Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Eric Clapton Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Luxury Beauty The Baby Store Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Cash Back Offer LoveandFriendship LoveandFriendship LoveandFriendship  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Outdoor Recreation SnS
Customer Discussions > History forum

Doorway Man in the famous Altgens photo WAS Oswald

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 9, 2013 7:56:01 AM PDT
Ben ignores Dr. Humes and Dr. Baden's statements which render any "lies" by the HSCA a moot point. The doctors at Parkland were proven wrong in their statements by Baden and Humes and all 17 pathologists to review this case. The Bethesda witnesses, were also proven wrong in their observations by the actual process of cleaning the head and examining the wounds. The truth gets obscured in Ben's hysterical insistence on "lies" and "coverups" but the truth stares him in the face - ALL shots from above and behind, verified by 17 forensic pathologists AND all X-Rays and photos ruled authentic and unaltered by HSCA photographic panel. Some of the doctors at Parkland stated that Dr. McClelland was incorrect in his initial statements on the location of this wound. Ben ignores Carrico's corrected view of this wound. Dr. Baden's statement renders this entire stupid, silly rant by Ben a moot, settled point. If Ben wants to disagree with a world renowned forensic pathologist with the credentials of Michael Baden in favor of secret service agents, nurses and intern doctors, let him have at it - he looks like an utter fool, but it is entertaining.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 7:51:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2013 7:55:13 AM PDT
Debunker says:
Seriously, I enjoy seeing others engage you in a conversation. Your lies, misquotes and misinformation need to be pointed out for all to see. It's hardly something I "hate".

And it's amusing to see you get facepalmed. Repeatedly.

By the way, did you notice that I disagreed with Hank when he said "I'm not posting as asdfg simply to mock conspiracy theorists by repeating the most absurd things they can imagine?"

There's no way he could dumb himself down enough to make us think he was you.

Posted on Oct 9, 2013 7:50:53 AM PDT
Lee Abbott says:
Spearman related your comment, Debozo, because I've got you blocked:
<<<"How did you reach the conclusion that it "kills me" to see folks engage you in discussion, when I just posted I was looking forward to seeing you receiving your next facepalming after you post your next series of "facts".

"That was a dumb statement, even for you".>>>
*************
Debozo, if you truly believe that was an example of *engaging* someone in a discussion, then burping is the equivalent of 9/11.

EVERYONE knew you were limited, but until now I didn't realize to THAT extent. I regret to inform you this is it; I refuse to play tag with a lobster...and one that graduated in the lower 25% of lobster school.

Posted on Oct 9, 2013 7:40:59 AM PDT
Debunker says:
Spearman says:

[You continue to ignore this poster's mindless nonsense]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 7:06:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2013 7:07:38 AM PDT
spearman says:
Dementio says,
"How did you reach the conclusion that it "kills me" to see folks engage you in discussion, when I just posted I was looking forward to seeing you receiving your next facepalming after you post your next series of "facts".

"That was a dumb statement, even for you".
*************
Disinfo 101 from Dementio

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:58:26 AM PDT
Debunker says:
"It must kill you that those from both sides of this issue engage me in discussion, while NO ONE HAS EVER DONE THAT WITH YOU!!!"

How did you reach the conclusion that it "kills me" to see folks engage you in discussion, when I just posted I was looking forward to seeing you receiving your next facepalming after you post your next series of "facts".

That was a dumb statement, even for you.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:56:40 AM PDT
Debunker says:
"Now come right back with a sentence or two of your typical brilliance...."

Posted by an individual who earlier had a "fart" comment, following on his "gay" comments a few weeks back.

The irony is too much.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:49:20 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
Patty whimpers: "I think we ALL know there were several photo's."

Yep... I schooled Henry on that fact, and the rest of you have fallen in line.

Patty sobs: "Every time you Google the subject of "JFK the bullet in the grass" you invariably get several pictures."

I wasn't aware that you knew how to use Google - you certainly can't find evidence in this case...

Patty sobs: "Some may have assumed they were taken by one photographer"

You're lying again, Patty... Henry was denying that there was more than a single photo of the event.

