+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... (/Thread-Anthony-Marsh-Is-A-Liar)
Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Ben Holmes - 01-19-2017
Anthony Marsh Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.
That is not true. That is a lie.
The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.
It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.
Tony is a cowardly liar...
Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...
I challenge him to tell the truth.
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Patrick C - 02-08-2017
(01-19-2017, 06:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Anthony Marsh Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.
That is not true. That is a lie.
The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.
It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.
Tony is a cowardly liar...
Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...
I challenge him to tell the truth.
It is possible to cycle the Carcano and strike targets at 200 yards 7 times in 7 seconds. However this has been done by an Olympic standard marksman using a fully serviced weapon.
I am not aware of tests using Oswald's actual Carcano in which two shots were fired in 1.66 seconds. This number comes from the HSCA tests as far as I am aware.
It would seem reasonable that Oswald's actual weapon could have been cycled and fired again in 1.66 seconds which is / was the time cited in various texts on the assassination. I had not seen 1.6 seconds before......the time cited is just under 1.7 seconds (1.66)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
(2) It is apparently difficult, but not impossible -- at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used -- to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills", with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.
(3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not carefully "sight" it, on the target of each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2". [4]
(4) There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.31 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5. [5]
It is my belief that the evidence strongly supports that Oswald fired two shots which struck circa Z221/2 and Z312/3 which were around 5.2 seconds apart and that there was NO intersecting shot between those two. If there was a missed shot it was fired earlier just after the turn giving an approx 8 second time frame for a 3 shot scenario.
It is possible that there were indeed only two shots, but we cannot know.
Understanding the shooting and determining that based on the eye and ear witness testimony there were most likely only two or three shots and indeed that ALL the shots were fired from the same place....one invariably must conclude that there was highly probably only one shooter.
The shooter was seen in the SE 6th floor window at the time that the shots sounded.
It is possible some one fired Oswald's weapon. It is possible some one fired a shot that missed from another location high and to the rear, but these are simply remote possibilities that are merely statistically valid as options.
The only areas of concern for the lone gunman supporters are the similarity of three individuals ref the Chicago and Tampa plots, the Odio incident and Mexico City. There are questions around the Camp ST address and the FPFCC in New Orleans. Other than that, very little.
Which is why all the major investigations concluded there was no conspiracy - albeit the question mark over the HSCA and the dictabelt "evidence"......
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Ben Holmes - 02-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(01-19-2017, 06:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Anthony Marsh Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.
That is not true. That is a lie.
The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.
It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.
Tony is a cowardly liar...
Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...
I challenge him to tell the truth.
It is possible to cycle the Carcano and strike targets at 200 yards 7 times in 7 seconds. However this has been done by an Olympic standard marksman using a fully serviced weapon.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to fire CE-139 that fast... you know it, I know it... You're quite desperately lying here, aren't you Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I am not aware of tests using Oswald's actual Carcano in which two shots were fired in 1.66 seconds. This number comes from the HSCA tests as far as I am aware.
Of course... I SCHOOLED YOU on this issue before.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem reasonable that Oswald's weapon could be cycled and fired again in 1.66 seconds which is / was the time cited in various texts on the assassination. I had not seen 1.6 seconds before......the time cited is just under 1.7 seconds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
You're a liar, Patrick.
If the rifle could have been cycled that fast - THEN EXPLAIN WHY THE FBI WAS UNABLE TO DO SO.
It was in their interests to have the rifle fire as quickly as they could - so they could explain the "delayed reaction" of Connally in a more credible way.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (2) It is apparently difficult, but not impossible -- at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used -- to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills", with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.
Another PROVABLE lie. Never been done with CE-139... and YOU KNOW THIS!!!
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not carefully "sight" it, on the target of each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2". [4]
YET ANOTHER PROVABLE LIE.
You KNOW FOR A FACT that this has never been done on CE-139.
Why do you keep lying, Patrick? Why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (4) There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.31 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5. [5]
The issue isn't the time to fire three shots, but the time to fire two so closely together as witnesses testified to.
