=3D
> >t for.
>
> >> Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?
>
> >> >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?
>
> >> Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
> >> Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
> >> Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than
su=
ppo=3D
> >rt the
> >> lone assassin?
>
> >> This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...
>
> >> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of
the=
> >> >head shot?
>
> >> Untrue. =3DA0An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not
pr=
oof t=3D
> >hat the
> >> DNA was not of a particular individual.
>
> >> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
> >> >middle section? (see below)
>
> >> Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take
your =
sil=3D
> >ly
> >> questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only the
n=
ose=3D
> > or
> >> tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>
> >> >It is time for school little Bennie,
>
> >> Ah, Samantha! =3DA0I wondered how long it would take before you
started=
misu=3D
> >sing my
> >> name again.
>
> >> >sit down as the bell has rung. =3DA0I
> >> >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.
>
> >> In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A
SIN=
GLE=3D
>
> >> PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that
they =
mus=3D
> >t
> >> therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't
*S=
TAR=3D
> >T*
> >> with a single pencil.
>
> >> You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but
st=
upi=3D
> >dity
> >> *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as many
d=
iff=3D
> >erent
> >> ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize just
h=
ow =3D
> >stupid
> >> you've been looking...
>
> >> >IOW, your example
> >> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D3D96 nose/point, base,
an=
d
> >> >middle section =3D3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our
case =
as
> >> >they could NOT match the two fragments.
>
> >> Yep... they could not.
>
> >> So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND
R=
EFU=3D
> >SE TO
> >> TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
>
> >> Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they
originall=
y w=3D
> >ere a
> >> part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are
fr=
om =3D
> >two
> >> pencils.
>
> >> And you'd be stupid to do so.
>
> >> >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=3D3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming
somethin=
g not=3D
>
> >> >in evidence or proven.
>
> >> How many pencils do I have? =3DA0You have the two fragments...
>
> >> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
> >> >cir***stances,
>
> >> I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there?
>
> >> Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE
PEN=
CIL=3D
> >.
>
> >> You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say,
for=
ex=3D
> >ample
> >> if the 'lead' composition were different.
>
> >> >but his does not follow this pattern. =3DA0A great analogy
> >> >would be this (and I=3D3D92m not wi****ng anything bad on you Ben):
>
> >> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D3D92s office,
a=
nd
> >> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
> >> >negative. =3DA0This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
> >> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
> >> >have cancer. =3DA0IOW, they can=3D3D92t say he does have cancer, but
t=
hey can=3D
> >=3D3D92t
> >> >say he doesn=3D3D92t have cancer. =3DA0Would you accept this Ben?
>
> >> Of course. =3DA0It's what my original analogy would have led you to
bel=
ieve.=3D
> > =3DA0IT'S
> >> NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL OR
T=
WO.=3D
>
> >> Yet you still can't simply admit so...
>
> >> >Would you
> >> >ever go to this doctor again?
>
> >> Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might
have =
use=3D
> >d this
> >> same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>
> >> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
> >> >with the two fragments. =3DA0They were covering all there bases but
in=
> >> >medicine and science things don=3D3D92t work this way.
>
> >> Only in your ignorant world...
>
> >> >They CAN'T be both
> >> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
>
> >> Yes they can. =3DA0You see, no-one said that they could not be from
the=
same=3D
> > bullet.
> >> You lied previously on this same topic.
>
> >> You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.
>
> >> I *HAVE* given citations that apply.
>
> >> You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly
statements.=
>
> >> (I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA
testing...)=
>
> >> >Ben won=3D3D92t prove there was a middle section that connected the
tw=
o
> >> >fragments, he says this is silly.
>
> >> Yep... it is. =3DA0The Earth isn't flat, either...
>
> >> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
> >> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet.
=3DA0It=
is
> >> >a perfectly valid question to ask =3D3D96 where is the middle
section?=
Prov=3D
> >e
> >> >it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
> >> >certainly are not of the same origin.
>
> >> I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to
a =
sin=3D
> >gle
> >> bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS.
>
> >> Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on...
>
> >> >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 "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are
also
> >> "accounted" for.
>
> >> Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or
b=
ull=3D
> >et
> >> "tails"... do they come by the box? =3DA0What sizes are they
available =
in? =3D
> >=3DA0Can I
> >> get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in 6.5mm?
>
> >> >The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
>
> >> Proving no such thing. =3DA0You can't prove something from an item
you =
don't=3D
> > have,
> >> other than the fact that you don't have it.
>
> >> >besides
> >> >the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one
bullet.=
>
> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