Patty whimpers: "so what its no big deal. Other than that NEITHER photographer ever reported a bullet being found."

The newspaper, however, did.

Patty whines: "Tedium is dull Holmes, try posting something interesting for once."

If you stop your cowardice, there's plenty of evidence to address. Dale has admitting the truth about my HSCA post, and even Henry has admitted that they didn't tell the truth - he just can't admit that this constitutes a lie.

So tell us Patty - do *YOU* have a credible explanation for HSCA volume 7, pages 37-38 that don't require one to assert that they flatly lied?

Or would you prefer to stick your head in the sand again?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:43:38 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
Dale swishes out of his closet again to whine: "Of those present at Bethesda, THREE got a close look at the head. Those three verified the official conclusion."

I really enjoy watching the ignorant make fools of themselves. No-one that I know would believe that *ANY* of the four people you quoted were at Bethesda.

And you've already admitted that Bethesda witnesses *AGREED* with Parkland witnesses... thus making the HSCA statements lies.

It's downright amusing to watch!!!

Only Patty hasn't weighed in yet...

Once again, Warren Commission believers are being schooled on the facts... and you run from them.

Dale sobs: "Earlier today, I stated that forensic examinations and results far outweigh emergency room accounts."

Which has *NOTHING* to do with Volume 7, pages 37-38.

You also lied and asserted that Dr. Finck wasn't a qualified forensic pathologist. You *STILL* haven't retracted that lie. Tell us Dale - why do you lie?

Dale sobs: "But Ben knows better."

I do indeed... I raised the topic in the first place... I provided the citations... and you finally admitted what Henry and Patty refuse to do... that the Bethesda AND Parkland witnesses described a wound to the *BACK* of the head.

Dale sobs: "Let him wail and grind his teeth about lies."

Nah... I just point 'em out.

Dale whimpers: "He doesn't know what he's talking about. Who are you going to believe - Ben Holmes or Dr. Michael Baden?"

What have I stated that isn't backed up by citation???

Lying again, aren't you Dale?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:38:45 AM PDT
Lee Abbott says:
In reply to your post on Oct 9, 2013 6:12:24 AM PDT
Debunker says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway. Show all ignored posts.]

You know, Debozo, the difference between reading your words of wisdom and ignoring you isn't that much.

Now come right back with a sentence or two of your typical brilliance....or will you intentionally prove me wrong by writing three?

It must kill you that those from both sides of this issue engage me in discussion, while NO ONE HAS EVER DONE THAT WITH YOU!!!

And the reason is really quite simple: You're really TOO simple.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:35:33 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
Henry sobs: "Okay, how do you guys know I'm not posting as asdfg simply to mock conspiracy theorists by repeating the most absurd things they can imagine?"

Oh, it's a trick already performed by members of your faith.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:34:43 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
LIE : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

Henry whimpers: "You ALWAYS ignore the *intent to deceive* part. You simply label any statement that you disagree with as a LIE. And that is not sufficient, Ben."

All you have to do is provide a credible explanation that does *NOT* include any intentional deception. But you can't... you refuse to do so.

YOU CAN'T EVEN NAME WHO *WROTE* THOSE LIES!!!

Henry whines: "Go ahead, call me a liar."

Nah... in this case, "coward" is the appropriate term. You *STILL* refuse to give any credible explanation that would explain a lack of deception.

The fact that it's taken you WEEKS to get to the point of admitting that the HSCA wasn't truthful simply illustrates that cowardice.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:30:26 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
The known evidence SUPPORTS my position [about the supposed bullet being recovered in the grass] - and nothing you've given refutes it.

Henry Hilarious cries: "Ben. You've been posting about the supposed evidence of a bullet being recovered for a month now, yet in all that time you haven't posted any evidence of a bullet being recovered."

Sorry Henry... I don't *need* to... I'm referring to evidence that YOU KNOW VERY WELL. Even as all the Warren Commission believers refused to post the caption they kept denying...

Henry whines: "You're posting hearsay and newspaper captions, and claiming there are photos that are hard evidence of a bullet being recovered, but you've never provided any evidence to prove your claim. None."

