Corbutt's Word Vomit Answered, Statement By Statement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


I thought it would be amusing to refute Corbutt's word vomit,
statement by statement. He will ABSOLUTELY refuse to defend it, thus
showing the world that he doesn't believe his own nonsense.

This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you.

As Huckster Sienzant says: When you start with ad hominem we know it
won't go well for you.

You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process.

This is a simple logical fallacy. You assert what you need to prove.
It's also simply a lie on your part.

You start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a
coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them.

No critic I know of, including of course, Gil - does that. We all
started with the WCR. Then dug into the actual evidence that
contradicts what the WCR claimed for it. Some have started with some
book, such as Mark Lane or SSID, but *all* have ended up going through
the WCR, then the actual evidence.

Anything that is necessary for those things to be true must have
happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened.

This is simply a lie. We don't start with a theory... we start with
the evidence. This explains why most critics are far more
knowledgeable than most believers on the actual evidence.

Chuckles: I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: I take NONE of
this seriously. None of it.

Billy Clarke: I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I
have read of it I found one glaring mistake. I assume there are
others.

This is just the latest example of your methodology.

The methodology of critics is to go where the evidence leads.

Always has been.

You're simply lying when you suggest otherwise.

You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound.

No. It's *NOT* a matter of faith. IT'S A MATTER OF THE MEDICAL
EVIDENCE & TESTIMONY.

Indeed, the earliest statements were so devastating that Huckster
Sienzant actually suggested that the press conference transcript had
been "altered." Then lied about it, and claimed he'd never said this.

The ones who hold a belief on faith is believers. You don't have any
medical evidence that the throat wound was an exit - INDEED, THAT IDEA
CAME *AFTER* THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER!

Huckster was so upset with the idea that the Parkland doctors had
within hours stated that the throat wound was an entry, that he simply
asserted that the transcripts had been altered. This is an example of
"faith" - and it's on the part of believers, not critics.

In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit
wounds and no bullets in the body, you assume somebody must have
removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever
happening.

The evidence is so strong and overwhelming that the time JFK's body
arrived at Bethesda frightens you to death.

Not a *SINGLE* believer has ever answered that question honestly &
completely.

You've PERSONALLY run every time the question was asked.

So you demonstrate an awareness that you are simply telling a lie. You
*KNOW* there's evidence, and you run from it.

Both Gil and I have CITED evidence from Dr. Humes, as quoted in the
Sibert ONeill report, and you've flat REFUSED to accept it.

You just continue lying in spite of the actual evidence.

I must have happened or there would still be bullets in the body.

An incoherent assertion. Presumably, you're agreeing with us that
bullets were removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.

You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target
and the fact you need not one but two such bullets.

You refuse to take into account that making meaningless statements
doesn't require a response.

No critic has ever made the assertion that "low velocity" weapons were
used. That's not a thing. EVERY PROJECTILE WEAPON IN THE WORLD IS
"LOW VELOCITY" AT SOME DISTANCE.

Likewise, to rephrase it, every single projectile IN THE WORLD is "low
velocity" at some point.

The idea that bullets must always exit the body is simply a wacky
unsupported idea of yours that people are going to laugh at.

You refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the
bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit.

I *have* entertained it. I rejected it based on the medical evidence.

Indeed, many critics have wondered if the back wound, BASED ON IT'S
SIZE, was not an exit wound. I reject that based on a feature that
all entry wounds have that exit wounds do not have.

Can you name this feature that medically differentiates entry from
exit?

Since the back wound was provably and entrance, process of
elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.

Despite your poor grammar, I understood that. Both back wound and
throat wounds were provably - BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, entry
wounds. Your "process of elimination" contains a logical fallacy, can
you figure it out, or shall I tell you?

Nah, you'll run, as you always do, so I might as well slap you
again... you're presuming that both wounds were caused by one bullet.
This logical fallacy is known as "begging the question" - as you're
asserting what you need to prove.

