LN Cowards on the internet
Gil Jesus
debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
Anyone else ?
David Von Pein
Rossley? You mean the kook who thinks that Connally was shot in the
chest FROM THE FRONT?
Is that the Rossley you mean, Gil?
Any LNer could defeat and disgrace Mr. Rossley by just repeating the
following Rossley theory over and over again (and nothing more need be
said to reveal Rossley for what he is--a nut who believes in stupid
things):
Thomas Rossley thinks that John B. Connally Jr. was shot in the
chest FROM THE FRONT.
Gil Jesus
Aren't you the one who chickened out of a debate with Rossley on the
Batey show ?
Arent' you the one who "declined" to debate Jim DiEugenio on BlackOp
Radio ?
It's funny that when you were given the opportunity to "defeat and
disgrace Mr. Rossley" you ran screaming like the little girl you are.
The world knows you're a coward. It's well documented.
Go peddle your BS someplace else, David.
And don't trip on your dress on the way out.
David Von Pein
>>> "Aren't you the one who chickened out of a debate with Rossley on the Batey show?" <<<
No. I never even knew who the "CT Kook" was going to be ahead of
time....and neither did John McAdams.
>>> "Arent' [sic] you the one who "declined" to debate Jim DiEugenio on BlackOp Radio?" <<<
"To tell you [John McAdams] the truth, the more I listen to
Black Op Radio (and the more I hear James DiEugenio mangle the facts,
month after month, regarding JFK's murder), the stench from that
conspiracy-laden pit is telling me that I should probably stay a
million miles away from it.
"But, like a messy car wreck, I just can't seem to stop
listening to that silly all-conspiracy radio network each and every
Thursday. I became hooked on Black Op Radio in September 2008 while
doing some research concerning DiEugenio and his never-ending multi-
part review of Vincent Bugliosi's book.
"Jim, btw, announced last week that his Bugliosi review is going
to be even LONGER than he originally anticipated. Seven parts aren't
nearly enough evidently, so it's going to be a NINE-part series of
nonsense now [since expanded to a ten-part series of nonsense, per Mr.
DiEugenio]." -- DVP; 08/20/09
>>> "It's funny that when you were given the opportunity to "defeat and disgrace Mr. Rossley"[,] you ran screaming like the little girl you are." <<<
As I said, there's no need to go on the radio to "defeat and disgrace"
a known conspiracy kook. All I need to do is repeat his stupid claims
and my victory is secured -- such as the "Connally Shot From The
Front" claim that Rossley thinks is proven in the WC volumes...plus
the one about how a comment made by Dan Rather somehow was a key
factor in the murder of Oswald. Plus the one about how the evidence
exonerates Oswald for the Tippit murder, instead of proving beyond all
doubt that LHO murdered Tippit. And on and on to kook-filled infinity.
>>> "The world knows you're a coward. It's well documented." <<<
And the world knows Gil Jesus is a retard. And reasonable people
rarely take the ramblings of a retard to heart.
>>> "Go peddle your BS someplace else, David." <<<
Well, I just responded to Doug Horne's gushing over Vince Palamara's
reviews at Amazon. That's "someplace else". Does that count, Mr. Kook?
Yes, these Amazon comments of mine are copied from my acj posts, but
they are still valid all the same:
>>> "And don't trip on your dress on the way out." <<<
Go choke on a bullet, kook.
BTW, retard, did you ever manage to figure out that Arthur Mandella
couldn't possibly have IDed any of the non-Oswald prints on the TSBD
boxes as of 4/2/64? Or are you still having trouble figuring out that
APRIL comes before SEPTEMBER?
robcap...@netscape.com
Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
“Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??” (Walt)
“Good list of the CT'er kooks.” (Ben Holmes – 11/2/09)
When will you debate him???
tomnln
Anton Batey ! ! !
THIS David Von Pain(in the ass)>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
(Subject # 7)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e6ebc8e-ee98-4505...@g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> Anyone else ?
Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
�Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??� (Walt)
�Good list of the CT'er kooks.� (Ben Holmes � 11/2/09)
aeffects
> Rossley? You mean the kook who thinks that Connally was shot in the
> chest FROM THE FRONT?
>
> Is that the Rossley you mean, Gil?
step right up young lady.... have you grown nads yet? You're a joke
sluggo, a pathetic one! Carry on! ROTFLMFAO
curtjester1
The reason they don't is they already lose when they are caught
muttering to themselves.
