Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 8, 2020 20:36:08 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 peoples' 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.)
******************************************************************
Why does Ben Holmes allow Walt Cakebread to lie constantly by making claims he WON'T support and that benefit the Warren Commission’s (WC) theory?
Remember, Ben has said this to me and things like it to others for years!
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
And!
“Liars always have a hard time supporting their words.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
And!
“It's not unexpected. Cowards who cannot support their own words just *HATE* having that fact pointed out.” (Ben Holmes – 6/29/09)
You get the point, right? So why can Walt make all kinds of crazy claims and wildly speculate BUT NEVER HEAR FROM BEN?
Like this!
"Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the wooden foregrip of CE 139 when found." (Robert)
In the official theory Lieutenant Carl Day claimed to have done a lift (the evidence does NOT support the claim of ANY lift having been done) on the metal barrel located on the underside of the rifle when he REMOVED the wooden foregrip. Walt has changed this slightly, but kept the same point intact -- that there was a print on the rifle when it was found. Walt said the "smudged" print was on the wooden foregrip INSTEAD of the metal barrel, but his point is otherwise the same as Lt. Day's and the WC's.
Sebastian Latona was the FBI expert who viewed the rifle just hours after it was found and he is on record (WC testimony) saying that he saw NO prints and saw NO indication of a lift having been done. Latona had been at this a long time and had way more experience than Lt. Day and access to better equipment; and all he said he found were a few unidentifiable ridge formations near the trigger guard. That is it! He would also say that after viewing the rifle he found there had been NO processing done on it prior to him receiving it. By processing he means dusting for prints and lifts to name a few. Thus, the claim of Lt. Day and the WC that this rifle was processed by Lt. Day does NOT hold up.
There would be confusion by the three (Day, Latona and WC) regarding the alleged lift as I said. Here is what each said about it.
WC - Lt. Day did a lift and it was so good it left NOTHING of the print on the rifle.
Day - He said he did a lift but could still see the print when he was done.
Latona - He said he saw NO indication of a lift being done.
To add insult to injury, Day NEVER photographed the alleged print PRIOR to his alleged lift, thus, he violated all crime scene procedures by ignoring this key piece of the evidence gathering phase.
Walt said this to me!
"Latona was talking about the METAL gun barrel.... Day lifted that smudge from the WOODEN foregrip.” (Walt)
This is a lie on so many levels. Latona examined the WHOLE rifle and he was NOT limiting his comments to the "metal gun barrel" as Walt claims. He said he found NO palmprint on the metal gun barrel as Lt. Day claimed, but when he said he saw NO INDICATION of a lift he was referring to the ENTIRE rifle, not just the gun barrel as he would have had to be blind not to see it IF one had been done. (IV, p. 24)
Still, Walt continues to claim a lift was done and a "smudged print" was found on the wooden foregrip. What evidence has Walt provided for this claim? NONE! I have been told instead to get my "head out of my butt and think", but NO evidence has been given.
So we have a claim by Walt that matches a claim made by many others and they ALL are LNers! What does Ben think of this claim of Walt's?
Who knows as he won't say, but research into his past words have shown us exactly what he thinks.
He said this awhile back.
“We have a right palm print on the stock,…” (Ed Cage, edited by Ben)
“Actually, we have the *claim* of a right palm print on the stock.” (Ben Holmes – 1/18/07)
groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3f7679a58208638d/431e35e2ccc2c65f?q=bEN+hOLMES+%2B+PALMPRINT&lnk=nl&
The stock and wooden foregrip are the same thing. We see Ben corrected Ed Cage that it is merely a claim, and an unsupported one too, but when Walt has made the SAME claim with NO evidence we have NOT heard from Ben. How come? I mean he said this, didn't he?
"When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
Well, Walt certainly FAILED to support his own assertion as there is NO way to support it when even the man you are supporting differs with you (Day said it was on the metal gun barrel) and he refused to sign an affidavit outlining what he did in regards to the lift when asked to do so by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
Why was Ben NOT there to "point it out?" I asked him.