You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy,

This is a lie on your part. While some internal organs were removed,

a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound to
the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles,
to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision that was made
over the bullet wound in the throat.

And here is your lie. You tied the fact that *SOME* internal organs
were removed to this supposed trail. Despite the fact that this wound
was NOT dissected, and they did *NOT* remove the trachea.

You've merely presumed the direction of damage, and completely failed
to note that an entering bullet in JFK's throat could nick the
trachea, and bruise the pleura.

These are *LIES* on your part.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and
since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is
incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that
couldn't have been what happened.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by a lone gunman firing from behind him and since a bullet
striking JFK in the throat and not exiting is incompatible with your
preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what
happened.

It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and
exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,

But it's not. The medical evidence did *NOT* show transit, and the
MEDICAL evidence is clear that the throat wound was an entry.

Lies can't convince people, you need to do better!

you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front,

That is indeed what the medical evidence shows.

so the medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the
throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.

And somebody did. Drs. Humes & Boswell. This was done BEFORE any
X-rays were taken. The proof is simple, Dr. Humes acknowledged the
surgery that was perfomed, probably as a CYA. You've flat lied
several times on this issue - and STILL refuse to state when JFK
arrived at Bethesda.

Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years
later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.

And you end with a logical fallacy. Two of them, actually. Can you
name them?

Or will you run away again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:07:23 -0800, Ben Holmes

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
I thought it would be amusing to refute Corbutt's word vomit,
statement by statement. He will ABSOLUTELY refuse to defend it, thus
showing the world that he doesn't believe his own nonsense.

This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you.

As Huckster Sienzant says: When you start with ad hominem we know it
won't go well for you.

You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process.

This is a simple logical fallacy. You assert what you need to prove.
It's also simply a lie on your part.

You start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a
coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them.

No critic I know of, including of course, Gil - does that. We all
started with the WCR. Then dug into the actual evidence that
contradicts what the WCR claimed for it. Some have started with some
book, such as Mark Lane or SSID, but *all* have ended up going through
the WCR, then the actual evidence.

Anything that is necessary for those things to be true must have
happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened.

This is simply a lie. We don't start with a theory... we start with
the evidence. This explains why most critics are far more
knowledgeable than most believers on the actual evidence.
Chuckles: I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: I take NONE of
this seriously. None of it.
Billy Clarke: I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I
have read of it I found one glaring mistake. I assume there are
others.

This is just the latest example of your methodology.

The methodology of critics is to go where the evidence leads.
Always has been.
You're simply lying when you suggest otherwise.

You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound.

No. It's *NOT* a matter of faith. IT'S A MATTER OF THE MEDICAL
EVIDENCE & TESTIMONY.
Indeed, the earliest statements were so devastating that Huckster
Sienzant actually suggested that the press conference transcript had
been "altered." Then lied about it, and claimed he'd never said this.
The ones who hold a belief on faith is believers. You don't have any
medical evidence that the throat wound was an exit - INDEED, THAT IDEA
CAME *AFTER* THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER!
Huckster was so upset with the idea that the Parkland doctors had
within hours stated that the throat wound was an entry, that he simply
asserted that the transcripts had been altered. This is an example of
"faith" - and it's on the part of believers, not critics.

In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit
wounds and no bullets in the body, you assume somebody must have
removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever
happening.

The evidence is so strong and overwhelming that the time JFK's body
arrived at Bethesda frightens you to death.
Not a *SINGLE* believer has ever answered that question honestly &
completely.
You've PERSONALLY run every time the question was asked.
So you demonstrate an awareness that you are simply telling a lie. You
*KNOW* there's evidence, and you run from it.
Both Gil and I have CITED evidence from Dr. Humes, as quoted in the
Sibert ONeill report, and you've flat REFUSED to accept it.
You just continue lying in spite of the actual evidence.

I must have happened or there would still be bullets in the body.

An incoherent assertion. Presumably, you're agreeing with us that
bullets were removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.