CJ
curtjester1
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > Anyone else ?
>
> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
for. Trouble is I don't think he has ever showed up at a CT Confrence
like COPA. Would he ever debate an Armstrong on LHO and the Rifle?
I don't think you would see him 3 states near!
> “Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??” (Walt)
>
> “Good list of the CT'er kooks.” (Ben Holmes – 11/2/09)
>
Is this going to be in the eventual Ben List?
> When will you debate him???
Well if Ben *IS* Wally, then he already was kicked off the show for
SPECULATION!
CJ
curtjester1
> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>
> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>
CJ
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>
> news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > Anyone else ?
>
> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> “Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??” (Walt)
>
> “Good list of the CT'er kooks.” (Ben Holmes – 11/2/09)
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
I can only quote his words!
My guess is he stays away from you since you know the WC stuff inside
and out.
I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't leave me
alone. Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>
> news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > Anyone else ?
>
> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> “Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??” (Walt)
>
> “Good list of the CT'er kooks.” (Ben Holmes – 11/2/09)
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 18, 11:25 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > > Anyone else ?
>
> > Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> I am still waiting for him to debate Vinnie like he beats the drum
> for. Trouble is I don't think he has ever showed up at a CT Confrence
> like COPA. Would he ever debate an Armstrong on LHO and the Rifle?
> I don't think you would see him 3 states near!
My debates with Bendsie has left the impression of a "lounge chair
researcher" with me. In the beginning of a topic he has NO real clue
about it as he is just chasing me over some word or words in an effort
to save Wally, but over time he starts to learn more and more after he
does some Google searches or has John or someone else e-mail him some
stuff.
He is very average at best and Tom would eat him for lunch.
Why he said the above comment is beyond me as Tom is exactly what he
professes to like--a person who ONLY CITES THE OFFICIAL evidence and
avoids speculation!
Why he would be "buds" with Wally is beyond me as you don't find a
person doing more "speculating" than Wally east of Oklahoma!!! Unless
of course they are the same person or both LNers.
> > “Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> > you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> > the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> > Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??” (Walt)
>
> > “Good list of the CT'er kooks.” (Ben Holmes – 11/2/09)
>
> Is this going to be in the eventual Ben List?
It is on the "shelf" at the Bendsie Holmes library!
> > When will you debate him???
>
> Well if Ben *IS* Wally, then he already was kicked off the show for
> SPECULATION!
LOL!!
I think most "wildcatters" would be jealous over how much "speculatin'
" old Wally does!
timstter
I would like you to post more videos making a goose of yourself!
:-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:241895e4-8130-4b71...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 18, 7:21=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> Anyone else ?
>
>Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
>you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
>the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>
>=93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>
>When will you debate him???
I'm having too much fun with you. Tom at least has the good sense to refer to
the evidence all the time. He just enjoys insulting people too much.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Gil Jesus
> Coming from a "coward" who Refused to participate in a rasdio debate with
> Anton Batey ! ! !
>
> THIS David Von Pain(in the ass)>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
>
> �(Subject # 7)
I don't think any more of these cowards that snipe at people for their
opinions than I do at the scumbags who would shoot an unarmed man in
the back as he rode by in a convertible.
Same type of lowlife.
timstter
> I was kinda hoping YOU would be the First Suicidal Volunteer ! ! !
>
>
> news:241895e4-8130-4b71...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 11:21 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > Anyone else ?
>
> I would like you to post more videos making a goose of yourself!
>
> :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
I was kinda hoping you would have cleaned up your website by now!
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hghdj...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>On Dec 18, 7:21=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>>> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>>
>>> Anyone else ?
>>
>>Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>>=93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
>>you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
>>the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>>Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>>
>>=93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>>
>>When will you debate him???
Ben wrote;
> I'm having too much fun with you. Tom at least has the good sense to
> refer to
> the evidence all the time. He just enjoys insulting people too much.
I write;
You wouldn't deny me the right to Retaliate against those who have hurled
insults at me First, would you Ben?
I also notice you engaged in trading insults with Rob.
I'm Sure you're aware that some folks are Better at it than Others ! ! !
Your friend Tom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
timstter
How come you spend all your time trying to exonerate the scumbag
Oswald then, you Bald Verm idiot?
It don't make no sense!
LMFAO Regards,
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3231fde5-95cf-495a...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
timstter
> You can always Debate the contents of that website HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
>
> news:3231fde5-95cf-495a...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 8:30 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was kinda hoping YOU would be the First Suicidal Volunteer ! ! !
