In article
<a2bdbdde-71ab-4151-9966-6b81b602ccab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>On May 15, 10:41=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
<ba6d0ef0-5184-46bc-bcde-0fe150837...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>com>,
>> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>> >On May 15, 4:40=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> In article
<94cb0a61-b3b6-4df5-8bf6-300272e44...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>> >> >The sun comes up and Ben Holmes lies!
>>
>> >"And yet, while I've quoted several provable lies from you - you can't
>> >seem to do the same thing for any such "lie" on my part. Why is that,
>> >Rob?"
>>
>> >You are the only one who thinks you have NOT been shown to be the liar
>> >you are. =A0You are totally delusional. I have quoted several provable
>> >lies of yours and what do you do? =A0You act like you didn't write
them.
>>
>> >"Interesting to note - Rob takes a page from the LNT'er camp, and
>> >begins top-posting... which, of course, is an excellent way to avoid
>> >the points made in the post."
>>
>> >It has nothing to do with tactics, I simply am NOT going through these
>> >same points for the fiftieth time. =A0You are a liar and it is proven.
>>
>> >> >Ben is a moron who thinks
>> >> >pencils and bullets are the same,
>>
>> >"Sadly, I've never stated any such thing - and I suspect that you just
>> >shot whatever credibility you had - because no-one will believe this."
>>
>> >He lies here as well. You are using a pencil for your analogy when you
>> >could have just used a bullet. =A0Why?
>>
>
>"Do everyone a favor and look up the word "analogy" in a dictionary."
>
>Don't have to like you, I already know what it means.
You've just proven that you don't.
>> >Just as no-one will believe that I *EVER* even considered, for even a
>> >moment, that a 44 grain
>> >and/or 21 grain fragment came out of CE399."
>>
>> >Nobody really cares what you think, it is a shame you have youself
>> >deluded into thinking people hang on to your thoughts. =A0You are here
>> >to start fights and nothing more. =A0The fact you would argue in
DEFENSE
>> >of the WC's position for this long and hard
>>
>
>"And yet, strangely enough, you can't quote me "arguing in defense of
>the WC's position""
>
>You are sup****ting their whole theory, you are the best thing to
>happen to them since the SBT!
And yet, strangely enough, you can't quote me "sup****ting their whole
theory",
why is that, Samantha?
>"Indeed, many of my 45 Questions deal with problems of the WCR, and my
>"Lies of the WC" series is even more explicit."
>
>Yeah, because ONLY Ben can do this. I guess he has not ripped off
>Lane, Weisberg, et. al.
You see, Samantha? I *can* sup****t my assertions... you duck and run.
>"But don't think that you can simply lie about testimony, and not have
>someone point it out."
>
>I never lied about testimony. I initially made a typo, apologized
>many times if I recall and you were your typical rude self. You have
>NO proof of me lying. I know exactly what Frazier testified to.
Sadly, it's still there for anyone to look up, and judge for themselves.
>> >shows you are really not
>> >interested in the case per se, but rather the arguments you can start.
>>
>> >"Yet you *know* that you made such an assertion... and you refuse to
>> >retract it. Why is that, Rob? Do you think that your problems will go
>> >away if only I stop posting?"
>>
>> >I don't any such thing, as I know there was more to the quote and you
>> >are afraid to post it.
>>
>
>"Oh? =A0Coming up next, the ENTIRE post..."
>
>Good.
Sadly, you ran from it.
>> >> >and can be tested in the same manner.
>>
>> >"Testing was *not* the issue. Your insane belief that if two
>> >fragments of a single bullet (or pencil, as in my analogy) cannot be
>> >*PROVEN* to have come from the same bullet (or pencil, as in my
>> >analogy) then they *MUST* have come from two."
>>
>> >This is NOT insane nitwit, this is common sense.
>>
>
>"No, Rob... it's not. Tell everyone where the second pencil is..."
>
>I know you have a phallic symbol complex, but this is getting
>ridiculous! Tell me where the bag of bullet pieces are....
In Santa's sleigh, the right hand side door compartment.
>> >Your inability to
>> >grasp this issue is quite funny. When they FAILED to prove they came
>> >from the same bullet the answer automatically became they came from
>> >seperate bullets.
>>
>
>"No Rob... incorrect."
>
>You are looking at it in two ways. One, you have to and want to win,
>your low-self esteem can't take anything else. This is why you are in
>judo, you are compensating.
Tell that to any athlete. Try not to mind the laughter...
>Secondly, you are looking at it in a
>literal sense, NOT a legal sense. The two are quite different.
There is no "sense" at all in which a failure to prove fragments came from
one
bullet automatically proves that they came from two.