You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target
and the fact you need not one but two such bullets.

You refuse to take into account that making meaningless statements
doesn't require a response.
No critic has ever made the assertion that "low velocity" weapons were
used. That's not a thing. EVERY PROJECTILE WEAPON IN THE WORLD IS
"LOW VELOCITY" AT SOME DISTANCE.
Likewise, to rephrase it, every single projectile IN THE WORLD is "low
velocity" at some point.
The idea that bullets must always exit the body is simply a wacky
unsupported idea of yours that people are going to laugh at.

You refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the
bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit.

I *have* entertained it. I rejected it based on the medical evidence.
Indeed, many critics have wondered if the back wound, BASED ON IT'S
SIZE, was not an exit wound. I reject that based on a feature that
all entry wounds have that exit wounds do not have.
Can you name this feature that medically differentiates entry from
exit?

Since the back wound was provably and entrance, process of
elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.

Despite your poor grammar, I understood that. Both back wound and
throat wounds were provably - BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, entry
wounds. Your "process of elimination" contains a logical fallacy, can
you figure it out, or shall I tell you?
Nah, you'll run, as you always do, so I might as well slap you
again... you're presuming that both wounds were caused by one bullet.
This logical fallacy is known as "begging the question" - as you're
asserting what you need to prove.

You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy,

This is a lie on your part. While some internal organs were removed,

a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound to
the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles,
to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision that was made
over the bullet wound in the throat.

And here is your lie. You tied the fact that *SOME* internal organs
were removed to this supposed trail. Despite the fact that this wound
was NOT dissected, and they did *NOT* remove the trachea.
You've merely presumed the direction of damage, and completely failed
to note that an entering bullet in JFK's throat could nick the
trachea, and bruise the pleura.
These are *LIES* on your part.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and
since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is
incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that
couldn't have been what happened.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by a lone gunman firing from behind him and since a bullet
striking JFK in the throat and not exiting is incompatible with your
preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what
happened.

It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and
exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,

But it's not. The medical evidence did *NOT* show transit, and the
MEDICAL evidence is clear that the throat wound was an entry.
Lies can't convince people, you need to do better!

you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front,

That is indeed what the medical evidence shows.

so the medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the
throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.

And somebody did. Drs. Humes & Boswell. This was done BEFORE any
X-rays were taken. The proof is simple, Dr. Humes acknowledged the
surgery that was perfomed, probably as a CYA. You've flat lied
several times on this issue - and STILL refuse to state when JFK
arrived at Bethesda.

Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years
later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.

And you end with a logical fallacy. Two of them, actually. Can you
name them?
Or will you run away again?

Corbutt read this, then went to his safe place and started crying. I
get this information from his mother.

[David]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
I thought it would be amusing to refute Corbutt's word vomit,
statement by statement. He will ABSOLUTELY refuse to defend it, thus
showing the world that he doesn't believe his own nonsense.

This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you.

As Huckster Sienzant says: When you start with ad hominem we know it
won't go well for you.

You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process.

This is a simple logical fallacy. You assert what you need to prove.
It's also simply a lie on your part.

You start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a
coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them.

No critic I know of, including of course, Gil - does that. We all
started with the WCR. Then dug into the actual evidence that
contradicts what the WCR claimed for it. Some have started with some
book, such as Mark Lane or SSID, but *all* have ended up going through
the WCR, then the actual evidence.

Anything that is necessary for those things to be true must have
happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened.

This is simply a lie. We don't start with a theory... we start with
the evidence. This explains why most critics are far more
knowledgeable than most believers on the actual evidence.
Chuckles: I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: I take NONE of
this seriously. None of it.
Billy Clarke: I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I
have read of it I found one glaring mistake. I assume there are
others.

This is just the latest example of your methodology.

The methodology of critics is to go where the evidence leads.
Always has been.
You're simply lying when you suggest otherwise.

You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound.