>
> > "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:241895e4-8130-4b71...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 18, 11:21 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > > Anyone else ?
>
> > I would like you to post more videos making a goose of yourself!
>
> > :-)
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> I was kinda hoping you would have cleaned up your website by now!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
LOL! Say, how come every time I debunk something there you pretend it
isn't debunked and keep on posting it?
Curious Regards,
tomnln
THAT's why "Debunked/Denial are spelled Differently ! ! !
You can always Debate the contents of that website HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
You can RUN but, You Can't Hide ! ! !
Are you tellin me that you don't know about the red headed Negro at Duran's
"Forceful Interrogation"?
Not very well read are you ! ! !
Looks like you're Really upset with me for making you look Bad on these>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88a3c8c6-26d2-46bc...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
timstter
> You've Never "Debunked" Anything ! ! !
>
> THAT's why "Debunked/Denial are spelled Differently ! ! !
>
> You can always Debate the contents of that website HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
> You can RUN but, You Can't Hide ! ! !
>
> Are you tellin me that you don't know about the red headed Negro at Duran's
> "Forceful Interrogation"?
>
> Not very well read are you ! ! !
>
> Looks like you're Really upset with me for making you look Bad on these>>>
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
>
LOL! You're simply trotting out the same old garbage again.
Is it true you think me and JustMe are the same poster?
Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
tomnln
tomnln
Gil Jesus
> You can always Debate the contents of that website HERE
>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
In the past couple of years, the LN trolls in this newsgroup have been
rocked by witness videos, unanswered questions and more recently by
debates and testimony.
They have been shown to be frauds and cowards, impotent in their
knowledge of the case and unable to discuss the inconsistencies in the
evidence.
Their purpose here is clearly to divert discussion away from the
evidence and testimony and they do so by insulting people.
By now I'm sure the lurkers realize that LN insults are a sign of lack
of knowledge.
Although, I admit, I like teasing them myself from time to time.
They've become my play toy.
Don't expect them to stand up for what they believe. They don't care
about the case. Many are either Kennedy haters or CT haters.
They're only here at the behest of their handlers. It's too bad that
they weren't better prepared before they were sent out.
How embarrassing for them.
Bud
You describe your hero Oswald.
And there is no debating Tom. Mostly it is patiently explaining to
him that whatever document he produces isn`t what he represents it to
be. The document rarely if ever takes him to the destination he claims
it does. Check the archives for thousands of examples of this.
Bud
> On Dec 18, 11:15 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > You can always Debate the contents of that website HERE
> >>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
> In the past couple of years, the LN trolls in this newsgroup have been
> rocked by witness videos, unanswered questions and more recently by
> debates and testimony.
In this world you are creating, do you have hair and cable?
> They have been shown to be frauds and cowards, impotent in their
> knowledge of the case and unable to discuss the inconsistencies in the
> evidence.
The only inconsistencies are between what the evidence actualy says
and what the retards here represent it as saying.
> Their purpose here is clearly to divert discussion away from the
> evidence and testimony and they do so by insulting people.
The retards here divert attention away from the actual murderer
towards anything and everything else. They use the same defense for
Oswald as O.J`s "dream team" defense did for him, divert attention
away from the obvious murderer, and towards the people investigating
that murder.
> By now I'm sure the lurkers realize that LN insults are a sign of lack
> of knowledge.
And of course your invisible friend "Pedro" supports you in this
also.
> Although, I admit, I like teasing them myself from time to time.
>
> They've become my play toy.
Aren`t you afraid your "Ken" doll will get jealous?
> Don't expect them to stand up for what they believe. They don't care
> about the case. Many are either Kennedy haters or CT haters.
Or retard haters. Stupidity haters. Mexican haters.
> They're only here at the behest of their handlers. It's too bad that
> they weren't better prepared before they were sent out.
Got my coffee right here. You supply the rest. Find anymore blurry
objects in photos you`d like to make stupid claims about? Maybe cast
some suspicions on some poor people who only had the misfortune of
being around when Oswald killed some people?
> How embarrassing for them.
Thats one thing about the retards, no matter how many lies they are
caught telling, no matter how many times the things they say are shown
to be retarded, they are never embarrassed.
tomnln
evidence/testimony
contained within the 26 volumes of the WCR.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:344ccf0d-d62a-4964...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 18, 12:40=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>>
>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the "insults"
bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>I can only quote his words!