>Normal, everyday logic does not mean they could NOT be from one
>bullet, I agree, but this is not about normal, everyday logic. This
>is about a murder case, and the prosecutors (WC) asserted a theory,
>and they asserted a method (NAA) to be fool-proof in determining LHO's
>guilt, yet here at the crux of their case (right beside the SBT) is
>this problem. They found two fragments in a limo (regardless of how
>they got there) and they can't PROVE they came from one bullet.
Nor can any test known at the time, or at *this* time, prove such.
>This is huge as we have discussed. The other two shots are not in
>contention, therefore, IF these fragments are NOT from the same bullet
>their whole case is down the drain. And you are sup****ting their
>effort to prevent this by arguing for arguing sake.
You must think that the SBT is how everything actually happened, so you
must
fight and lie about the evidence ...
But you don't have to. The evidence, AS IT IS, will show what happened.
There's no need to lie about the evidence. No fake "logic" needed to try
to
create extra bullets ... THE EVIDENCE ALREADY SHOWS THAT THERE WERE EXTRA
BULLETS. What the evidence IS INCAPABLE of showing is that the two limo
fragments belonged to one or two bullets.
>> >You do not understand ballistics at all.
>>
>
>"Evidently, far better than you. I've *told* you before to go educate
>yourself on this... so you don't keep looking stupid by confusing
>ballistics testing with NAA testing... but you evidently STILL haven't
>done so."
>
>I understand the difference, they put NAA, Ballistics, and
>Spectography under one lab, therefore, when I mention ballistics it
>encomp***** all of these.
No, Samantha - you can't get away with such nonsense. If you mean
*BALLISTIC
TESTING*, you say ballistic testing... if you mean NAA testing, you say
it.
Everyone else is capable of making the distinction ...
Tell you what, Samantha... find a citation that says what you just said.
Find
ANY REASONABLE EXPERT IN THE FIELDS OF WEAPONRY, FORENSICS, POLICE
SCIENCE,
BALLISTICS... anyone at all that would sound authoritative - and cite them
saying that ballistics testing encomp***** NAA testing.
I know, already, that you won't (and can't) do so... but it's fun to point
it
out.
>This is what you are reduced to, trying to
>find some slim hope of hanging in there.
The truth doesn't change because you don't understand it.
>> >They had
>> >a chance to match them, they tried and got a negative result,
>>
>
>"Ballistics is capable of matching 50 bullets to each other. As long
>as they were fired out of the same barrel, and have enough rifling
>marks to compare..."
>
>Another nail in the coffin! Thanks! Because they said the fragments
>and the CE399 bullet were ALL fired from the CE139 rifle! Of course
>they will act like one of the fragments was too mutialated to test
>properly.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Went right over your head, didn't it?
If a test is capable of matching 50 bullets to EACH OTHER - then it's
obviously
incapable of differentiating one bullet from another.
The more you post, the more ignorance you reveal, Samantha.
This one's a keeper!
>>
>> >this
>> >means they did NOT come from the same bullet. What is so hard to
>> >comprehend about this?
>>
>
>"Your incredible ignorance..."
>
>Not ingorant enough not to know when I'm being lied to.
Quote the lie, then the citation that makes it so...
>> >So I guess you will argue a negative result on
>> >the cheek paraffin test does NOT mean he did NOT shoot a rifle either,
>> >right? =A0What does a test mean anyway, right?
>>
>
>"Feel free to look up my posts on the topic. I have quite a few...
>Question #12 deals quite explicitly with the topic."
>
>I already knew this, that was my point! But in your posts here you
>should NOT be arguing in favor of LHO NOT firing a rifle because
>negative results mean nothing to you.
He didn't fire a rifle. That *IS* what the evidence shows. And negative
results *DO* mean something - they just don't mean what you think it
means.
>> >"In fact, just to eliminate your proposed problem of testing issues...
>> >I'll take a 6.5mm bullet... and using a hacksaw - saw a bullet into
>> >three pieces... put the middle piece into my pocket without your
>> >knowledge... then hand you the nose and the tail of the bullet. You
>> >will, of course, be unable to prove that the two pieces are from the
>> >same bullet (even the FBI stopped this nonsensical NAA testing
>> >procedure a few years back) - and will then proclaim that they are
>> >from two different bullets...."
>>
>> >Well, that is their problem Ben, isn't it.
>>
>
>"No, Rob... it's science. NAA testing is not capable of matching two
>fragments
> to the same bullet.http://www.ctka.net/death_of_naa.htmlis
one of
>many citations possible. Here's
>another:http://www.assassinationweb.com/linchpin2.htm"
>
>Again, how is this my problem? Did I invent NAA testing? Did I say
>LHO was guilty because of it? If they are going to claim it shows
>guilt in one area, they have to accept failure in the other.
Samantha, it's YOUR PROBLEM because you keep claiming that a negative
result
MUST HAVE MEANT THAT THE LIMO FRAGMENTS CAME FROM TWO SEPARATE BULLETS.
