Forums

'Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" 

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

Anonymous Believer Wrote:No, the SBT is NOT a proven fact. It is simply the only plausible explanation for the JFK's upper body wound and all of JBC's wounds that has ever been offered. It wins by default. 

This is a quite despicable lie.

The "plausible explanation" was known within minutes of the assassination - there were multiple shooters.

Is there anyone in America that isn't familiar with this "plausible explanation?"

'David Emerling Wrote:Let me get a little philosophical for a moment. Indulge me if you're so inclined. If not, just ignore this.

Is there such a thing as a "subjective fact"? Most people would probably say, no. They would probably state, "How can anything that is subjective be a fact? By definition, anything that is subjective cannot qualify as a fact." And, I guess, there's some truth to that. But that's not how we run our lives. That's not how reality works.

Imagine if the ONLY things we accepted as facts were things that were objective and that we have personally observed or calculated. For instance - how would you answer the question: Do you have a brain? Is it a FACT that you have a brain?

Have you actually ever SEEN your brain? Probably not.

Here are some things that are probably true for you, however.

You've probably read that people have brains. You were probably taught that very early in life. You have even seen a photograph of a brain in a biology textbook. But it wasn't YOUR brain. You may have even seen a TV program/documentary where doctors were performing surgery on somebody's brain. You SEE the brain! But, again, it's not YOUR brain. You probably know about concussions and can intelligently describe what it is - damage to the brain usually caused by a jolt where the brain bounces against the skull. You can look it up on WebMD. Headaches, nausea, blurred vision and even death can result. But, even if you know somebody who has been diagnosed with a concussion /or/ even if YOU have had a concussion /still/ you have never seen YOUR brain.

"But I saw it on x-rays!" That's just an IMAGE, however. Are you a trained radiologist? You may have been told that it was your brain by a radiologist; but, still - you are not actually SEEING your brain.

"A person cannot live without a brain. I'm alive. Therefore, I MUST have a brain," you say. How do you know that's true? And STILL, you have not SEEN your brain despite all this knowledge that you've accumulated.

Silly? Of course it's all silly. But my point should be obvious. We make decisions about the world around us all the time based on nothing more than common sense and the opinions of people who are smarter than us in many areas.

The study of the Kennedy assassination is much like that. I have never claimed to be a medical expert, ballistics expert, handwriting expert, nor am I a forensics expert. I did not witness the Kennedy assassination. But I have availed myself of the OPINIONS of people who are experts in these fields and have read the testimony of those who DID witness the assassination and other events related to the assassination.

"But, Dave - not all experts agree!"

True! But there are common sense methods of resolving such matters. This is a "skill" that most people learn as they go through life when confronted with conflicting conclusions about matters on which they are not an expert. That's why we often get a second opinion on serious medical issues. Experts DO make mistakes. But not often - that's what makes them experts.

There is a thing called the "Baloney Detection Kit" - a catchy (and maybe a bit goofy) title for a very serious matter - derived by Carl Sagan. There actually IS a way of navigating through conflicting conclusions made by experts (especially non-experts).

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

You can take just about any wacky conspiracy belief and run it through the above checklist and, although you may hit on several of the key points, there is invariably one (usually many more) glaring FAIL. Unique to the Kennedy case is that I always ask: Is the person working with the ACTUAL evidence? For instance, is somebody discrediting a photograph/film/recording, claiming that it is altered, and that person is NOT working with a first generation photo/film/recording? Sometimes they ARE. But then there are many OTHER things that have to fit into their alteration theory that usually do NOT fit.

This is how I have always tried to look at the many issues in the Kennedy assassination. I accept many of my beliefs as FACTS. Are they "subjective facts"? Yes! Of course. But that's how the real world works. If we didn't accept "subjective facts" as facts we would go through our lives in a state of confused paralysis, doubting everything ... taking NOTHING as a fact ... never capable of drawing conclusions and BUILDING on those conclusions to create greater understanding.

For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test. Alternate theories that account for all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds fail miserably in many categories. Yet, those wounds DO exist. It happened. There MUST be an explanation. There cannot be numerous explanations. As Dale Myers says quite succinctly, "You can talk about all the theories you want. This thing happened only ONE way ... it's not a magic bullet at all. It's not even a single bullet theory, in my opinion. It's a single bullet FACT."

Multiple shooters as a reasonable and credible explanation doesn't "fail miserably" at all - which probably explains why David was too much the coward to mention it - or try to refute it.