You're lying again, Henry.

And while we're at it, let's see the original post - and note all the *OTHER* items you just simply ran from:

Tell us about the "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... or the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... or the hard evidence of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination? Tell us about the "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared. Tell us about the "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass. Tell us about the "hard evidence" of Frasier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol... Tell us about the "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified. Tell us about the "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day) Tell us about the "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot. Tell us about the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. Tell us about the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet. I'm sure I can come up with a few more examples given some time to think about it.

Coward, aren't you Henry?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:28:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2013 6:30:18 AM PDT
Benny Boy,

I think we ALL know there were several photo's. Every time you Google the subject of "JFK the bullet in the grass" you invariably get several pictures.

Some may have assumed they were taken by one photographer - so what its no big deal. Other than that NEITHER photographer ever reported a bullet being found.

Tedium is dull Holmes, try posting something interesting for once.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:25:27 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
I've long noted how Warren Commission believers try to 'drown' people with their lengthy posts. The goal *IS* to prevent you from responding...

Henry whimpers: "I've long noted that anyone can make ten claims, each without offering a scintilla of evidence to support them (or post hearsay and suspicions masquerading as evidence, as we've seen you and asdfg do)."

You're lying again, Henry.

Henry whimpers: "It takes a lot longer to straighten out the record than it does to make a bogus claim, hence the length of my posts may be sometimes longer than you prefer, but the length is dictated by the bogus claims of conspiracy posted here."

All it takes is a citation and a *credible* explanation. You usually refuse to provide either...

Such as your recent claim that the HSCA didn't lie.

Or your pretended ignorance on Carrico's contemporary statements. (a post that you're *STILL* running from!)

Coward, aren't you Henry?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:21:41 AM PDT
Ben Holmes says:
Patty whines: "Trask "Pictures of the Pain" pages 496 to 499 may be the most comprehensive on the Murray and Allen photos...

Good of you to admit that there were *TWO* photographers.

Henry originally denied this fact...

Henry whimpers: "Ben; that is not true. I never denied there were two photographers."

Nah, you just denied that there were photos [plural]. You knew better, but you just kept lying about it for a few days.

Tell us Henry - WHY DO WARREN COMMISSION BELIEVERS KEEP LYING?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:12:24 AM PDT
Debunker says:
You do a good enough job making the conspiracy theorists look absurd. You don't need any help with that.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:10:48 AM PDT
Lee Abbott says:
Henry Sienzant says:

<<< Okay, how do you guys know I'm not posting as asdfg simply to mock conspiracy theorists by repeating the most absurd things they can imagine? >>>

Henry - Weren't you crying last week about the HORRIBLE ad hominem I used when referring to you as *Henry Hilarious*??

Your Fallacy of Logic book doesn't cover hypocritical, does it?

NATURALLY my comments would seem absurd to one whose cornerstone of faith is an unwavering belief in a Magic Bullet.

And you somehow managed to self-hypnotize yourself in order to block out that literally TONS of information remains *CLASSIFIED*, *CLASSIFIED*, *CLASSIFIED*. When some of it was made public 20 years ago the Chicago plot to kill JFK, 3 weeks before Dallas was revealed.... The name *Lee Harvey Oswald* was involved, yet there's no record that he was there.

Still think the *I'm just a patsy* remark had anything to do with his time in the Soviet Union 17 months before the assassination??

I'M SURE YOU WOULD.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:05:50 AM PDT
Debunker says:
Oh come on asdfg. Since you concluded that Hendrix and I are the same person based on the fact that we posted an hour and half apart I figured that a 22 minute separation would lead your "mind" to arrive at the same conclusion regarding Dale and me. Was a I wrong?

BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed Henry's most recent facepalming of you. That was fun. Please keep posting more of your "facts".

Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 6:01:45 AM PDT
Debunker says:
"Okay, how do you guys know I'm not posting as asdfg simply to mock conspiracy theorists by repeating the most absurd things they can imagine?"