“That is NOT on par with the lies of Walt when he claims there was a "smudged print on the wooden foregrip" and that Lt. Day did a lift when the testimony of FBI expert (and Day mentor) refutes all this.” (Robert)
“A conflict in evidence merely means you have to select that which is most persuasive. Walt can EQUALLY claim you're lying because Lt. Day testified to the lift.” (Ben Holmes – 7/15/09)
So we see Ben claiming that Lt. Day's claim is as PERSUASIVE as the testimony of Latona AFTER he performed tests on the rifle with the best equipment available! He did this INSTEAD OF JUST DOING WHAT HE CLAIMED HE DID when some failed to support their own assertions with evidence!
Let's recap.
1) Walt claimed there was a smudged print on the wooden foregrip of CE 139 and provided NOT a scintilla of evidence to support this claim.
2) Ben said he "points it out" when someone makes a claim and can't support it. He did NOT here.
3) Ben lies INSTEAD of calling out Walt by claiming that Lt. Day's claim, with NO evidence to support it, is as PERSUASIVE as Latona's tests. Tests he could provide results from.
4) Ben lied and said he did NOT say it was as persuasive, but let's look at his comment again!
“That is NOT on par with the lies of Walt when he claims there was a "smudged print on the wooden foregrip" and that Lt. Day did a lift when the testimony of FBI expert (and Day mentor) refutes all this.” (Robert)
“**A conflict in evidence merely means you have to select that which is most persuasive.** Walt can **EQUALLY** claim you're lying because Lt. Day testified to the lift.” (Ben Holmes – 7/15/09)
See? He is saying Walt could EQUALLY claim I'm lying because Lt. Day **claimed he did a lift**. He started off with the comment that when there is a conflict in "evidence" you have to select that which is most persuasive.
He of course failed to tell you we are pitting a claim with NO evidence corroborating it or behind it against TESTS DONE BY AN EXPERT WITH THE MOST ADVANCED EQUIPMENT at that time!
Latona was NOT just giving an opinion as he ACTUALLY DUSTED AND VIEWED THE RIFLE FIRST HAND AND FOUND NOTHING LIKE LT. DAY CLAIMED.
These were not EQUAL CLAIMS as Ben would have you think.
Why did Ben lie so much instead of just pointing out to Walt that he was unable to support his claims like he said he would? I know why, but I will let you all make your own decision on that one.
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 peoples' 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.)
******************************************************************
Why does Ben Holmes allow Walt Cakebread to lie constantly by making claims he WON'T support and that benefit the Warren Commission’s (WC) theory?
Remember, Ben has said this to me and things like it to others for years!
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
And!
“Liars always have a hard time supporting their words.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
And!
“It's not unexpected. Cowards who cannot support their own words just *HATE* having that fact pointed out.” (Ben Holmes – 6/29/09)
You get the point, right? So why can Walt make all kinds of crazy claims and wildly speculate BUT NEVER HEAR FROM BEN?
Like this!
"Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the wooden foregrip of CE 139 when found." (Robert)
In the official theory Lieutenant Carl Day claimed to have done a lift (the evidence does NOT support the claim of ANY lift having been done) on the metal barrel located on the underside of the rifle when he REMOVED the wooden foregrip. Walt has changed this slightly, but kept the same point intact -- that there was a print on the rifle when it was found. Walt said the "smudged" print was on the wooden foregrip INSTEAD of the metal barrel, but his point is otherwise the same as Lt. Day's and the WC's.
Sebastian Latona was the FBI expert who viewed the rifle just hours after it was found and he is on record (WC testimony) saying that he saw NO prints and saw NO indication of a lift having been done. Latona had been at this a long time and had way more experience than Lt. Day and access to better equipment; and all he said he found were a few unidentifiable ridge formations near the trigger guard. That is it! He would also say that after viewing the rifle he found there had been NO processing done on it prior to him receiving it. By processing he means dusting for prints and lifts to name a few. Thus, the claim of Lt. Day and the WC that this rifle was processed by Lt. Day does NOT hold up.
There would be confusion by the three (Day, Latona and WC) regarding the alleged lift as I said. Here is what each said about it.
WC - Lt. Day did a lift and it was so good it left NOTHING of the print on the rifle.
Day - He said he did a lift but could still see the print when he was done.
Latona - He said he saw NO indication of a lift being done.
To add insult to injury, Day NEVER photographed the alleged print PRIOR to his alleged lift, thus, he violated all crime scene procedures by ignoring this key piece of the evidence gathering phase.