No. It's *NOT* a matter of faith. IT'S A MATTER OF THE MEDICAL
EVIDENCE & TESTIMONY.
Indeed, the earliest statements were so devastating that Huckster
Sienzant actually suggested that the press conference transcript had
been "altered." Then lied about it, and claimed he'd never said this.
The ones who hold a belief on faith is believers. You don't have any
medical evidence that the throat wound was an exit - INDEED, THAT IDEA
CAME *AFTER* THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER!
Huckster was so upset with the idea that the Parkland doctors had
within hours stated that the throat wound was an entry, that he simply
asserted that the transcripts had been altered. This is an example of
"faith" - and it's on the part of believers, not critics.

In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit
wounds and no bullets in the body, you assume somebody must have
removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever
happening.

The evidence is so strong and overwhelming that the time JFK's body
arrived at Bethesda frightens you to death.
Not a *SINGLE* believer has ever answered that question honestly &
completely.
You've PERSONALLY run every time the question was asked.
So you demonstrate an awareness that you are simply telling a lie. You
*KNOW* there's evidence, and you run from it.
Both Gil and I have CITED evidence from Dr. Humes, as quoted in the
Sibert ONeill report, and you've flat REFUSED to accept it.
You just continue lying in spite of the actual evidence.

I must have happened or there would still be bullets in the body.

An incoherent assertion. Presumably, you're agreeing with us that
bullets were removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.

You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target
and the fact you need not one but two such bullets.

You refuse to take into account that making meaningless statements
doesn't require a response.
No critic has ever made the assertion that "low velocity" weapons were
used. That's not a thing. EVERY PROJECTILE WEAPON IN THE WORLD IS
"LOW VELOCITY" AT SOME DISTANCE.
Likewise, to rephrase it, every single projectile IN THE WORLD is "low
velocity" at some point.
The idea that bullets must always exit the body is simply a wacky
unsupported idea of yours that people are going to laugh at.

You refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the
bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit.

I *have* entertained it. I rejected it based on the medical evidence.
Indeed, many critics have wondered if the back wound, BASED ON IT'S
SIZE, was not an exit wound. I reject that based on a feature that
all entry wounds have that exit wounds do not have.
Can you name this feature that medically differentiates entry from
exit?

Since the back wound was provably and entrance, process of
elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.

Despite your poor grammar, I understood that. Both back wound and
throat wounds were provably - BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, entry
wounds. Your "process of elimination" contains a logical fallacy, can
you figure it out, or shall I tell you?
Nah, you'll run, as you always do, so I might as well slap you
again... you're presuming that both wounds were caused by one bullet.
This logical fallacy is known as "begging the question" - as you're
asserting what you need to prove.

You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy,

This is a lie on your part. While some internal organs were removed,

a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound to
the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles,
to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision that was made
over the bullet wound in the throat.

And here is your lie. You tied the fact that *SOME* internal organs
were removed to this supposed trail. Despite the fact that this wound
was NOT dissected, and they did *NOT* remove the trachea.
You've merely presumed the direction of damage, and completely failed
to note that an entering bullet in JFK's throat could nick the
trachea, and bruise the pleura.
These are *LIES* on your part.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and
since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is
incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that
couldn't have been what happened.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by a lone gunman firing from behind him and since a bullet
striking JFK in the throat and not exiting is incompatible with your
preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what
happened.

It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and
exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,

But it's not. The medical evidence did *NOT* show transit, and the
MEDICAL evidence is clear that the throat wound was an entry.
Lies can't convince people, you need to do better!

you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front,

That is indeed what the medical evidence shows.

so the medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the
throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.

And somebody did. Drs. Humes & Boswell. This was done BEFORE any
X-rays were taken. The proof is simple, Dr. Humes acknowledged the
surgery that was perfomed, probably as a CYA. You've flat lied
several times on this issue - and STILL refuse to state when JFK
arrived at Bethesda.

Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years
later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.

And you end with a logical fallacy. Two of them, actually. Can you
name them?
Or will you run away again?

nice review... ole corbutt has been running for years, from his mouth and his ass...

