In article
<204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d65444bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>On May 16, 8:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
<4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>com>,
>> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 16, 7:03=3DA0pm, 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..."
Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha has
not
*ONCE* addressed the lie he told.
Nor offered a retraction.
>> >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."
>
>You are a liar,
And yet, you can't sup****t these assertions with any cites or quotes...
You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
Cite for it.
You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
Cite for it.
You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
Quote it.
You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
Produce one.
>I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
>and you, to be full of crap.
And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and misrepresenting
the
evidence.
That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!
>"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the
>same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>
>Who lied?
You did. Would you like to place a bet on it? We'll both send money to a
third
party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more outrageous lies,
along
with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll post it in this forum, and
let all
CT'ers vote on it.
>I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
>full of crap.
Then you shouldn't need to lie about it.
>"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
>Nothing less is *needed*"
>
>This is why you are a LNer!
LNT'ers care about the truth? What are *YOU* smoking?
>You only care about your ego and winning,
>not the truth.
I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence.
>> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
>> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. =A0You 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..."
>
>You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
>
>"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
>included in the post below... feel free to browse."
>
>Browse away, I don't sup****t the official theory like you so I have
>NOTHING to hide.
>
>
>> >> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
>> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3DA0He 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
th=
>e
>> >> 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
molestatio=
>n.
>>
>> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they
were=
>
>> >> never said.
>> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> Here's the complete original post:
>>
>> >>
***********************************************************************=
>***=3D
>>
>> >> In article
<f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ps.=3D
>> >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. =3DA0For without
Frazie=
>r say=3D
>> >ing
>> >> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>>
>> >> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome
dent,=
> bu=3D
>> >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=3D
>> >LATION
>> >> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =3DA0In other words, when Frazier
said=
> "fai=3D
>> >rly high
>> >> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a
normal=
> bu=3D
>> >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=3D
>> >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. =3DA0Rob doesn't like to admit that
Frazier t=
>estif=3D
>> >ied that
>> >> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the
damag=
>e t=3D
>> >o the
>> >> chrome.
>>
>> >> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is
attem=
>pti=3D
>> >ng to
>> >> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. =3DA0Yet
consistently f=
>ails =3D
>> >to do
>> >> so.
>>
>> >> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a
perfect=
>ly =3D
>> >good
>> >> 96 grain size.
>>
>> >> >Ben says I lied.
>>
>> >> You provably did. =3DA0You implied another lie immediately above
when c=
>ompar=3D
>> >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=3D
>> >T HAVE
>> >> COME from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that
th=
>ose=3D
>>
>> >> 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
provabl=
>y l=3D
>> >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. =3DA0They 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". =3DA0There are
many=
> time=3D
>> >s when
>> >> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. =3DA0I've given you
sev=
>eral
>> >> examples...
>>
>> >> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
>>
>> >> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does
th=
>at =3D
>> >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. =3DA0Tell us where the second pencil
came f=
>rom R=3D
>> >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
frag=
>men=3D
>> >ts
>> >> came from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a
possibili=
>ty,=3D
>> > 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
bul=
>let=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> It is POSSIBLE that they did. =3DA0As Frazier testified to.
>>
>> >> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to
simutaneousl=
>y r=3D
>> >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=3D
>> >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. =3DA0Indeed, both Frazier and
Nicol =
>EXPLI=3D
>> >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
th=
>e W=3D
>> >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". =3DA0To be fair, I am not sure what area it
may b=
>e
>> >> >mentioned in the WCR,
>>
>> >> It wasn't. =3DA0Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR
to =
>say: =3D
>> >"we
>> >> believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other
bul=
>let=3D
>>
>> >> struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet
fragments =
>lef=3D
>> >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 O=
>NLY=3D
>> > on
>> >> the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's re****t.
=3DA0=
>You *=3D
>> >MUST* go
>> >> to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to
pr=
>ove=3D
>> > the
>> >> WCR a fraud.
>>
>> >> Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt
Bro=
>wn'=3D
>> >s
>> >> book, for example, or some of the books written by a historian,
can't r=
>eca=3D
>> >ll the
>> >> title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the
WCR=
>.
>>
>> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3DA0He 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 h=
>ave=3D
>> > been
>> >> the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote
of=
> AN=3D
>> >YONE
>> >> AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone
where =
>Rob=3D
>>
>> >> claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
>>
>> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they
were=
> ne=3D
>> >ver
>> >> said.
>>
>> ...
|