When in fact a negative result would have been perfectly normal. EVEN FOR
FRAGMENTS THAT CAME FROM THE SAME BULLET.
The testing can't do what you claim for it.
>"Do some reading, Rob - so that your ignorance doesn't show so
>much..."
>
>Look at Ben thumping his chest, like I don't know NAA was just shown
>to be a fraud, but that is NOT the issue.
Of course it is... you keep claiming that the two limo fragments MUST have
come
from two separate bullets, AND BASE THIS ON THE NEGATIVE RESULTS OF A TEST
WHO'S
RESULTS, POSITIVE *OR* NEGATIVE, DON'T PROVE WHAT YOU THINK IT PROVES...
>The FBI said it was
>foolproof in 1964 on and the WC accepted its findings in their
>re****t. You are distorting the issue again by doing what you accussed
>me of - using post 1964 knowledge in your defense.
I'm perfectly capable of using *any* evidence I want - because my
assertion to
you is that you cannot use the WCR by itself to impugn itself - you must
ALSO
USE THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAD.
By the way, you've never admitted the truth of this statement, despite
your
complete lack of ability to show *ANY* conspiracy based only on the WCR.
>> >Obviously it is your
>> >problem too since you feel the need to defend them for 6 months.
=A0They
>> >used NAA to try and convince everyone LHO did the crime, so when it
>> >doesn't work that is their problem. =A0The issue is they could NOT
match
>> >them, what else does a court need to hear?
>>
>
>"A court would laugh at your preconceptions... Someday, if you ever
>actually read the citations I keep throwing your way, you might even
>enjoy a laugh at what you thought you knew..."
>
>Ben, you are a joke. Your citations cannot teach me anything about the
>legal system I don't already know. You are flailing again.
I note for the record that you've not said anything about the citations...
>> >"Where's the other bullet, Rob?"
>>
>> >This is NOT the same thing and I can't believe you think it is. You
>> >are starting with a whole bullet and making pieces, but how do you
>> >know these two fragments came from a whole bullet? =A0You don't, and
>> >CAN'T PROVE IT. =A0Your are playing a semantics game to avoid looking
>> >wrong. =A0In theory of course I see your analogy, but proving it is
>> >impossible, why do you NOT see the value in this?
>>
>
>"Stupidity *IS* curable..."
>
>Not always as you are still suffering from it.
>
>
>"Okay Rob... At the risk of making you look even more stupid than the
>above example does... I hand you the tail end of a bullet, and the
>nose end of a bullet. There's no physical overlap, SO THERE'S NO
>PROOF THAT THEY CAME FROM ONE BULLET OR TWO BULLETS. NAA testing
>cannot prove anything, AS MY CITATIONS PROVE...
>
>"So how many bullets did I originally have, that these two fragments
>came from?"
>
>Who knows???
Yep... a correct answer. Yet it contradicts all of your previous posting
on
this topic.
>You think this proves your point,
It does... you use PRECISELY THE SAME EVIDENCE to assert that the two
fragments
came from two bullets.
>but you are small-
>minded as it proves there is no way to know, therefore, when the WC
>asserts it is from one bullet to make their 3 shot/2 hit scenario
>work, they can't. It baffles me that you don't get this.
I've *always* understood it. You're the only one who's written paragraphs
contradicting this.
>They can't
>have any answer but it being ONE bullet for the sole assassin theory
>to even remotely sound possible (just like the SBT), yet as you have
>just shown this is IMPOSSIBLE to state as fact. Under my sinking they
>are sunk, and we have a conspiracy. Under your thinking they get a
>reprieve and continue to lie and distort history.
Every time I think you finally understood it, you prove that you didn't.
>> >> >He thinks because he knows he starts with a whole pencil that
>> >> >is the same has finding two fragments that CANNOT BE LINKED to the
>> >> >same source.
>>
>> >"The two ends of the pencil that I hand to you CANNOT BE PROVEN TO
>> >HAVE COME FROM ONE PENCIL (absent my testimony to that effect).
>> >Therefore, you must proclaim that I had two pencils...
>> >where's the other pencil, Rob?"
>>
>> >Ben, you are confused. =A0In your scenario you know they are parts of
>> >the same pencil because you cut it up, but in real life, this is NOT
>> >the case. =A0When you arrive at a crime scene you are not privy
>> >initially to all the details like this. You need ballistics to
>> >ascertain these things, and the bottom line is there is NO proof they
>> >came from the same source. =A0This is called reasonable doubt in
court.
>> >Continue to defend the indefensible, it is your preogative.
>> So how many bullets did I originally have, that these two fragments
came f=
>rom?
>>
>> >> >Ben has NO understanding of basic science laws and priciples.
>>
>> >"Actually, far better than you... you didn't even recognize the
>> >"thought experiment" that Einstein made so famous..."