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
I thought it would be amusing to refute Corbutt's word vomit,
statement by statement. He will ABSOLUTELY refuse to defend it, thus
showing the world that he doesn't believe his own nonsense.

<snicker> "the world"? You mean the ten people who read here?

Post by Ben Holmes

This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you.

As Huckster Sienzant says: When you start with ad hominem we know it
won't go well for you.

You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of
looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you reverse engineer the process.

This is a simple logical fallacy. You assert what you need to prove.
It's also simply a lie on your part.

You start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a
coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them.

No critic I know of, including of course, Gil - does that.

Of course you do. Whatever needs to be believed for Oswald to be innocent, that is what you believe.

Post by Ben Holmes
We all
started with the WCR. Then dug into the actual evidence that
contradicts what the WCR claimed for it. Some have started with some
book, such as Mark Lane or SSID, but *all* have ended up going through
the WCR, then the actual evidence.

You guys play silly games with "the actual evidence".

Post by Ben Holmes

Anything that is necessary for those things to be true must have
happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened.

This is simply a lie. We don't start with a theory... we start with
the evidence. This explains why most critics are far more
knowledgeable than most believers on the actual evidence.

Stamp collectors know more about stamps than most people. Model train hobbyists know more about trains than most people.

Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles: I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: I take NONE of
this seriously. None of it.
Billy Clarke: I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I
have read of it I found one glaring mistake. I assume there are
others.

This is just the latest example of your methodology.

The methodology of critics is to go where the evidence leads.
Always has been.
You're simply lying when you suggest otherwise.

You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound.

No. It's *NOT* a matter of faith. IT'S A MATTER OF THE MEDICAL
EVIDENCE & TESTIMONY.

Nonsense. It is you looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, the earliest statements were so devastating that Huckster
Sienzant actually suggested that the press conference transcript had
been "altered." Then lied about it, and claimed he'd never said this.
The ones who hold a belief on faith is believers. You don't have any
medical evidence that the throat wound was an exit - INDEED, THAT IDEA
CAME *AFTER* THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER!

You guys can pretend the observations of the doctors who treated Kennedy trump the forensic examination of his death if you like, it is a free country.

Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster was so upset with the idea that the Parkland doctors had
within hours stated that the throat wound was an entry, that he simply
asserted that the transcripts had been altered. This is an example of
"faith" - and it's on the part of believers, not critics.

In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit
wounds and no bullets in the body, you assume somebody must have
removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever
happening.

The evidence is so strong and overwhelming that the time JFK's body
arrived at Bethesda frightens you to death.
Not a *SINGLE* believer has ever answered that question honestly &
completely.

You refuse to make the case, relying on shifting the burden.

Post by Ben Holmes
You've PERSONALLY run every time the question was asked.
So you demonstrate an awareness that you are simply telling a lie. You
*KNOW* there's evidence, and you run from it.
Both Gil and I have CITED evidence from Dr. Humes, as quoted in the
Sibert ONeill report, and you've flat REFUSED to accept it.

Cite for you idea that some discrepancies about time means a pre-autopsy was performed.

Post by Ben Holmes
You just continue lying in spite of the actual evidence.

I must have happened or there would still be bullets in the body.

An incoherent assertion. Presumably, you're agreeing with us that
bullets were removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.

Have you shown that a pre-autopsy autopsy occurred?

Post by Ben Holmes

You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low
velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target
and the fact you need not one but two such bullets.

You refuse to take into account that making meaningless statements
doesn't require a response.
No critic has ever made the assertion that "low velocity" weapons were
used.

Of course they have. Harris claimed subsonic rounds were used.

Post by Ben Holmes
That's not a thing. EVERY PROJECTILE WEAPON IN THE WORLD IS
"LOW VELOCITY" AT SOME DISTANCE.
Likewise, to rephrase it, every single projectile IN THE WORLD is "low
velocity" at some point.
The idea that bullets must always exit the body is simply a wacky
unsupported idea of yours that people are going to laugh at.

