From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 10:28:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do    
   > precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,    
   > and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done    
   > so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then    
   > demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior    
   > assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to    
   > murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had    
   > their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single    
   > witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**    
   > to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence    
   > from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at    
   > the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion    
   > within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated    
   > that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is    
   > seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that    
   > reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied    
   > about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's    
   > *no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then    
   > demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren    
   > Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then    
   > covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the    
   > original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid    
   > chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the    
   > assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a    
   > white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald.    
   >    
   > Now it's time to demonstrate some of the fraudulent evidence in this    
   > case... and once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has been tampered    
   > with, a legitimate lone assassin conclusion cannot be valid.    
   >    
   > That statement is so self-evidently true that it should be repeated    
   > for believers to run from: Once it's *PROVEN* that the evidence has    
   > been tampered with, there's no such thing as a legitimate lone    
   > assassin theory. Watch, as Chickenshit and other believers simply    
   > *RUN* from this statement. They cannot publicly admit the truthfulness    
   > of such a statement without destroying their own faith.    
   >    
   > The most frightening evidence of evidence tampering for believers has    
   > always been the autopsy photos & X-rays. And while there are numerous    
   > problems with this evidence, I'd like to focus on the one item that    
   > sent McAdams running from this group... never to return.    
   >    
   > Yep... the infamous 6.5mm virtually round object that was never seen    
   > the night of the autopsy - and was never noted until the Clark Panel    
   > did their incredibly swift 2 day review of the medical evidence in    
   > 1968. Despite the fact that one of the *MAJOR* goals of the autopsy    
   > was to recover any bullets or bullet fragments - no-one present could    
   > see this incredibly large 6.5mm object... despite the fact that it was    
   > twice the size of the next largest fragment seen.    
   >    
   > Quite incredibly, this object was precisely the size it needed to be    
   > to implicate the rifle alleged to have been used in the assassination.    
   > And despite the common nonsense offered by believers, THERE IS NO    
   > OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EVER MADE THAT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THIS IS A    
   > BULLET FRAGMENT.    
   >    
   > So believers are *BOUND* by the expert opinion of the Clark Panel &    
   > HSCA - or they are revealed as hypocrites.    
   >    
   > Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school    
   > geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably    
   > still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped,    
   > this is quite imprecise, but may prove surprising:    
   >    
   > Area of a rectangle - Length times height.    
   > Area of a circle - pi times radius squared    
   > 3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3    
   > 7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14    
   > 6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16    
   >    
   > Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was    
   > roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought    
   > existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr.    
   > Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the X-rays.   
      
   What was the conclusion of the experts on the Clark panel that studied the   
   photographs and x-rays?   
   And what is yours? And why should we accept your nonn-expert opinion over   
   their expert opinion?   
      
   Please explain. Make a valid, reasoned rgument relying on the evidence, and   
   explain why the experts missed everything you think is important.    
      
   Or ignore all that, call me names, and change the subject. I have a pretty   
   good idea what route you’ll take, based on your posting history.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)