>
>My guess is he stays away from you since you know the WC stuff inside
>and out.
So too, as I've proved, do I.
I knew, for example, that Marina had testified about Oswald owning a watch.
I knew, for example, that neither Death Certificate said what you claimed it
said.
>I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't leave me
>alone. Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
When you bring to the table such poorly constructed arguments that can easily be
seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
Much like that nutcase who appeared in the forum for just a week or two, then
disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that the shooter was
one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
Such a ridiculously stupid argument that only invites scorn on CT'ers. You do
the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then we are *all* guilty
of your false claims.
Your shill status can be seen in the thread where I quite clearly agreed (and
not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back wound was at T-3/T-4... you
attacked viciously for that simple truth.
Do you really think that people aren't seeing you for the government shill that
you are?
>> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> > Anyone else ?
>>
>> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>> =93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
>> you =A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
>> the =A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>>
>> =93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>>
>> When will you debate him???
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 18, 3:04=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:25=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:> On Dec 18, 7:21=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> > > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> > > Anyone else ?
>>
>> > Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>> I am still waiting for him to debate Vinnie like he beats the drum
>> for. Trouble is I don't think he has ever showed up at a CT Confrence
>> like COPA. Would he ever debate an Armstrong on LHO and the Rifle?
>> I don't think you would see him 3 states near!
>
>My debates with Bendsie has left the impression of a "lounge chair
>researcher" with me. In the beginning of a topic he has NO real clue
>about it as he is just chasing me over some word or words in an effort
>to save Wally, but over time he starts to learn more and more after he
>does some Google searches or has John or someone else e-mail him some
>stuff.
Anyone who follows your threads knows that this is a fairly accurate description
of you.
The Death Certificate thread is an excellent example - people can even note, to
the very day, the first time you actually went and LOOKED at the two Death
Certificates.
As for "chasing you", post number 100 is usually saying the very same thing that
post number 1 said. In fact, the Death Certificate thread is a good example of
that.
YOU STILL CANNOT PRODUCE ANY QUOTE OF DR. BURKLEY OR ANY DEATH CERTIFICATE THAT
SAYS WHAT YOU CLAIMED IT SAID!!!
Nor will you retract your lies.
>He is very average at best and Tom would eat him for lunch.
>
>Why he said the above comment is beyond me as Tom is exactly what he
>professes to like--a person who ONLY CITES THE OFFICIAL evidence and
>avoids speculation!
>
>Why he would be "buds" with Wally is beyond me as you don't find a
>person doing more "speculating" than Wally east of Oklahoma!!! Unless
>of course they are the same person or both LNers.
Can't make up your mind? Or can't figure out which claim will get more
traction?
>> > =93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
>> > you =A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
>> > the =A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>> > Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>>
>> > =93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>>
>> Is this going to be in the eventual Ben List?
>
>It is on the "shelf" at the Bendsie Holmes library!
And is archived by Google, as are most all of my other posts.
>> > When will you debate him???
>>
>> Well if Ben *IS* Wally, then he already was kicked off the show for
>> SPECULATION!
>
>LOL!!
>
>I think most "wildcatters" would be jealous over how much "speculatin'
>" old Wally does!
Sam McClung
news:5d22a0da-a75d-47d1...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> Anyone else ?
just like the first "debate" it won't be a debate, but rather
Tom Educates [insert name of any "LN" here]
apparently marquethyism u. doesn't provide its followers the 26 volumes and
they're all illiterate in that regard, astounding since the 26 volumes are
available for free online viewing, sounds like china blocking internet
access to its citizens, or the nazis burning books
Sam McClung
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FZYWm.5670$eH1....@newsfe16.iad...
tomnln
> In article
> <2b671929-5030-4b0b...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>On Dec 18, 12:40=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>>>
>>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
Ben wrote;
> Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the
> "insults"
> bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
I write;
I seem to recall seeing some of your posts about sexual depravity Ben;
You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always in
Retaliation.
Out of respect, for you, I'll stay on my side of the line you've drawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hgj91...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >>On Dec 18, 12:40=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>
> >>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>
> Ben wrote;
>
> > Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the
> > "insults"
> > bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>
> I write;
>
> I seem to recall seeing some of your posts about sexual depravity Ben;
>
> You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always in
> Retaliation.
