On May 16, 7:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
=A0He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
he saw the original. =A0I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
the honest and right thing..."
Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
DVP!!!
No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. You claimed you were
platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
"rifles" clean?
>
> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
> ______________________________________________
>
> >so let's play the game his way. =A0He 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
AN=
YONE
> 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
ne=
ver
> 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. =A0For without Frazier
say=
ing
> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>
> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent,
bu=
t
> 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
RE=
LATION
> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =A0In other words, when Frazier said
"fai=
rly high
> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal
bu=
llet.
>
> >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",
a=
nd
> 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. =A0Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier
testif=
ied that
> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damage
t=
o the
> chrome.
>
> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is
attempti=
ng to
> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. =A0Yet 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. =A0You implied another lie immediately above when
compar=
ing the
> MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
>
> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD
NO=
T 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
l=
inked
> 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. =A0They 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". =A0There are many
time=
s when
> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. =A0I'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. =A0Tell us where the second pencil came from
R=
ob?
>
> >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
fragmen=
ts
> 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. =A0As Frazier testified to.
>
> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously
r=
efer
> 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
com=
e 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. =A0Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol
EXPLI=
CITLY
> 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
W=
CR,
> 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". =A0To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
> >mentioned in the WCR,
>
> It wasn't. =A0Don'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
lef=
t 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. =A0You
*=
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
reca=
ll the
> title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR.
>
> >so let's play the game his way. =A0He 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
AN=
YONE
> 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
ne=
ver
> said.
>
> >Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
>
> Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about
wha=
t I've
> said.
>
> Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd
s=
aid
> something that you didn't say?
>
> Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. =A0What's "fair"
abou=
t 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? =A0This 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
ne=
ver
> 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 =3D 161 grains (per WCR)
> >First fragment =3D 44 grains
> >Second fragment =3D 21 grains
> >Here is Ben's math problem.
> >161-44-21=3D96 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. =A0Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the ballistics
studi=
es,
> which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break up into just a few
frag=
ments.
>
> 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? =A0Where did it go? =A0Is this the "magical
frag=
ment?"
>
> 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
larg=
er
> fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that you
disbel=
ieve
> 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
whe=
el...
> 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
mol=
est?
>
> For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did I
e=
ver
> state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in his
he=
ad.
>
> In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the largest
fragm=
ent
> that was pulled out of JFK's head. =A0I don't recall you answering that
on=
e.
>
> >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. =A0Here'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
sing=
le
> 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
w=
as
> using the testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier, isn't it?
=A0(Ind=
eed, 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
co=
uld be
> part of the same bullet. =A0I've previously quoted Frazier, now here's
Nic=
ol 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
th=
ey
> 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
whe=
re 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. =A0Why is this knowledge mystically hidden
un=
til 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. =A0Frazier, *IN 1964* testified that
th=
e
> 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. =A0You *MUST* examine the same evidence
that=
they
> did to prove their lies, misrepresentations, and chicanery.
>
> >and called me a liar. =A0Again, 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/grou=
p/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3fd79bf6cb5fe5...
|