Walt said this to me!
"Latona was talking about the METAL gun barrel.... Day lifted that smudge from the WOODEN foregrip.” (Walt)
This is a lie on so many levels. Latona examined the WHOLE rifle and he was NOT limiting his comments to the "metal gun barrel" as Walt claims. He said he found NO palmprint on the metal gun barrel as Lt. Day claimed, but when he said he saw NO INDICATION of a lift he was referring to the ENTIRE rifle, not just the gun barrel as he would have had to be blind not to see it IF one had been done. (IV, p. 24)
Still, Walt continues to claim a lift was done and a "smudged print" was found on the wooden foregrip. What evidence has Walt provided for this claim? NONE! I have been told instead to get my "head out of my butt and think", but NO evidence has been given.
So we have a claim by Walt that matches a claim made by many others and they ALL are LNers! What does Ben think of this claim of Walt's?
Who knows as he won't say, but research into his past words have shown us exactly what he thinks.
He said this awhile back.
“We have a right palm print on the stock,…” (Ed Cage, edited by Ben)
“Actually, we have the *claim* of a right palm print on the stock.” (Ben Holmes – 1/18/07)
groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3f7679a58208638d/431e35e2ccc2c65f?q=bEN+hOLMES+%2B+PALMPRINT&lnk=nl&
The stock and wooden foregrip are the same thing. We see Ben corrected Ed Cage that it is merely a claim, and an unsupported one too, but when Walt has made the SAME claim with NO evidence we have NOT heard from Ben. How come? I mean he said this, didn't he?
"When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
Well, Walt certainly FAILED to support his own assertion as there is NO way to support it when even the man you are supporting differs with you (Day said it was on the metal gun barrel) and he refused to sign an affidavit outlining what he did in regards to the lift when asked to do so by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
Why was Ben NOT there to "point it out?" I asked him.
“That is NOT on par with the lies of Walt when he claims there was a "smudged print on the wooden foregrip" and that Lt. Day did a lift when the testimony of FBI expert (and Day mentor) refutes all this.” (Robert)
“A conflict in evidence merely means you have to select that which is most persuasive. Walt can EQUALLY claim you're lying because Lt. Day testified to the lift.” (Ben Holmes – 7/15/09)
So we see Ben claiming that Lt. Day's claim is as PERSUASIVE as the testimony of Latona AFTER he performed tests on the rifle with the best equipment available! He did this INSTEAD OF JUST DOING WHAT HE CLAIMED HE DID when some failed to support their own assertions with evidence!
Let's recap.
1) Walt claimed there was a smudged print on the wooden foregrip of CE 139 and provided NOT a scintilla of evidence to support this claim.
2) Ben said he "points it out" when someone makes a claim and can't support it. He did NOT here.
3) Ben lies INSTEAD of calling out Walt by claiming that Lt. Day's claim, with NO evidence to support it, is as PERSUASIVE as Latona's tests. Tests he could provide results from.
4) Ben lied and said he did NOT say it was as persuasive, but let's look at his comment again!
“That is NOT on par with the lies of Walt when he claims there was a "smudged print on the wooden foregrip" and that Lt. Day did a lift when the testimony of FBI expert (and Day mentor) refutes all this.” (Robert)
“**A conflict in evidence merely means you have to select that which is most persuasive.** Walt can **EQUALLY** claim you're lying because Lt. Day testified to the lift.” (Ben Holmes – 7/15/09)
See? He is saying Walt could EQUALLY claim I'm lying because Lt. Day **claimed he did a lift**. He started off with the comment that when there is a conflict in "evidence" you have to select that which is most persuasive.
He of course failed to tell you we are pitting a claim with NO evidence corroborating it or behind it against TESTS DONE BY AN EXPERT WITH THE MOST ADVANCED EQUIPMENT at that time!
Latona was NOT just giving an opinion as he ACTUALLY DUSTED AND VIEWED THE RIFLE FIRST HAND AND FOUND NOTHING LIKE LT. DAY CLAIMED.
These were not EQUAL CLAIMS as Ben would have you think.
Why did Ben lie so much instead of just pointing out to Walt that he was unable to support his claims like he said he would? I know why, but I will let you all make your own decision on that one.