[Ben Holmes]

The Warren Commission claimed that the nick on the tie, and the slit in the shirt of JFK was caused by a bullet.

The FBI examined the margins of the bullet hole in the BACK, and found traces of copper, quite consistent with a bullet... but NO METAL WHATSOEVER on the front of the shirt & tie.

More interestingly, FBI Agent Frazier was deposed in a FOIA lawsuit brought by Weisberg, and admitted under oath that not only had FBI's expert on hair & fiber - SA Paul M. Stombaugh, examined the shirt & tie, BUT THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED A REPORT OF THAT EXAMINATION.

Nowhere to be found among the Warren Commission Report or it's 26 volumes.

And although Stombaugh was questioned by the Warren Commission - they somehow managed to forget to ask any questions related to Stombaugh's examination of JFK's shirt & tie.

Believers in this forum have NO explanation for these facts... none whatsoever.

Any believer spouting the SBT will need to explain these facts, or forever be known for their lack of character...

(As if they have ever demonstrated any!)

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Believers in this forum have NO explanation for these facts... none whatsoever.

Absolute tripe. This case was investigated so thoroughly that many minor lines of investigation would have been left out of the final supporting volumes.

How many do you want 36 volumes...?

In the real world, mistakes are made and things get overlooked and no doubt to cover their backs, the FBI may well have pushed a few things under the carpet, a bit like the CIA did with the Castro plots.

Politics is ripe with intrigue and deception - nothing new there.

Get real. Non of this means Oswald was set up.

They should have been watching Oswald, he was a risk. No wonder Hoover covered his back and his beloved FBI. They messed up. So did the SS and DPD - they should have clocked that rifle at shot one - or before. But mistakes happen and so do assassinations.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-07-2016, 04:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Believers in this forum have NO explanation for these facts... none whatsoever.

Absolute tripe. This case was investigated so thoroughly that many minor lines of investigation would have been left out of the final supporting volumes.

How many do you want 36 volumes...?

In the real world, mistakes are made and things get overlooked and no doubt to cover their backs, the FBI may well have pushed a few things under the carpet, a bit like the CIA did with the Castro plots.

Politics is ripe with intrigue and deception - nothing new there.

Get real. Non of this means Oswald was set up.

They should have been watching Oswald, he was a risk. No wonder Hoover covered his back and his beloved FBI. They messed up. So did the SS and DPD - they should have clocked that rifle at shot one - or before. But mistakes happen and so do assassinations.

You'll notice that Patrick did EXACTLY as I predicted... he refused to explain these facts... and in keeping with his past history, is indeed a coward.

The fact that Stombaugh, and expert in this very topic, examined the front of the shirt, and made a report which disappeared, makes it ENTIRELY CREDIBLE that what he reported was that the "hole" (actually a slit) was caused by a scalpel, and not a bullet.

This possibility fits in with other evidence, and fails to support the mythical "SBT" - and explains why the report disappeared.

This isn't "minor" evidence at all.

Indeed, had Stombaugh found bullet fragments in a clearly bullet caused hole - it's simply not possible to believe that a report saying this would be considered a merely minor detail, and conceivably left out of the report and it's 26 volumes.

Yet this is what Patrick wants everyone to believe.

Rather silly, actually!

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:You'll notice that Patrick did EXACTLY as I predicted... he refused to explain these facts... and in keeping with his past history, is indeed a coward.

Wrong again Ben. I choose not to address your points largely - because I am not interested. If I wanted to, I could certainly take you to the cleaners, but why would I? It has already been done admirably and better than I by DVP and Hank.....

Funny that you don't see that.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-08-2016, 06:24 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:You'll notice that Patrick did EXACTLY as I predicted... he refused to explain these facts... and in keeping with his past history, is indeed a coward.

Wrong again Ben. I choose not to address your points largely - because I am not interested. If I wanted to, I could certainly take you to the cleaners, but why would I? It has already been done admirably and better than I by DVP and Hank.....

Funny that you don't see that.

Such AMAZING cowardice!

I've challenged you repeatedly to produce even ONE example of Henry or DVP successfully refuting anything I've posted... but you refuse to do so.

You'd CERTAINLY refuse to try to defend the devastating critique that would follow any such attempt on your part.

I constantly back up what I say... you constantly demonstrate cowardice...

Amusing!

You pretend that Stombaugh's missing report would be of only minor importance, yet you refuse to admit that had his report supported the WCR's theory, IT WOULD HAVE PLAYED A MAJOR ROLL IN THE REPORT.

Yet you keep pretending that you're an honest guy.

Where's the evidence of that?

[Patrick C]

Which part of "I am not really interested in debating the case with you" do you not understand?

Why should I waste my time citing DVP and Hank when all people need to do is go to Amazon and look at the JFK discussions I to V  to see you get you ass kicked.....?

I am indeed an honest man Ben. That you think everyone who thinks JFK was shot by the lone assassin LHO is not, speaks volumes about your capacity for understanding the concept of disagreement.

Cheerio until maybe next week.....

I see you are getting a lot of posts.......or not as the case may be.....

[Ben Holmes]

(10-09-2016, 11:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Which part of "I am not really interested in debating the case with you" do you not understand?

Why should I waste my time citing DVP and Hank when all people need to do is go to Amazon and look at the JFK discussions I to V  to see you get you ass kicked.....?

I am indeed an honest man Ben. That you think everyone who thinks JFK was shot by the lone assassin LHO is not, speaks volumes about your capacity for understanding the concept of disagreement.

Cheerio until maybe next week.....

I see you are getting a lot of posts.......or not as the case may be.....

More excuses... more proof of your cowardice.

Indeed, more proof that you're a liar, because you simply cannot quote any examples that support your claims. Ad hominem is all you have, and that's a severe limitation in a forum that discusses the evidence.

The only reasonable explanation for why Stombaugh's examination of the front of JFK's shirt went unquestioned is that the Warren Commission didn't WANT such testimony.

The only reasonable explanation for why his report disappeared is that it conflicted with the Warren Commission. It's couldn't have been because Stombaugh found no bullet metal fragments in the front of the shirt (the FBI admitted as much), so it must have been that Stombaugh stated in his report that the 'slit' was caused by a scalpel, and not a bullet.

And since you, Patrick, refuse to offer any other credible explanation - you lose.

[Patrick C]

Cowardice...:Liar.....

Groan, Yawn.........

[Ben Holmes]

(10-10-2016, 08:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Cowardice...:Liar.....

Groan, Yawn.........

More excuses... more proof of your cowardice.

Indeed, more proof that you're a liar, because you simply cannot quote any examples that support your claims. Ad hominem is all you have, and that's a severe limitation in a forum that discusses the evidence.

The only reasonable explanation for why Stombaugh's examination of the front of JFK's shirt went unquestioned is that the Warren Commission didn't WANT such testimony.

The only reasonable explanation for why his report disappeared is that it conflicted with the Warren Commission. It's couldn't have been because Stombaugh found no bullet metal fragments in the front of the shirt (the FBI admitted as much), so it must have been that Stombaugh stated in his report that the 'slit' was caused by a scalpel, and not a bullet.

And since you, Patrick, refuse to offer any other credible explanation - you lose.

(Can't force a dishonest man to debate the facts...)