David Emerling Wrote:The Single Bullet Theory is quite simple. There are no competing theories that stand up to the evidence in nearly the same way. The Single Bullet Theory has all the hallmarks or rising to the level of a fact.

If this were actually true - believers wouldn't be afraid of debate on this issue.

I challenge any and all believers to state just what refutes the explanation that there were multiple shooters...

[Crickets...]

David Von Pein Wrote:What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat then? And where did that bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy? Take your time.

Takes no time at all for a knowledgeable critic.

The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought... an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest.

It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm.

See?

No time at all needed to answer David's questions.

This is why he's too much the coward to post here... he knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

(01-17-2017, 03:44 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

David Emerling Wrote:The Single Bullet Theory is quite simple. There are no competing theories that stand up to the evidence in nearly the same way. The Single Bullet Theory has all the hallmarks or rising to the level of a fact.

If this were actually true - believers wouldn't be afraid of debate on this issue.

I challenge any and all believers to state just what refutes the explanation that there were multiple shooters...

[Crickets...]

An excellent post from David Emmerling I must say.

It  has been many weeks since I looked at this Ben Holmes site, since I am not a fan of JFK Groundhog Day......

David provides a fine summary

"For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test. Alternate theories that account for all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds fail miserably in many categories. Yet, those wounds DO exist. It happened. There MUST be an explanation. There cannot be numerous explanations. As Dale Myers says quite succinctly, "You can talk about all the theories you want. This thing happened only ONE way ... it's not a magic bullet at all. It's not even a single bullet theory, in my opinion. It's a single bullet FACT."......"

It certainly did happen only one way and the SBT is indeed the most sensible, plasusible and likely scenario for what happened in respect of the non fatal wounds of JFK and JC. We cannot prove it, but know it is nigh on a fact.

Message to Holmes......Hey Benny, I see you are getting lots of interesting comments.......not....I wonder why that is....?

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2017, 03:44 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

David Emerling Wrote:The Single Bullet Theory is quite simple. There are no competing theories that stand up to the evidence in nearly the same way. The Single Bullet Theory has all the hallmarks or rising to the level of a fact.

If this were actually true - believers wouldn't be afraid of debate on this issue.

I challenge any and all believers to state just what refutes the explanation that there were multiple shooters...

[Crickets...]

An excellent post from David Emmerling I must say.

Yep... in contained no facts, no citation, no evidence, and a provably wrong argument. What's to dislike about it from a believer?

You've never been able to establish the SBT as even a decent theory, since it fails to explain the most basic of facts.

You'll run from it now as well.

I still can't find even a single believer to address Connally's wrist wound - I'm certainly not going to find any believer able to demonstrate transit... an absolute BASIC requirement of the SBT.

 

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]It  has been many weeks since I looked at this Ben Holmes site, since I am not a fan of JFK Groundhog Day......

David provides a fine summary

"For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test. Alternate theories that account for all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds fail miserably in many categories.

You're lying again, Patrick - and the FACT that you're lying can be easily demonstrated - you will refuse to defend that statement.

Here's an "alternate theory" that is SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE - and that you'll not refute. There were multiple shooters... there were more than three shots.
 

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Yet, those wounds DO exist. It happened. There MUST be an explanation.

Yep... there is. Bullets caused those wounds. Multiple bullets... from different directions...

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]There cannot be numerous explanations.

PROVABLY false. There cannot be numerous CORRECT explanations - but it's downright silly to argue that there cannot be numerous explanations... indeed believers cannot even settle on ONE version of the SBT, so there ARE "numerous explanations" for the SBT - thus proving your assertion wrong.

So tell us Patrick, would you like to correct your statement - and tell the truth this time?

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]As Dale Myers says quite succinctly, "You can talk about all the theories you want. This thing happened only ONE way ... it's not a magic bullet at all. It's not even a single bullet theory, in my opinion. It's a single bullet FACT."......"

You can quote another dozen believers saying the same thing - it still isn't true.

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]It certainly did happen only one way and the SBT is indeed the most sensible, plasusible and likely scenario for what happened in respect of the non fatal wounds of JFK and JC. We cannot prove it, but know it is nigh on a fact.'

Nope.

The most obvious way that it happened - AND THAT MATCHES THE KNOWN FACTS (such as the entry wound on JFK's throat, the wound through Connally's wrist, the eyewitness testimony, the lack of any bullet transit) - is simple, multiple assassins shooting from different locations.

