Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 8, 2019 21:23:44 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
Notice To Lurkers:
Ben will deny these very obvious lies by claiming he has given evidence already (a favorite trick of the LNer clan) or that he has quoted me saying something, but do NOT fall for it. Demand him to provide this evidence to you. Demand that he provides my quote IN context as he has a habit of EDITING other people’s words and ignoring clarifications even when they are made BEFORE he responded.
Ben will resort to insults and false accusations like all LNers do so take note of how often he does this.
****************************************
I have said there are three results in a ballistic test, but only two that count all by themselves! Ben has played a game with this for a year and half now by insisting that I have stated that an inconclusive is a not a result when I have always said it was -- just not one worth anything by itself.
He has quoted me out of context by leaving out the part of the inconclusive being a result but NOT one that proves anything by itself, thus, he keeps claiming I insist there are only two results.
Why does he play this game? Because the inconclusive is very important to the Warren Commission (WC) and to ALL those who support their theory of a lone gunman shooting President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
Here is a little quick history of the case for those not totally familiar with it. The WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired three shots in 5.6 seconds from the SE 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) building at JFK. The results were given as follows for these three shots:
1 - Missed the limousine and hit the concrete abutment near the Triple Overpass area, and a piece flew up and wounded bystander James Tague.
1 - Allegedly entered JFK at the base of the neck and exited through his throat and then entered Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC) in the back. It then exited his right nipple after breaking a rib bone, then went into his right wrist, breaking the radius bone, then it exited the wrist and entered his left thigh partially.
1- Allegedly hit JFK in the back of the head and exited the right temple.
Thus, we see that the three shots and three bullets are accounted for. The problem arose when they "found" two fragments in the limo when it was seized from the area of jurisdiction and taken back to Washington, D.C. (12-14 hours after the shooting). These fragments could have ONLY come from one bullet as the one missed the limousine and left, and the other one, the magic one, was ONLY missing 2.4 grains from it and these fragments weighed a good bit more than that. Thus, we are left with the head shot to account for the two fragments.
So they did tests on the fragments to see if they did indeed come from one bullet. They used a standard grooves and lands test and even the new Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) method, but could not match the two fragments which would have shown that they came from the same bullet. Therefore, they had a quandary. If they came from separate bullets they had to admit there was a fourth shot. If they admitted there was a fourth shot, they had to admit there was a second gunman. If they admitted there was a second gunman they had to admit there was a conspiracy. They weren't interested in finding a conspiracy, so they did what they would do a lot of -- they distorted and lied to cover the truth.
They claimed that they received an inconclusive result on this point. IOW, they did NOT get a match! For a defense team the ONLY thing that makes their case tougher is a match as that proves the gun in question fired the bullet found in the victim. Of course the prosecutor then has to prove that the defendant is the one that fired that bullet, but this is a big step in that direction. An inconclusive result does not favor the prosecution in the least as they then have to try and use this by bringing in expert witnesses to give their opinion and of course the defense can do the same. ONLY the strength of the other evidence will determine which way this "expert" battle goes.
And yet, Ben has given us this lie recently:
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben Holmes – 7/14/09)
When asked for evidence of how an inconclusive (a neutral result) result could FAVOR one side over another we got this reply:
“If you can't figure it out, then nothing I can do can explain it to you. The explanations already given should have been sufficient.” (Ben Holmes – 7/19/09)
When pressed further on this he gave us "logic" INSTEAD of evidence. Ben has NOT offered one iota of evidence on how an inconclusive result can favor the claim of the WC that both limousine fragments came from one bullet when their own tests COULD NOT MAKE THIS DETERMINATION!
Ben has lied for the benefit of the WC. Will he retract it?
Notice To Lurkers:
Ben will deny these very obvious lies by claiming he has given evidence already (a favorite trick of the LNer clan) or that he has quoted me saying something, but do NOT fall for it. Demand him to provide this evidence to you. Demand that he provides my quote IN context as he has a habit of EDITING other people’s words and ignoring clarifications even when they are made BEFORE he responded.
Ben will resort to insults and false accusations like all LNers do so take note of how often he does this.
****************************************
I have said there are three results in a ballistic test, but only two that count all by themselves! Ben has played a game with this for a year and half now by insisting that I have stated that an inconclusive is a not a result when I have always said it was -- just not one worth anything by itself.
He has quoted me out of context by leaving out the part of the inconclusive being a result but NOT one that proves anything by itself, thus, he keeps claiming I insist there are only two results.
Why does he play this game? Because the inconclusive is very important to the Warren Commission (WC) and to ALL those who support their theory of a lone gunman shooting President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
Here is a little quick history of the case for those not totally familiar with it. The WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired three shots in 5.6 seconds from the SE 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) building at JFK. The results were given as follows for these three shots:
1 - Missed the limousine and hit the concrete abutment near the Triple Overpass area, and a piece flew up and wounded bystander James Tague.
1 - Allegedly entered JFK at the base of the neck and exited through his throat and then entered Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC) in the back. It then exited his right nipple after breaking a rib bone, then went into his right wrist, breaking the radius bone, then it exited the wrist and entered his left thigh partially.
1- Allegedly hit JFK in the back of the head and exited the right temple.
Thus, we see that the three shots and three bullets are accounted for. The problem arose when they "found" two fragments in the limo when it was seized from the area of jurisdiction and taken back to Washington, D.C. (12-14 hours after the shooting). These fragments could have ONLY come from one bullet as the one missed the limousine and left, and the other one, the magic one, was ONLY missing 2.4 grains from it and these fragments weighed a good bit more than that. Thus, we are left with the head shot to account for the two fragments.
So they did tests on the fragments to see if they did indeed come from one bullet. They used a standard grooves and lands test and even the new Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) method, but could not match the two fragments which would have shown that they came from the same bullet. Therefore, they had a quandary. If they came from separate bullets they had to admit there was a fourth shot. If they admitted there was a fourth shot, they had to admit there was a second gunman. If they admitted there was a second gunman they had to admit there was a conspiracy. They weren't interested in finding a conspiracy, so they did what they would do a lot of -- they distorted and lied to cover the truth.
They claimed that they received an inconclusive result on this point. IOW, they did NOT get a match! For a defense team the ONLY thing that makes their case tougher is a match as that proves the gun in question fired the bullet found in the victim. Of course the prosecutor then has to prove that the defendant is the one that fired that bullet, but this is a big step in that direction. An inconclusive result does not favor the prosecution in the least as they then have to try and use this by bringing in expert witnesses to give their opinion and of course the defense can do the same. ONLY the strength of the other evidence will determine which way this "expert" battle goes.
And yet, Ben has given us this lie recently:
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben Holmes – 7/14/09)
When asked for evidence of how an inconclusive (a neutral result) result could FAVOR one side over another we got this reply:
“If you can't figure it out, then nothing I can do can explain it to you. The explanations already given should have been sufficient.” (Ben Holmes – 7/19/09)
When pressed further on this he gave us "logic" INSTEAD of evidence. Ben has NOT offered one iota of evidence on how an inconclusive result can favor the claim of the WC that both limousine fragments came from one bullet when their own tests COULD NOT MAKE THIS DETERMINATION!
Ben has lied for the benefit of the WC. Will he retract it?