You keep your specific ideas hidden, because you are ashamed of them and know they are unsupportable (and they will be laughed at).

Post by Ben Holmes

You refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the
bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit.

I *have* entertained it. I rejected it based on the medical evidence.

What "medical evidence"? No examination was made at Parkland to determine whether the wounds were entrances or exits. You have never shown that making such determinations is something taught in medical schools. You insist on looking at the wrong things, and looking at those wrong things incorrectly. Nobody can stop you.

Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, many critics have wondered if the back wound, BASED ON IT'S
SIZE, was not an exit wound. I reject that based on a feature that
all entry wounds have that exit wounds do not have.
Can you name this feature that medically differentiates entry from
exit?

Can you ever be a man and make your own arguments?

Post by Ben Holmes

Since the back wound was provably and entrance, process of
elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.

Despite your poor grammar, I understood that. Both back wound and
throat wounds were provably - BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE,

The only way you can claim medical evidence is if you can show determining bullet entrances and exits is something taught in medical school.

Post by Ben Holmes
entry
wounds. Your "process of elimination" contains a logical fallacy, can
you figure it out, or shall I tell you?
Nah, you'll run, as you always do, so I might as well slap you
again... you're presuming that both wounds were caused by one bullet.
This logical fallacy is known as "begging the question" - as you're
asserting what you need to prove.

Determined by experts sixty years ago.

Post by Ben Holmes

You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at autopsy,

This is a lie on your part. While some internal organs were removed,

a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound to
the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles,
to the nick on the trachea, all leading to the incision that was made
over the bullet wound in the throat.

And here is your lie. You tied the fact that *SOME* internal organs
were removed to this supposed trail. Despite the fact that this wound
was NOT dissected, and they did *NOT* remove the trachea.
You've merely presumed the direction of damage, and completely failed
to note that an entering bullet in JFK's throat could nick the
trachea, and bruise the pleura.

And damage the tip of the lung.

Post by Ben Holmes
These are *LIES* on your part.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by multiple gunman firing from both in front and behind him and
since a bullet striking JFK in the back and exiting from his throat is
incompatible with your preconceived conclusion, you decide that
couldn't have been what happened.

You ignore all that because you have already decided that JFK was
killed by a lone gunman firing from behind him and since a bullet
striking JFK in the throat and not exiting is incompatible with your
preconceived conclusion, you decide that couldn't have been what
happened.

I`ve never seen it shown that something more than Oswald, firing from the TSBD, is needed to explain this event. I don`t suppose I ever will.

Post by Ben Holmes

It doesn't matter to you that a bullet striking JFK in the back and
exiting from his throat is the simplest and most straight forward
explanation for what the medical evidence indicates,

But it's not. The medical evidence did *NOT* show transit, and the
MEDICAL evidence is clear that the throat wound was an entry.

You have no "medical evidence" regarding bullet entrances and exits. You have the observations of laymen in the relevant fields.

Post by Ben Holmes
Lies can't convince people, you need to do better!

you already know JFK was shot from the back AND the front,

That is indeed what the medical evidence shows.

so the medical evidence be damned, he was hit in the back and the
throat and somebody must have removed the two bullets prior
to the x-rays being taken which showed no bullets in the body.

And somebody did. Drs. Humes & Boswell. This was done BEFORE any
X-rays were taken. The proof is simple, Dr. Humes acknowledged the
surgery that was perfomed, probably as a CYA. You've flat lied
several times on this issue - and STILL refuse to state when JFK
arrived at Bethesda.

Still trying to shift the burden. Be a man, make a case.

Never happen.

Post by Ben Holmes

Great methodology you have there, Giltardo. That's why 60 years
later, you still can't figure out a simple case of murder.

And you end with a logical fallacy. Two of them, actually. Can you
name them?

Always shifting the burden. You will always be a child, never a man.

Post by Ben Holmes
Or will you run away again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 15:10:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.