Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 15, 2019 20:12:53 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.
**************************************************************
In Ben's denial of claiming "the odds favored" both limousine fragments coming from one bullet based on an inconclusive (neutral) result he has told more lies. It all started with this statement by him.
Quote on
Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim both limousine 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)
Quote off
Ben is NOW denying and lying about HIS OWN WORDS! I know this because I gave him a chance to retract it, and he stood his ground.
Quote on
Care to retract your lie that the inconclusive "favors" the WC's side in this case? (Robert)
“How can I retract it? It's the truth.” (Ben Holmes – 7/20/09)
Quote off
NOW of course he is saying it was NOT based on the inconclusive but rather HIS logic. He gave me an analogy to show HIS logic to me.
Quote on
Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't understand. Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them hits the door's armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What are the odds of *that* happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the odds, the odds against *TWO* pennies balancing on their edge in that limo is quite a bit higher.
Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces and the middle piece is missing. Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly quite high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three pieces, BOTH middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and *ONE* base from the other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit higher.
Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.” (Ben Homes – 7/26/09)
Quote off
Let's look at this horrible analogy, and outright lie, piece by piece, okay?
“Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't understand. Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them hits the door's armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What are the odds of *that* happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the odds, the odds against *TWO* pennies balancing on their edge in that limo is quite a bit higher."
First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the claim of one full-metal jacketed (FMJ) bullet hitting President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in the head and then breaking into three pieces has NEVER BEEN SUPPORTED LET ALONE PROVEN! It is just a claim by the Warren Commission (WC) to explain these two limousine fragments that HAVE NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY!
Now, lets look at his analogy. How can one who is honest make a comparison between "tossing pennies into a limo" and two bullet fragments that were tested extensively that INCLUDED organic compound testing? Isn't this a case of being totally dishonest in regards to what actually happened?
Now for the second part.
"Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces, and the middle piece is missing. Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly quite high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three pieces, BOTH middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and *ONE* base from the other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit higher."
He states categorically, "You have one bullet that broke into three pieces..." as IF that was EVER PROVEN! When was this proven again? When has Ben shown me a cite that says it is NORMAL for FMJ bullets to break into three pieces? NO such cite as ever been given just as NO cite showing the WC's claim of this bullet breaking into three pieces has ever been proven. He then states, "...and the middle piece is missing." NO, that is what the WC claimed happened, but they did NOT prove it, did they?
Next he gets into how the odds favor his thinking IF just the nose and base, with the middle part missing, being found as this scenario points to one bullet. Most people with no agenda would feel that it points more to multiple bullets however. He may be right as I'm NO statistical genius, but that was NOT his point earlier. His point was that the inclusive answer FAVORED a match, and only when I called him on this he brought up this other stuff. Furthermore, we have seen this is all a faulty premise anyway as the WC NEVER PROVED this is what occurred in the limousine. Ben is basing his logic and reasoning on a faulty premise, and acting like it is a FACT! He is telling lies to BENEFIT this faulty premise.
The two fragments were NEVER linked to JFK in the slightest way. Here is what the WC lacked in their claim that both limousine fragments were part of the shooting of JFK.
1) Chain of custody -- these fragments were "found" 12-14 hours AFTER the shooting when the limousine was flown back to D.C.
2) There is NO evidence showing these two fragments were ever INSIDE JFK. They did contain blood and Frazier testified to "cleaning it off before doing his tests" and NO one on the WC had a problem with this, and this included the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!
Of course DNA testing was NOT available back then but they could have checked blood type, and checked for clothing striations and tissue. They did NONE of this stuff.
3) There is NO evidence that a FMJ bullet will break into three pieces when making contact with a human skull. They did a bunch of testing on skulls but they never told us if it was normal for a FMJ to break into three pieces during their tests. Experts in ammunition say it is NOT normal, and the magic bullet would attest to this as it allegedly caused 7 wounds and broke two dense bones and did NOT break into three pieces.
4) They never proved one of the fragments dented the chrome frame of the windshield as they claimed. Or that one of them hit the windshield. What about the side view mirror? What hit that?
In short, the WC NEVER proved any of this claim and their OWN TESTS did NOT support their claim, but Ben is here SUPPORTING their claim.
Quote on
"Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.” (Ben Homes – 7/26/09)
Quote off
The "odds favor" the two fragments coming from ONE bullet ONLY IF one IGNORES the FACT that the WC did NOT prove ANY OF THEIR CLAIM! Ben is supporting the WC despite them NOT supporting anything and claiming that an inconclusive favors a match!