I've read plenty of your posts. I find it highly unlikely you can dumb yourself down enough to do even a passing imitation of asdfg.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2013 5:21:47 AM PDT
Lee Abbott says:
Debunker says: <<< Careful Dale,

Your post was a mere 22 minutes after mine. That constitutes "evidence" for asdfg that we're the same person. >>>

Not true at all Debozo. You don't submit posts. They're more like a fart...and not even a good one.

Posted on Oct 8, 2013 10:23:24 PM PDT
Dr. Humes in 1991: "In 1963 we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is SUPREME IGNORANCE (caps mine) to argue any other scenario. This is a LAW OF PHYSICS (caps mine) (referring to the fact that with a through and through wound of the cranium it is ALWAYS THE PATTERN that the beveling or crater effect appears on the inside of the skull at the entrance wound and on the outside of the skull at the exit wound) and it is FOOLPROOF-absolutely, unequivocally and without question. The conspiracy buffs have TOTALLY IGNORED this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash."

Dr. Baden on the many statements of a rear head wound, especially the Parkland doctors: "The head exit wound was NOT in the parietal-occipital area as the parkland doctors said. They were wrong. That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's NO WAY for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood and brain tissue backward."

Dr. McClelland, who "theorists" LOVE to use as proof for this rear exit wound, admitted that his drawing might have been misleading and too far to the back. "The different positions from which we viewed it and also because of the different interpretations of what we saw. I have to say that the sketch I first drew for Josiah Thompson's book a few years after the assassination was misleading. Since last night, I've been thinking that I placed the large hole in the president's head FARTHER BACK THAN IT REALLY WAS, maybe. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A BIT MORE FORWARD. When asked where he would place it now he said "Partially in the occipital region and partly in the right back part of the parietal bone"

Carrico: "The president was lying on his back so we COULDN'T SEE THE REAR PORTION OF HIS HEAD. Consequently, what we did see APPEARED TO BE FURTHER BACK THAN IT WAS since we were not viewing it in relation to his whole head. But really, none of us WERE LOOKING CLOSELY AT WHERE THE DEFECT WAS AND MAKING MENTAL NOTES. WE were just trying to save his life"
Dr. Baxter echoed Carrico's statement.

Of those present at Bethesda, THREE got a close look at the head. Those three verified the official conclusion.

Earlier today, I stated that forensic examinations and results far outweigh emergency room accounts. But Ben knows better. Let him wail and grind his teeth about lies. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Who are you going to believe - Ben Holmes or Dr. Michael Baden?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2013 9:14:12 PM PDT
Debunker says: <<< Careful Dale,

Your post was a mere 22 minutes after mine. That constitutes "evidence" for asdfg that we're the same person. >>>

Okay, how do you guys know I'm not posting as asdfg simply to mock conspiracy theorists by repeating the most absurd things they can imagine?

Hank

Posted on Oct 8, 2013 9:07:54 PM PDT
LIE : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

You ALWAYS ignore the *intent to deceive* part. You simply label any statement that you disagree with as a LIE. And that is not sufficient, Ben.

Go ahead, call me a liar.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2013 8:59:32 PM PDT
Ben says: <<< The known evidence SUPPORTS my position [about the supposed bullet being recovered in the grass] - and nothing you've given refutes it. >>>

Hilarious, Ben.

You've been posting about the supposed evidence of a bullet being recovered for a month now, yet in all that time you haven't posted any evidence of a bullet being recovered. You're posting hearsay and newspaper captions, and claiming there are photos that are hard evidence of a bullet being recovered, but you've never provided any evidence to prove your claim. None.

Hank
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
436 Mar 8, 2016
The Armada .. 0 56 minutes ago
What is this car 60 1 hour ago
The Art of the Possible 13 1 hour ago
Rethinking the cold war 2 1 hour ago
History of the Palestinian Nation (Part IV) 7582 2 hours ago
Churchill Was A War Criminal 137 2 hours ago
JFK Assassination Part V 8139 3 hours ago
A Place For Pro-Israel Posters IV 537 3 hours ago
American Traitor Executed ... 12 4 hours ago
Philippines~MacArthur 1 7 hours ago
The Atomic Bombing of Japan 3635 8 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  81
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions