On May 16, 7:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<61695975-ad48-4bc2-adbe-7b2563d53...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 6:39=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> In article
<3d0ca007-bff2-4c8c-a672-4d208bc8c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >om>,
> >> 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. =3DA0You are NOT worth the time to
writ=
e,
> >> >and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
>
> >"Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. In many of the
> >questions below, all I asked is that you sup****t your words... yet you
> >can't. Understandable, since many of them were simply outright lies."
>
> >In your dreams I'm running.
"And yet, you aren't answering the posts. =A0Much as the trolls and
LNT'ers do, you merely duck and run when faced with actually
sup****ting your own assertions."
Another out and out lie, it seems all I have done for the last few
days is answer your silly posts.
>
> >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)!
>
"How many jobs have I had? =A0I'd be interested to hear you cite 'em."
Who knows, who cares, but you keep changing your e-mail address, I
guess to keep the government off your trail.
"Didn't know you'd joined my fan club... :)"
Sure, you on my list, the VERY bottom.
> >"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.
>
"All it takes is a cite, Samantha...
Yet you keep running from that simple task..."
Of what? You change topics quicker than an Indy 500 driver turns
laps.
> >I hear you were the lead platoon "rifle" inspector
> >when you were in the Marines. =A0You cleaned many a "rifle" from what I
> >hear.
>
> >> >On May 16, 1:51=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> In article
<748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >s.c=3D3D
> >> >om>,
> >> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> >> >> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the
chase =
and=3D
>
> >> >> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>
> >> >> I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by
point... =
you=3D
> >'ve=3D3D
> >> > shown
> >> >> that you're a coward...
>
> >> >> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of
t=
he
> >> >> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
> >> >> >months now?
>
> >> >> Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. =3D3DA0(I've
aske=
d thi=3D
> >s rep=3D3D
> >> >eatedly,
> >> >> and you STILL refuse to cite)
>
> >> >> Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually
testified =
to =3D
> >can=3D3D
>
> >> >> hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. =3D3DA0You lied repeatedly
a=
bout =3D
> >what =3D3D
> >> >Frazier
> >> >> testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. =3D3DA0But
tha=
t can=3D
> > hard=3D3D
> >> >ly be
> >> >> labeled a defense of the WC.
>
> >> >> I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the
mat=
eri=3D
> >al
> >> >> contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and
har=
dly=3D
> > a
> >> >> "defense" of the WC.
>
> >> >> So go ahead and QUOTE IT! =3D3DA0Let everyone see my "defense" of
th=
e WC.=3D
>
> >> >> >2) What is more im****tant to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or
hi=
s
> >> >> >ego?
>
> >> >> The truth. =3D3DA0As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts
t=
hat c=3D
> >larit=3D3D
> >> >y is
> >> >> more im****tant than agreement. =3D3DA0I agree.
>
> >> >> You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know
th=
em.=3D
> > =3D3D
> >> >=3D3DA0Shall 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=
.. =3D
> >=3D3DA0I=3D3D
> >> >'ve
> >> >> asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried
to=
as=3D
> >ser=3D3D
> >> >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
c=
an =3D
> >tes=3D3D
> >> >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=3D
> >ppo=3D3D
> >> >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=3D
>
> >> >> >head shot?
>
> >> >> Untrue. =3D3DA0An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is
n=
ot pr=3D
> >oof t=3D3D
> >> >hat the
> >> >> DNA was not of a particular individual.
>
> >> >> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is
th=
e
> >> >> >middle section? (see below)
>
> >> >> Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take
yo=
ur =3D
> >sil=3D3D
> >> >ly
> >> >> questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only
th=
e n=3D
> >ose=3D3D
> >> > or
> >> >> tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>
> >> >> >It is time for school little Bennie,
>
> >> >> Ah, Samantha! =3D3DA0I wondered how long it would take before you
st=
arted=3D
> > misu=3D3D
> >> >sing my
> >> >> name again.
>
> >> >> >sit down as the bell has rung. =3D3DA0I
> >> >> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how
analogie=
s
> >> >> >are meant to be used.
>
> >> >> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof
the =
two=3D
>
> >> >> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
>
> >> >> In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO
A =
SIN=3D
> >GLE=3D3D
>
> >> >> PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that
th=
ey =3D
> >mus=3D3D
> >> >t
> >> >> therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you
don't=
*S=3D
> >TAR=3D3D
> >> >T*
> >> >> with a single pencil.
>
> >> >> You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated...
but=
st=3D
> >upi=3D3D
> >> >dity
> >> >> *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as
man=
y d=3D
> >iff=3D3D
> >> >erent
> >> >> ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize
jus=
t h=3D
> >ow =3D3D
> >> >stupid
> >> >> you've been looking...
>
> >> >> >IOW, your example
> >> >> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D3D3D96 nose/point,
bas=
e, an=3D
> >d
> >> >> >middle section =3D3D3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in
our =
case =3D
> >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 -
AN=
D R=3D
> >EFU=3D3D
> >> >SE TO
> >> >> TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
>
> >> >> Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they
origin=
all=3D
> >y w=3D3D
> >> >ere a
> >> >> part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they
are=
fr=3D
> >om =3D3D
> >> >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
eith=
er
> >> >> >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=3D3D3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming
som=
ethin=3D
> >g not=3D3D
>
> >> >> >in evidence or proven.
>
> >> >> How many pencils do I have? =3D3DA0You 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=3D
> >CIL=3D3D
> >> >.
>
> >> >> You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil,
say, =
for=3D
> > ex=3D3D
> >> >ample
> >> >> if the 'lead' composition were different.
>
> >> >> >but his does not follow this pattern. =3D3DA0A great analogy
> >> >> >would be this (and I=3D3D3D92m not wi****ng anything bad on you
Ben)=
:
>
> >> >> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D3D3D92s
offi=
ce, a=3D
> >nd
> >> >> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
> >> >> >negative. =3D3DA0This means medically he does NOT have cancer,
but =
the
> >> >> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could
stil=
l
> >> >> >have cancer. =3D3DA0IOW, they can=3D3D3D92t say he does have
cancer=
, but t=3D
> >hey can=3D3D
> >> >=3D3D3D92t
> >> >> >say he doesn=3D3D3D92t have cancer. =3D3DA0Would you accept this
Be=
n?
>
> >> >> Of course. =3D3DA0It's what my original analogy would have led you
t=
o bel=3D
> >ieve.=3D3D
> >> > =3D3DA0IT'S
> >> >> NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL
O=
R T=3D
> >WO.=3D3D
>
> >> >> 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
ha=
ve =3D
> >use=3D3D
> >> >d this
> >> >> same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>
> >> >> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
> >> >> >with the two fragments. =3D3DA0They were covering all there bases
b=
ut in=3D
>
> >> >> >medicine and science things don=3D3D3D92t 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. =3D3DA0You see, no-one said that they could not be
fro=
m the=3D
> > same=3D3D
> >> > 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
statemen=
ts.=3D
>
> >> >> (I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA
testing.=
...)=3D
>
> >> >> >Ben won=3D3D3D92t prove there was a middle section that connected
t=
he tw=3D
> >o
> >> >> >fragments, he says this is silly.
>
> >> >> Yep... it is. =3D3DA0The Earth isn't flat, either...
>
> >> >> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
> >> >> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet.
=3D3=
DA0It=3D
> > is
> >> >> >a perfectly valid question to ask
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
