Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not included
the
complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said. He's implied that
he'd be
willing to retract his false assertion if he saw the original. I'd like
to give
him every possible chance to do the honest and right thing...
The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
______________________________________________
>so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>the fragments.
You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could have
been
the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote of
ANYONE
AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone where Rob
claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were
never
said.
______________________________________________
Here's the complete original post:
**************************************************************************
In article
<f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>productive things (and the board can too).
>1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
>Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
And based your entire argument around that lie. For without Frazier
saying
"bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent,
but
Frazier never said that.
>I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
>is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>velocity rifle.
Of course, you're lying right now.
Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity" IN
RELATION
TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. In other words, when Frazier said
"fairly high
velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal
bullet.
>Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>improbable.
No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
>but for now I'll skip them.
You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation",
and
this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>chrome.
With *NO* citation given. Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier
testified that
either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damage
to the
chrome.
Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is
attempting to
use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. Yet consistently fails to
do
so.
And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perfectly
good
96 grain size.
>Ben says I lied.
You provably did. You implied another lie immediately above when
comparing the
MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD
NOT HAVE
COME from the same bullet.
You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that those
fragments might have come from CE399.
You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>He of course offers no proof to back up his
>*assertions* as usual.
Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
>the same bullet.
No, I've never stated that.
Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be provably
linked
to each other.
>The FBI
Who, at the FBI.
For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>they matched. They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
>metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". There are many times
when
it is simply not possible to "prove" something. I've given you several
examples...
Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does that
prove
that it had green racing stripes?
>They
>added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
>two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
>prove their theory.
Very poor logic, of course. Tell us where the second pencil came from
Rob?
>Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
>they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the
fragments
came from the same bullet.
Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possibility,
Rob
keeps lying about it.
>Again, he offers no
>proof for his *assertion*.
Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>To him it is not possible and possible all
>at the same time.
You're a liar, Rob.
It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same
bullet.
It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously
refer
to the same event.
>3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
>pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not
come from
the same bullet".
You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
"pronouncement" that they did not. Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol
EXPLICITLY
deny any such assumption.
Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>there had to more than the 3 shots.
Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
>I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
>in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
>away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside
>the WCR.
It obviously is.
You made the mistake of asserting that based ONLY on your reading of the
WCR,
that you could prove that there were more than three shots.
Can't be done.
>Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
>the "investigation". To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
>mentioned in the WCR,
It wasn't. Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR to say:
"we
believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other bullet
struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet fragments
left in
Connally than were missing out of CE399"
I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based ONLY
on
the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's re****t. You
*MUST* go
to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to prove
the
WCR a fraud.
Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt
Brown's
book, for example, or some of the books written by a historian, can't
recall the
title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR.
>so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>the fragments.
You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could have
been
the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote of
ANYONE
AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone where Rob
claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were
never
said.
>Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about
what I've
said.
Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd
said
something that you didn't say?
Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. What's "fair" about
that?
>Explain how a bullet who
>only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
>or 21 grains or both? This is truly a magic bullet.
When you need to lie to make a point... the only point you've made is that
you're a liar.
I have no intention at all of answering a question based on something I
never
stated.
>Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
>when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
>head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
>never ending thread) here it is.
>Bullet weight = 161 grains (per WCR)
>First fragment = 44 grains
>Second fragment = 21 grains
>Here is Ben's math problem.
>161-44-21=96 grains
>He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
>the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
>the limo.
Nope... merely demonstrated that if you didn't like the size of the 21 or
44
grain fragment, that there was PROVABLY a larger fragment available to do
the
job. Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the ballistics
studies,
which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break up into just a few
fragments.
There was certainly *NOTHING* close to 96 grains left in JFK's head... so
Rob
can't figure out what to do with the missing mass.
What happened to it, Rob? Where did it go? Is this the "magical
fragment?"
It may not have weighed 96 grains... who knows, it might have weighed only
94
grains, it might have broken into *two* 48 grain pieces...
But what is *INDISPUTABLE* is that there is the possibility of a much
larger
fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that you
disbelieve
could have caused the dented chrome.
>Somehow it misses the rearview mirror.
It also missed the side mirrors, the flags, Greer's head, the steering
wheel...
well I could go on, but Rob would miss the point.
>The other two wind
>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>head!!
I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to
molest?
For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did I
ever
state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in his
head.
In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the largest
fragment
that was pulled out of JFK's head. I don't recall you answering that one.
>Does this make any sense? He is saying not one fragment would
>have stayed in the brain. And I'm the liar according to him.
You've provably lied... for you can't quote me saying any such thing - yet
you
assert that I did.
>As usual Ben has no proof for his *assertion*.
The fact that you can't quote me saying what you just lied about is proof
enough.
>4) He said I "lied" when I said DVP was using Guinn to dispute the
>testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier.
Never said any such thing. Here's the actual quote:
*******************************************************************
>I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
>the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
>believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course,
he
*doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a
single
bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony on
points
you don't like.
*******************************************************************
That's quite a bit different than calling you a liar for saying that DVP
was
using the testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier, isn't it?
(Indeed, I
didn't even *read* what DVP wrote... for although it was in that post, DVP
rarely makes worthwhile comments)
And in fact, both Frazier and Nicol *BOTH* state that the two fragments
could be
part of the same bullet. I've previously quoted Frazier, now here's Nicol
on
the same topic:
*******************************************************************
Mr. DULLES. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?
Mr. NICOL. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether
they
come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose
****tion and the other is a base.
Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that is the nose ****tion?
Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission
Exhibit 569.
Mr. NICOL. No, that would be the base ****tion.
Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same
bullet
possibly?
Mr. NICOL. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of ap
proximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area
where one
begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least
I
couldn't to express an opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of
the
same bullet?
Mr. NICOL. Two parts of the same or separate bullets, that is right.
*******************************************************************
>Obviously by the time of the HSCA the government was aware of the same
>problem I had outlined, that if all the fragments couldn't be linked
>to the same set of bullets
The WCR already stated this. Why is this knowledge mystically hidden
until the
HSCA?
>(2) they would have some "explainin' ta do",
Which they did back in 1964 with Frazier and Nicol's testimony.
>so in comes Guinn. He overturns the FBI and says they can match
>all the fragments to the two bullets.
Of course, both Frazier and Nicol *ALREADY* said that the fragments could
be
part of the same bullet.
>I was simply showing DVP that
>the FBI via Frazier didn't agree in 1964.
You lie to make such an assertion. Frazier, *IN 1964* testified that the
fragments could be part of the same bullet. (As I've already quoted)
>Ben got all of this all twisted around (and I can't even remember what
>he was saying as it made no sense)
Here - let me repeat it again: The WCR cannot be impugn ONLY on the basis
of the
evidence contained within it. You *MUST* examine the same evidence that
they
did to prove their lies, misrepresentations, and chicanery.
>and called me a liar. Again, he
>offered no proof for his *assertion*.
See above...
>I could go on but these are the main points and there is no reason to
>at this point in time.
I do hope you get around to telling everyone where that second pencil came
from.
*********************************************************************
Original post copied above can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3fd79bf6cb5fe54?hl=en&
|