I'm well aware that critics have in the past argued the total time of the firing, but I never have. The real issue is the impossible close spacing of two of those shots.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is my belief that the evidence strongly supports that Oswald fired two shots which struck circa Z221/2 and Z312/3 which were around 5.2 seconds apart and that there was NO intersecting shot between those two. If there was a missed shot it was fired earlier just after the turn giving an approx 8 second time frame for a 3 shot scenario.
It is possible that there were indeed only two shots, but we cannot know.
Understanding the shooting and determining that based on the eye and ear witness testimony there were most likely only two or three shots and indeed that ALL the shots were fired from the same place....one invariably must conclude that there was highly probably only one shooter.
The shooter was seen in the SE 6th floor window at the time that the shots sounded.
It is possible some one fired Oswald's weapon. It is possible some one fired a shot that missed from another location high and to the rear, but these are simply remote possibilities that are merely statistically valid as options.
The only areas of concern for the lone gunman supporters are the similarity of three individuals ref the Chicago and Tampa plots, the Odio incident and Mexico City. There are questions around the Camp ST address and the FPFCC in New Orleans. Other than that, very little.
All your beliefs simply aren't supported by the evidence...
If they were, you'd not be required to lie so consistently.
You've been schooled REPEATEDLY on the speed of firing that CE-139 was capable of - YET YOU CONTINUE TO KEEP RIGHT ON LYING ABOUT IT!
Why is that, Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Which is why all the major investigations concluded there was no conspiracy - albeit the question mark over the HSCA and the dictabelt "evidence"......
You're lying again, Patrick. Most importantly, YOU KNOW YOU'RE LYING.
I'm amused that you apparently don't care if your lies are labeled thus, and YOU are labeled a liar, because you continue to post lies that you KNOW that I'll point out.
Why is that, Patrick?
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Patrick C - 02-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(01-19-2017, 06:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Anthony Marsh Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.
That is not true. That is a lie.
The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.
It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.
Tony is a cowardly liar...
Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...
I challenge him to tell the truth.
It is possible to cycle the Carcano and strike targets at 200 yards 7 times in 7 seconds. However this has been done by an Olympic standard marksman using a fully serviced weapon.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to fire CE-139 that fast... you know it, I know it... You're quite desperately lying here, aren't you Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I am not aware of tests using Oswald's actual Carcano in which two shots were fired in 1.66 seconds. This number comes from the HSCA tests as far as I am aware.
Of course... I SCHOOLED YOU on this issue before.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem reasonable that Oswald's weapon could be cycled and fired again in 1.66 seconds which is / was the time cited in various texts on the assassination. I had not seen 1.6 seconds before......the time cited is just under 1.7 seconds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
You're a liar, Patrick.
If the rifle could have been cycled that fast - THEN EXPLAIN WHY THE FBI WAS UNABLE TO DO SO.
It was in their interests to have the rifle fire as quickly as they could - so they could explain the "delayed reaction" of Connally in a more credible way.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (2) It is apparently difficult, but not impossible -- at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used -- to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills", with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.
Another PROVABLE lie. Never been done with CE-139... and YOU KNOW THIS!!!
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not carefully "sight" it, on the target of each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2". [4]
YET ANOTHER PROVABLE LIE.
You KNOW FOR A FACT that this has never been done on CE-139.
Why do you keep lying, Patrick? Why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (4) There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.31 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5. [5]
The issue isn't the time to fire three shots, but the time to fire two so closely together as witnesses testified to.
I'm well aware that critics have in the past argued the total time of the firing, but I never have. The real issue is the impossible close spacing of two of those shots.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is my belief that the evidence strongly supports that Oswald fired two shots which struck circa Z221/2 and Z312/3 which were around 5.2 seconds apart and that there was NO intersecting shot between those two. If there was a missed shot it was fired earlier just after the turn giving an approx 8 second time frame for a 3 shot scenario.