(01-28-2017, 02:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Message to Holmes......Hey Benny, I see you are getting lots of interesting comments.......not....I wonder why that is....?

Cowardice. Most believers are deathly afraid of posting in a forum that is controlled by a critic. Particularly a knowledgeable critic. The evidence simply isn't on your side, so lying is your one major tactic. The other major tactic, ad hominem, isn't allowed here. So you're left with practically nothing. The one forum that has the most believers is probably John McAdams' - and he doesn't allow anyone to point out that someone is lying. He also deletes posts that would never be deleted here - all in defense of WC believers.

David Von Pein Wrote:

(01-18-2017, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

David Von Pein Wrote:What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat then? And where did that bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy? Take your time.

Takes no time at all for a knowledgeable critic.

The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought... an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest.

It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm.

See?

No time at all needed to answer David's questions.

This is why he's too much the coward to post here... he knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:

Ben thinks that this statement....

>>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<

...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)

 So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?

On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.

On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.

But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:

Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)

Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)

So who's lying, David?

I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.

Of course, knowing how dishonest you are, this rebuttal and your retraction will never find it's way on to your many websites...

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

'Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" 

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

I have done that for years, so has DVP and so has Hank and many authors. You are talking nonsense again.
 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

So what, they did not know the anterior neck wound was a bullet wound and muscles contract during mortis.
 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

So what...? However, it should have done, because it is obvious from  the film that the men are hit together, so they should have considered a one shot scenario for the non fatal wounds.
 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

The SBT is THE MOST PLAUSIBLE and likely of the shooting scenarios. Period. 
 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

There are and have been for years. It seems you choose to ignore them. I am totally confident you would get your ass kicked on the SBT in a public debate.

The SBT is so obviously the historical truth it should be known as the SBF as I have stated many times.

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

Vincent Bugliosi"]
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" 

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

Its a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ' Wrote: [ -> ]If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

I have done that for years, so has DVP and so has Hank and many authors. You are talking nonsense again.

You're failing right HERE... refusing to publicly acknowledge the truth of my statements... (indeed, you even lie abou the facts, as listed below)

Henry ran... DVP is CURRENTLY running from me on virtually every issue in a public forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk)
 
So no, your assessment simply isn't true.
 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

So what, they did not know the anterior neck wound was a bullet wound and muscles contract during mortis.

Nope...

If there'd been a path, THEY COULD HAVE FOUND IT. It's quite embarrassing for your faith that the interior chest photo disappeared... the one bit of evidence that could have proven, OR DISPROVEN your theory.

Tell us Patrick - is it more likely that the photo disappeared due to the fact that it proved transit? Or disproved transit?

Nor is your speculation about the throat wound evidence... what *IS* evidence is the observations of those doctors who saw the wound.

What *IS* evidence is the fact that the prosectors were forbidden from tracing the track of that bullet.

You can't give a credible reason... I can.

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

So what...? However, it should have done, because it is obvious from  the film that the men are hit together, so they should have considered a one shot scenario for the non fatal wounds.

You're lying again, Patrick.

The Warren Commission quite clearly understood that the film DID NOT SHOW THE MEN BEING HIT TOGETHER.

Tell us Patrick, why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?

Why can't you PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that the Warren Commission believed that there was a "delayed reaction" seen in the film?

Why do you continue to lie about the issue?

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

The SBT is THE MOST PLAUSIBLE and likely of the shooting scenarios. Period. 

You're LYING AGAIN, Patrick. The scenario of multiple shooters EXPLAINS MORE OF THE EVIDENCE THAN THE SBT DOES...

Nor does it run into the problems that the SBT has - such as the testimony of a number of witnesses, the lack of transit, the condition of CE399, the medical evidence, etc.

So it's a LIE to assert that the SBT is the "most plausible" - and I rather suspect that you won't be honest enough to withdraw such a lie.

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

There are and have been for years. It seems you choose to ignore them. I am totally confident you would get your ass kicked on the SBT in a public debate.

You didn't "dispute" most of these... you in essence said 'so what?'... then lied about the rest...

Feel free to visit alt.conspiracy.jfk and watch this speculated "ass kicking" that isn't happening there.
 

Keep in mind that THIS is a public forum as well. Henry could post here, had he the guts... DVP could post here, if he had the guts to do so...

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]The SBT is so obviously the historical truth it should be known as the SBF as I have stated many times.

And yet, you can't seem to defend that assertion... why is that, Patrick?