Will he retract his lies?
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.
**************************************************************
In Ben's denial of claiming "the odds favored" both limousine fragments coming from one bullet based on an inconclusive (neutral) result he has told more lies. It all started with this statement by him.
Quote on
Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim both limousine 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)
Quote off
Ben is NOW denying and lying about HIS OWN WORDS! I know this because I gave him a chance to retract it, and he stood his ground.
Quote on
Care to retract your lie that the inconclusive "favors" the WC's side in this case? (Robert)
“How can I retract it? It's the truth.” (Ben Holmes – 7/20/09)
Quote off
NOW of course he is saying it was NOT based on the inconclusive but rather HIS logic. He gave me an analogy to show HIS logic to me.
Quote on
Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't understand. Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them hits the door's armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What are the odds of *that* happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the odds, the odds against *TWO* pennies balancing on their edge in that limo is quite a bit higher.
Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces and the middle piece is missing. Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly quite high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three pieces, BOTH middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and *ONE* base from the other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit higher.
Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.” (Ben Homes – 7/26/09)
Quote off
Let's look at this horrible analogy, and outright lie, piece by piece, okay?
“Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't understand. Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them hits the door's armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What are the odds of *that* happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the odds, the odds against *TWO* pennies balancing on their edge in that limo is quite a bit higher."
First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the claim of one full-metal jacketed (FMJ) bullet hitting President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in the head and then breaking into three pieces has NEVER BEEN SUPPORTED LET ALONE PROVEN! It is just a claim by the Warren Commission (WC) to explain these two limousine fragments that HAVE NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY!
Now, lets look at his analogy. How can one who is honest make a comparison between "tossing pennies into a limo" and two bullet fragments that were tested extensively that INCLUDED organic compound testing? Isn't this a case of being totally dishonest in regards to what actually happened?
Now for the second part.
"Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces, and the middle piece is missing. Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly quite high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three pieces, BOTH middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and *ONE* base from the other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit higher."
He states categorically, "You have one bullet that broke into three pieces..." as IF that was EVER PROVEN! When was this proven again? When has Ben shown me a cite that says it is NORMAL for FMJ bullets to break into three pieces? NO such cite as ever been given just as NO cite showing the WC's claim of this bullet breaking into three pieces has ever been proven. He then states, "...and the middle piece is missing." NO, that is what the WC claimed happened, but they did NOT prove it, did they?
Next he gets into how the odds favor his thinking IF just the nose and base, with the middle part missing, being found as this scenario points to one bullet. Most people with no agenda would feel that it points more to multiple bullets however. He may be right as I'm NO statistical genius, but that was NOT his point earlier. His point was that the inclusive answer FAVORED a match, and only when I called him on this he brought up this other stuff. Furthermore, we have seen this is all a faulty premise anyway as the WC NEVER PROVED this is what occurred in the limousine. Ben is basing his logic and reasoning on a faulty premise, and acting like it is a FACT! He is telling lies to BENEFIT this faulty premise.
The two fragments were NEVER linked to JFK in the slightest way. Here is what the WC lacked in their claim that both limousine fragments were part of the shooting of JFK.
1) Chain of custody -- these fragments were "found" 12-14 hours AFTER the shooting when the limousine was flown back to D.C.
2) There is NO evidence showing these two fragments were ever INSIDE JFK. They did contain blood and Frazier testified to "cleaning it off before doing his tests" and NO one on the WC had a problem with this, and this included the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!
Of course DNA testing was NOT available back then but they could have checked blood type, and checked for clothing striations and tissue. They did NONE of this stuff.
3) There is NO evidence that a FMJ bullet will break into three pieces when making contact with a human skull. They did a bunch of testing on skulls but they never told us if it was normal for a FMJ to break into three pieces during their tests. Experts in ammunition say it is NOT normal, and the magic bullet would attest to this as it allegedly caused 7 wounds and broke two dense bones and did NOT break into three pieces.
4) They never proved one of the fragments dented the chrome frame of the windshield as they claimed. Or that one of them hit the windshield. What about the side view mirror? What hit that?
In short, the WC NEVER proved any of this claim and their OWN TESTS did NOT support their claim, but Ben is here SUPPORTING their claim.
Quote on
"Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.” (Ben Homes – 7/26/09)
Quote off
The "odds favor" the two fragments coming from ONE bullet ONLY IF one IGNORES the FACT that the WC did NOT prove ANY OF THEIR CLAIM! Ben is supporting the WC despite them NOT supporting anything and claiming that an inconclusive favors a match!
Will he retract his lies?