It is possible that there were indeed only two shots, but we cannot know.
Understanding the shooting and determining that based on the eye and ear witness testimony there were most likely only two or three shots and indeed that ALL the shots were fired from the same place....one invariably must conclude that there was highly probably only one shooter.
The shooter was seen in the SE 6th floor window at the time that the shots sounded.
It is possible some one fired Oswald's weapon. It is possible some one fired a shot that missed from another location high and to the rear, but these are simply remote possibilities that are merely statistically valid as options.
The only areas of concern for the lone gunman supporters are the similarity of three individuals ref the Chicago and Tampa plots, the Odio incident and Mexico City. There are questions around the Camp ST address and the FPFCC in New Orleans. Other than that, very little.
All your beliefs simply aren't supported by the evidence...
If they were, you'd not be required to lie so consistently.
You've been schooled REPEATEDLY on the speed of firing that CE-139 was capable of - YET YOU CONTINUE TO KEEP RIGHT ON LYING ABOUT IT!
Why is that, Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Which is why all the major investigations concluded there was no conspiracy - albeit the question mark over the HSCA and the dictabelt "evidence"......
You're lying again, Patrick. Most importantly, YOU KNOW YOU'RE LYING.
I'm amused that you apparently don't care if your lies are labeled thus, and YOU are labeled a liar, because you continue to post lies that you KNOW that I'll point out.
Why is that, Patrick?
Wrong on all counts.
I am not lying. I am either presenting evidence or expressing an opinion.
You have never "schooled" me on a single thing.
What I don't care one jott about is your skewed view on the JFK case. I just very ocassionally get a small kick of
exchanging views.
I have a saying in business "the most difficult people to work with are often those who don't know what they don't know"......there is an element of that which belongs to your debating techniques. Whilst your knowledge of the assassination is very high - sadly your use of it lets you down significantly.
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Ben Holmes - 02-08-2017
(02-08-2017, 04:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(01-19-2017, 06:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Anthony Marsh Wrote:That is not true. That is a lie.
The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.
It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.
Tony is a cowardly liar...
Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...
I challenge him to tell the truth.
It is possible to cycle the Carcano and strike targets at 200 yards 7 times in 7 seconds. However this has been done by an Olympic standard marksman using a fully serviced weapon.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to fire CE-139 that fast... you know it, I know it... You're quite desperately lying here, aren't you Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I am not aware of tests using Oswald's actual Carcano in which two shots were fired in 1.66 seconds. This number comes from the HSCA tests as far as I am aware.
Of course... I SCHOOLED YOU on this issue before.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem reasonable that Oswald's weapon could be cycled and fired again in 1.66 seconds which is / was the time cited in various texts on the assassination. I had not seen 1.6 seconds before......the time cited is just under 1.7 seconds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
You're a liar, Patrick.
If the rifle could have been cycled that fast - THEN EXPLAIN WHY THE FBI WAS UNABLE TO DO SO.
It was in their interests to have the rifle fire as quickly as they could - so they could explain the "delayed reaction" of Connally in a more credible way.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (2) It is apparently difficult, but not impossible -- at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used -- to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills", with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.
Another PROVABLE lie. Never been done with CE-139... and YOU KNOW THIS!!!
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not carefully "sight" it, on the target of each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2". [4]
YET ANOTHER PROVABLE LIE.
You KNOW FOR A FACT that this has never been done on CE-139.
Why do you keep lying, Patrick? Why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (4) There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.31 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5. [5]
The issue isn't the time to fire three shots, but the time to fire two so closely together as witnesses testified to.
I'm well aware that critics have in the past argued the total time of the firing, but I never have. The real issue is the impossible close spacing of two of those shots.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is my belief that the evidence strongly supports that Oswald fired two shots which struck circa Z221/2 and Z312/3 which were around 5.2 seconds apart and that there was NO intersecting shot between those two. If there was a missed shot it was fired earlier just after the turn giving an approx 8 second time frame for a 3 shot scenario.
