Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 26, 2019 19:53:15 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.
*******************************************************************
Let's start to add in Ben's OWN notice as he does EXACTLY what he warns you folks LNers will do!
“Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.” (Ben Holmes’s Refrain on his “series” posts.)
******************************************************************
This lie comes courtesy of the liar himself -- Ben Holmes. He keeps posting this same lame claim that I lied and I did NOT pick up on the lie he is making about me lying until today. Read on and enjoy and ask yourself -- will Ben ever retract his obvious lies for once? I doubt it as he uses the same tactics he warns the lurkers about above!
Quote on
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which number does Robert Caprio favor?
[Note: I NEVER provided a last name on ACJ. My handle was “robcap@netscape" so why did Ben use this last name? As the board owner John McAdams would be likely to have the information used to register with. This was one of many reasons why I suspected that “Ben Holmes" was really McAdams.]
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
Quote Off
First of all, I was NOT caught in a stupid lie, nor a brilliant lie, I did NOT lie at all. I said from the beginning (1/2008 if I recall correctly) there are three outcomes, but ONLY two count as proof by THEMSELVES! An inconclusive is a neutral conclusion and one that does NOT favor a match or a non-match by itself. Ben AGREED WITH ME, so If I'm lying he is lying too!
“Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing the test.” (Ben Holmes – 7/23/09)
Now Ben threw in a caveat -- the word proof -- as if when one reaches.a non-match or a match it is NOT just common sense they did NOT. He.ADDED THE WORD "PROOF" to try and make me look like I'm lying as I said ONLY a match or a non-match proves anything by themselves! Of.course I was referring to a weapon in question and a court of law, but Ben added the point the inconclusive PROVES it is NOT a match or a non-match to MANUFACTURE a lie by me. He does this all the time. In fact, I'm glad he did this as I will just cut and paste this to one of his "Provable Lies".
An inconclusive is a neutral conclusion and cannot FAVOR one side over the other, but the WC disagreed with me, and Ben has disagreed with me. Ben, like the WC thinks the inconclusive in this case regarding the two limo fragments FAVOR they came from ONE bullet just like the WC did. The WC said this so they could limit the shooting sequence to THREE bullets and keep their claim of LHO firing alone alive. I guess Ben also supports this scenario and the SBT too, huh?
I asked for evidence in how the inconclusive FAVORED a side and first I got flat-out denial he said it despite me posting his OWN WORDS like 25 times!
“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)
When denial did NOT work then we got his "logic" instead. Ben gave me a dumb analogy about tossing pennies into a limousine. OF course he did NOT include in the analogy the part of the pennies being cut up and tested for organic compounds like the two limo fragments were!
Ben gives us his "logic" instead of evidence to make his WC FAVORED argument that the two limo fragments came from ONE bullet when the WC's own tests did NOT support this conclusion, but we are NOT supposed to think he is a WC Shill, huh?
Will he retract his lies? I doubt it because I gave him a chance awhile ago to do so, and he stood his ground by saying this!
“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)
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.
*******************************************************************
Let's start to add in Ben's OWN notice as he does EXACTLY what he warns you folks LNers will do!
“Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.” (Ben Holmes’s Refrain on his “series” posts.)
******************************************************************
This lie comes courtesy of the liar himself -- Ben Holmes. He keeps posting this same lame claim that I lied and I did NOT pick up on the lie he is making about me lying until today. Read on and enjoy and ask yourself -- will Ben ever retract his obvious lies for once? I doubt it as he uses the same tactics he warns the lurkers about above!
Quote on
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which number does Robert Caprio favor?
[Note: I NEVER provided a last name on ACJ. My handle was “robcap@netscape" so why did Ben use this last name? As the board owner John McAdams would be likely to have the information used to register with. This was one of many reasons why I suspected that “Ben Holmes" was really McAdams.]
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
Quote Off
First of all, I was NOT caught in a stupid lie, nor a brilliant lie, I did NOT lie at all. I said from the beginning (1/2008 if I recall correctly) there are three outcomes, but ONLY two count as proof by THEMSELVES! An inconclusive is a neutral conclusion and one that does NOT favor a match or a non-match by itself. Ben AGREED WITH ME, so If I'm lying he is lying too!
“Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing the test.” (Ben Holmes – 7/23/09)
Now Ben threw in a caveat -- the word proof -- as if when one reaches.a non-match or a match it is NOT just common sense they did NOT. He.ADDED THE WORD "PROOF" to try and make me look like I'm lying as I said ONLY a match or a non-match proves anything by themselves! Of.course I was referring to a weapon in question and a court of law, but Ben added the point the inconclusive PROVES it is NOT a match or a non-match to MANUFACTURE a lie by me. He does this all the time. In fact, I'm glad he did this as I will just cut and paste this to one of his "Provable Lies".
An inconclusive is a neutral conclusion and cannot FAVOR one side over the other, but the WC disagreed with me, and Ben has disagreed with me. Ben, like the WC thinks the inconclusive in this case regarding the two limo fragments FAVOR they came from ONE bullet just like the WC did. The WC said this so they could limit the shooting sequence to THREE bullets and keep their claim of LHO firing alone alive. I guess Ben also supports this scenario and the SBT too, huh?
I asked for evidence in how the inconclusive FAVORED a side and first I got flat-out denial he said it despite me posting his OWN WORDS like 25 times!
“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)
When denial did NOT work then we got his "logic" instead. Ben gave me a dumb analogy about tossing pennies into a limousine. OF course he did NOT include in the analogy the part of the pennies being cut up and tested for organic compounds like the two limo fragments were!
Ben gives us his "logic" instead of evidence to make his WC FAVORED argument that the two limo fragments came from ONE bullet when the WC's own tests did NOT support this conclusion, but we are NOT supposed to think he is a WC Shill, huh?
Will he retract his lies? I doubt it because I gave him a chance awhile ago to do so, and he stood his ground by saying this!
“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)