>>
>> >You are trying to side-track the issue again.
>>
>> I referred PRECISELY to the "science laws and priciples" that you
referred=
> to.
>>
>> >> >He is a coward who calls people child molesters, but then backs off
>> >> >and says you called yourself one. Man up!
>>
>> >"Quote the statement, Rob... Let's see EXACTLY what the words are...
>> >Were you a "man," I wouldn't have to ask you... you'd have already
>> >quoted it."
>>
>> >You think because you wrote "he claims" you are off the hook,
>
>"Did I 'call you a child molester', or did I assert that 'you claim
>you're a child molester'?"
>
>Same thing as you can't cite where I claimed I'm a child molester.
Nor, Samantha, can you cite where I claimed that the two limo fragments
might
have come from CE399.
You don't seem to think its okay for me to lie about what *YOU* said...
but it's
perfectly understandable that you can lie about what *I* said.
You're wrong.
>You goal is to distort. I can't cite you claimed you serviced all the
>guys' "rifles" in your platoon either, but oh well.
>
>"Lies like this one are just stupid."
>
>They are also sick, why bring in kids to this debate?
Because sometimes it's the only thing to do to someone too stupid to think
otherwise.
You STILL refuse to admit that you lied about what I'd asserted, and I
reposted
the entire post.
Rather dishonest, wouldn't you say?
>> >but of
>> >course I never claimed any such thing.
>>
>
>"Tell me Rob... did I *ever* claim that the 44 grain and/or 21 grain
>fragment might have come from CE399?"
>
>Ben, I have said I didn't think you did, I said I think I said
>something in regards to the testing of the fragments and the CE399 and
>you took it that way.
Yeah, I know you tried to change it to the THREE fragments found in
Connally's
wrist... of course, this is a theory that you tried on me just days ago,
and not
back in November.
Look, this is really simple... You lied - and you refuse to either quote
me (I'm
quite sure you know that's not possible), or retract what you *KNOW* is an
incorrect statement.
So you're going to keep hearing your claims of child molestation. Tis as
simple
as that.
>"A simple yes or no is all that's needed."
>
>I would say no.
Then you're a liar. It's been quoted a number of times now.
>A retraction is not needed since I never said you did
>say it,
Then you have nothing to complain about, do you? I used the *SAME
SENTENCE
STRUCTURE* in my response to you.
>all you have provided is a partial quote
And you're a liar... you've already seen, AND RESPONDED TO, the complete
post
from back in November that I reposted earlier today.
>saying something
>about this, but I don't remember the whole context.
I reposted THE ENTIRE POST.
Gutlessly dishonest coward....
>If it makes you
>feel better I apologize for saying you claimed that the two fragments
>came from the CE399.
Thankyou.
It was as simple as that.
>I never really thought you did, but I'm a man
>who is not afraid to apologize. I wish you shared that trait as you
>have really been rude, but that is your style I guess.
>
>
>>
>> If you say no - then a retraction of your lie should be forthcoming.
>> If you say yes - then a simple citation is all you need.
>>
>> >It is your sick mind at
>> >work.
>>
>
>"By the way, I understand why you keep refusing to respond to the post
>below...
>
>"It demonstrates, beyond all doubt... that you're a liar."
>
>No it doesn't. I have not wasted time responding because I did today
>on a very long post, and then I go to post it and the stupid board
>won't post it. I can email it to you if you want. I have tried to
>make a new post with it, but the board won't take it. This happened
>with a long post I had in the JFK-Vietnam thread as well. Not sure
>what is going on.
>
>
>> >> >On May 15, 9:45=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> Just a repost of one of many snippets that Rob refuses to respond
to=
>:
>>
>> >> >> >Now, you may have taken this
>> >> >> >to mean I thought you thought this, but that was not my point.
>>
>> >> >> >> And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED*
put=
>
>> >> >> >> those words in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone
(me)=
> sa=3D
>> >id
>> >> >> >> that the fragments came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)"
>>
>> >> >> >I didn't put words in your mouth Ben, you interpreted it that
way,
>>
>> >> >> What part of "He claims..." did you misunderstand?
>>
>> >> >> Here... let's play the semantic game... Rob thinks that the 44 &
21 =
>gra=3D
>> >in
>> >> >> fragments found in the limo *must* be from separate bullets,
since t=
>her=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> is no proof possible that they are from the same bullet. He
claims t=
>hat=3D
>>
>> >> >> he's a child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record.
>>
>> >> >> Did you catch that? Need I repeat it?
>>
>> >> >> Now... I "didn't put words in your mouth", Rob... I used
PRECISELY t=
>he =3D
>> >same
>> >> >> sentence construction you did, to wit: "He claims..."
>>
>> >> >> So you have
>>
>> ...
|