It is possible that there were indeed only two shots, but we cannot know.
Understanding the shooting and determining that based on the eye and ear witness testimony there were most likely only two or three shots and indeed that ALL the shots were fired from the same place....one invariably must conclude that there was highly probably only one shooter.
The shooter was seen in the SE 6th floor window at the time that the shots sounded.
It is possible some one fired Oswald's weapon. It is possible some one fired a shot that missed from another location high and to the rear, but these are simply remote possibilities that are merely statistically valid as options.
The only areas of concern for the lone gunman supporters are the similarity of three individuals ref the Chicago and Tampa plots, the Odio incident and Mexico City. There are questions around the Camp ST address and the FPFCC in New Orleans. Other than that, very little.
All your beliefs simply aren't supported by the evidence...
If they were, you'd not be required to lie so consistently.
You've been schooled REPEATEDLY on the speed of firing that CE-139 was capable of - YET YOU CONTINUE TO KEEP RIGHT ON LYING ABOUT IT!
Why is that, Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Which is why all the major investigations concluded there was no conspiracy - albeit the question mark over the HSCA and the dictabelt "evidence"......
You're lying again, Patrick. Most importantly, YOU KNOW YOU'RE LYING.
I'm amused that you apparently don't care if your lies are labeled thus, and YOU are labeled a liar, because you continue to post lies that you KNOW that I'll point out.
Why is that, Patrick?
Wrong on all counts.
I am not lying. I am either presenting evidence or expressing an opinion.
You have never "schooled" me on a single thing.
What I don't care one jott about is your skewed view on the JFK case. I just very ocassionally get a small kick of
exchanging views.
I have a saying in business "the most difficult people to work with are often those who don't know what they don't know"......there is an element of that which belongs to your debating techniques. Whilst your knowledge of the assassination is very high - sadly your use of it lets you down significantly.
If I'm "wrong on all counts" ... then simply cite the cycling speed of CE-139.
But you're a coward, Patrick, and will never do so!
I do keep records of the more outrageous lies told by believers... here's a few of your's:
Patrick Collins Wrote:Dec 16th 8am
The MC was and is capable of cycled in less than 2.3 seconds - 1.66 seconds is the actual answer put forward I think by the FBI in 1964. Shame on you Holmes you should know that figure - no scope used.
Patrick Collins Wrote:Dec 16th 9:51am
Since I was around 23 I have known the FBI stated the Oswald MC could be aimed and fired every 2.3 seconds - aiming using a scope. 1.66 seconds using the irons. Plain and simple. Nothing more nothing less.
Tell us Patrick, since you claim never to have been schooled by me, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL TIME GIVEN FOR THE MANNLICHER CARCANO, CE-139?
I expect you'll evade and run away... because an honest answer would reveal that you'd indeed been caught lying, and you were indeed, schooled by me on this issue.
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Patrick C - 02-09-2017
(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(01-19-2017, 06:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:Anthony Marsh Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.
That is not true. That is a lie.
The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.
It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.
Tony is a cowardly liar...
Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...
I challenge him to tell the truth.
It is possible to cycle the Carcano and strike targets at 200 yards 7 times in 7 seconds. However this has been done by an Olympic standard marksman using a fully serviced weapon.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to fire CE-139 that fast... you know it, I know it... You're quite desperately lying here, aren't you Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I am not aware of tests using Oswald's actual Carcano in which two shots were fired in 1.66 seconds. This number comes from the HSCA tests as far as I am aware.
Of course... I SCHOOLED YOU on this issue before.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem reasonable that Oswald's weapon could be cycled and fired again in 1.66 seconds which is / was the time cited in various texts on the assassination. I had not seen 1.6 seconds before......the time cited is just under 1.7 seconds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
You're a liar, Patrick.
If the rifle could have been cycled that fast - THEN EXPLAIN WHY THE FBI WAS UNABLE TO DO SO.
