In article
<4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b0704b7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>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.
>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..."
>
>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!!!
And yet, you can't sup****t these assertions with any cites or quotes.
Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the same
as
becoming a LNT'er...
A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
Nothing
less is *needed*
>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?
You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point
home...
Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
included in
the post below... feel free to browse.
>> 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 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]
>com>,
>> 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...
>
|