It was in their interests to have the rifle fire as quickly as they could - so they could explain the "delayed reaction" of Connally in a more credible way.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (2) It is apparently difficult, but not impossible -- at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used -- to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills", with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.
Another PROVABLE lie. Never been done with CE-139... and YOU KNOW THIS!!!
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not carefully "sight" it, on the target of each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2". [4]
YET ANOTHER PROVABLE LIE.
You KNOW FOR A FACT that this has never been done on CE-139.
Why do you keep lying, Patrick? Why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: (4) There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.31 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5. [5]
The issue isn't the time to fire three shots, but the time to fire two so closely together as witnesses testified to.
I'm well aware that critics have in the past argued the total time of the firing, but I never have. The real issue is the impossible close spacing of two of those shots.
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is my belief that the evidence strongly supports that Oswald fired two shots which struck circa Z221/2 and Z312/3 which were around 5.2 seconds apart and that there was NO intersecting shot between those two. If there was a missed shot it was fired earlier just after the turn giving an approx 8 second time frame for a 3 shot scenario.
It is possible that there were indeed only two shots, but we cannot know.
Understanding the shooting and determining that based on the eye and ear witness testimony there were most likely only two or three shots and indeed that ALL the shots were fired from the same place....one invariably must conclude that there was highly probably only one shooter.
The shooter was seen in the SE 6th floor window at the time that the shots sounded.
It is possible some one fired Oswald's weapon. It is possible some one fired a shot that missed from another location high and to the rear, but these are simply remote possibilities that are merely statistically valid as options.
The only areas of concern for the lone gunman supporters are the similarity of three individuals ref the Chicago and Tampa plots, the Odio incident and Mexico City. There are questions around the Camp ST address and the FPFCC in New Orleans. Other than that, very little.
All your beliefs simply aren't supported by the evidence...
If they were, you'd not be required to lie so consistently.
You've been schooled REPEATEDLY on the speed of firing that CE-139 was capable of - YET YOU CONTINUE TO KEEP RIGHT ON LYING ABOUT IT!
Why is that, Patrick?
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Which is why all the major investigations concluded there was no conspiracy - albeit the question mark over the HSCA and the dictabelt "evidence"......
You're lying again, Patrick. Most importantly, YOU KNOW YOU'RE LYING.
I'm amused that you apparently don't care if your lies are labeled thus, and YOU are labeled a liar, because you continue to post lies that you KNOW that I'll point out.
Why is that, Patrick?
I do not care what you call me Ben as I do not value your opinions on the JFK assassination. I have posted in the past that your bog standard response to almost all posts is to call the poster a coward or a liar - is tedious and juvenile and indicative of your standard of education and ability to debate - the latter is virtually nil.
The so called issue over how fast the rifle could be fired is frankly irrelevant. There were only two shots that stuck Kennedy and they did so a full 5+ seconds apart. The first of those shots passed through Connally - as it had to unless it struck the car - but that did not happen.
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Ben Holmes - 02-09-2017
(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: All your beliefs simply aren't supported by the evidence...
If they were, you'd not be required to lie so consistently.
You've been schooled REPEATEDLY on the speed of firing that CE-139 was capable of - YET YOU CONTINUE TO KEEP RIGHT ON LYING ABOUT IT!
Why is that, Patrick?
No answer.
Patrick KNOWS he's been caught in a lie again, he KNOWS BEYOND ALL DOUBT that CE-139 was NEVER cycled at 1.7 seconds...
(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(02-08-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Which is why all the major investigations concluded there was no conspiracy - albeit the question mark over the HSCA and the dictabelt "evidence"......
You're lying again, Patrick. Most importantly, YOU KNOW YOU'RE LYING.
I'm amused that you apparently don't care if your lies are labeled thus, and YOU are labeled a liar, because you continue to post lies that you KNOW that I'll point out.
Why is that, Patrick?
I do not care what you call me Ben as I do not value your opinions on the JFK assassination. I have posted in the past that your bog standard response to almost all posts is to call the poster a coward or a liar - is tedious and juvenile and indicative of your standard of education and ability to debate - the latter is virtually nil.
I don't "call" you a liar, I merely point out the FACT that you're a liar.
And everytime I do - YOU NEVER ATTEMPT TO DEFEND YOUR LIE!
So it's clear that you know you've been caught again - yet you keep right on doing so... and that fact speaks to a basically dishonest nature.
(02-09-2017, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote: The so called issue over how fast the rifle could be fired is frankly irrelevant. There were only two shots that stuck Kennedy and they did so a full 5+ seconds apart. The first of those shots passed through Connally - as it had to unless it struck the car - but that did not happen.
If the issue of how fast the rifle could be fired is "irrelevant" - THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT IT?
It's clearly HIGHLY RELEVANT if believers such as yourself continually lie about the speed that CE-139 could be fired. Indeed, had it been capable of faster speed, the SBT likely would never have been invented... there would have been no need for it.
Now, an HONEST man would admit that the recorded speed of CE-139 was 2.3 seconds. And wouldn't keep trying to get that speed to a lower figure... then call it "irrelevant."
But you're not an honest man, are you Patrick?
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Patrick C - 02-09-2017
Ben Holmes Wrote:It's clearly HIGHLY RELEVANT if believers such as yourself continually lie about the speed that CE-139 could be fired. Indeed, had it been capable of faster speed, the SBT likely would never have been invented... there would have been no need for it.
I don't agree. Had there been two separate shots Z222 to Z230 for example, we would have another bullet either in the car or in the victims. We did not. One bullet had to cause the wounds of both men.
Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, an HONEST man would admit that the recorded speed of CE-139 was 2.3 seconds. And wouldn't keep trying to get that speed to a lower figure... then call it "irrelevant."
I am doing nothing of the sort. I merely stated that the HSCA had a speed of 1.66 seconds using the irons. Stop making crap up.
Ben Holmes Wrote:But you're not an honest man, are you Patrick?
Oh yes I absolutely am Ben Holmes. [Ad Hominem removed by Admin]
RE: Anthony Marsh Is A Liar... - Ben Holmes - 02-09-2017
(02-09-2017, 04:12 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:It's clearly HIGHLY RELEVANT if believers such as yourself continually lie about the speed that CE-139 could be fired. Indeed, had it been capable of faster speed, the SBT likely would never have been invented... there would have been no need for it.
I don't agree. Had there been two separate shots Z222 to Z230 for example, we would have another bullet either in the car or in the victims. We did not. One bullet had to cause the wounds of both men.
Who cares whether or not you agree?
You're not utilizing the evidence to find out what happened, you're putting the cart before the horse, declaring what happened, then force-fitting all the evidence into your theory.
This explains why you've rather continuously lied about how fast the Mannlicher Carcano can be re-cycled.
(02-09-2017, 04:12 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, an HONEST man would admit that the recorded speed of CE-139 was 2.3 seconds. And wouldn't keep trying to get that speed to a lower figure... then call it "irrelevant."
I am doing nothing of the sort. I merely stated that the HSCA had a speed of 1.66 seconds using the irons. Stop making crap up.
Once again, Patrick - YOU'RE A LIAR!
Oh, it's very slickly done, and many people wouldn't catch it... You're implying that it was THE Mannlicher Carcano, the one you KNOW FOR A FACT was never cycled at 1.66 seconds.
But everytime you imply a faster speed that the FBI documented for CE-139, I'm simply going to point out your lie, and label you correctly as a liar.
(02-09-2017, 04:12 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:But you're not an honest man, are you Patrick?
Oh yes I absolutely am Ben Holmes. [Ad Hominem removed by Admin]
If you're honest, as you claim - why do you keep on posting what you KNOW to be untrue?
Indeed, on another topic, you claim that a majority of witnesses documented in the first two days pointed to the TSBD rather than the Grassy Knoll.
Can you cite ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for that claim?
An honest man would be able to.