>
> Out of respect, for you, I'll stay on my side of the line you've drawn.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
LMAO!! I don't even think he knows who he answering to in his
posts!! But, but, he is your friend, right, Tom? LMAO!!
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Dec 20, 12:11=A0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hgj91...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
>> > <2b671929-5030-4b0b-926a-b169a90eb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>>
>> >>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>>
>--=AD----------------------------------'
>> Ben wrote;
>>
>> > Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the
>> > "insults"
>> > bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>>
>> I write;
>>
>> I seem to recall seeing some of your posts about sexual depravity Ben;
>>
>> You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always in
>> Retaliation.
>>
>> Out of respect, for you, I'll stay on my side of the line you've drawn.
Yep... I well recognize *my* style of writing as well. I'm happy that you
understand.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>--=AD------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> >>I can only quote his words!
>>
>> >>My guess is he stays away from you since you know the WC stuff inside
>> >>and out.
>>
>> > So too, as I've proved, do I.
>>
>> > I knew, for example, that Marina had testified about Oswald owning a
>> > watch.
>>
>> > I knew, for example, that neither Death Certificate said what you claim=
>ed
>> > it
>> > said.
>>
>> >>I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't leave me
>> >>alone. =A0Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
>>
>> > I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
>>
>> > When you bring to the table such poorly constructed arguments that can
>> > easily be
>> > seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
>>
>> > Much like that nutcase who appeared in the forum for just a week or two=
>,
>> > then
>> > disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that the
>> > shooter was
>> > one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
>>
>> > Such a ridiculously stupid argument that only invites scorn on CT'ers.
>> > You do
>> > the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then we are *al=
>l*
>> > guilty
>> > of your false claims.
>>
>> > Your shill status can be seen in the thread where I quite clearly agree=
>d
>> > (and
>> > not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back wound was at
>> > T-3/T-4... you
>> > attacked viciously for that simple truth.
>>
>> > Do you really think that people aren't seeing you for the government sh=
>ill
>> > that
>> > you are?
>>
>> >>> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com=
>...
>> >>> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> >>> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >>> > Anyone else ?
>>
>> >>> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>> >>> =3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even i=
>f
>> >>> you =3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you =
>feel
>> >>> the =3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam M=
>c
>> >>> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >>> =3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/2/09)
>>
>> >>> When will you debate him???
>
>LMAO!! I don't even think he knows who he answering to in his
>posts!!
And yet, clearly I do. Robsie occasionally argues with himself, as he doesn't
understand how to count '>'...
You see, I'm capable of figuring out who said what, and responding
appropriately.
>But, but, he is your friend, right, Tom? LMAO!!
Why would he be? We both agree that there was a conspiracy, but we quite
clearly have writing styles that aren't interesting to each other. I suspect
that Tom is quite a nice guy, as long as he perceives no insults... just as I
can be "sweetness & light" if you simply refuse to put words in my mouth that I
never said. (And refuse to lie about the evidence)
>CJ
curtjester1
> On Dec 18, 7:28 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Rossley? You mean the kook who thinks that Connally was shot in the
> > chest FROM THE FRONT?
>
> > Is that the Rossley you mean, Gil?
>
> > Any LNer could defeat and disgrace Mr. Rossley by just repeating the
> > following Rossley theory over and over again (and nothing more need be
> > said to reveal Rossley for what he is--a nut who believes in stupid
> > things):
>
> > Thomas Rossley thinks that John B. Connally Jr. was shot in the
> > chest FROM THE FRONT.
>
Actually the chest wound was a wound where a bullet went into the
chest, no matter whence one opines where it (or they) came from and
how it went.
> Aren't you the one who chickened out of a debate with Rossley on the
> Batey show ?
>
> Arent' you the one who "declined" to debate Jim DiEugenio on BlackOp
> Radio ?
>
> It's funny that when you were given the opportunity to "defeat and
> disgrace Mr. Rossley" you ran screaming like the little girl you are.
>
> The world knows you're a coward. It's well documented.
>
> Go peddle your BS someplace else, David.
>
> And don't trip on your dress on the way out.
curtjester1
> In article <d041d7e1-cf46-4b1b-863e-f9f63a72d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sic em Tom! Ben has no friends, nor wants any. I like all writing
styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
person's mind a form of 'clarity'. Will Ben ever debate in a speech
orientated forum? I don't think so.....
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Dec 20, 3:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d041d7e1-cf46-4b1b-863e-f9f63a72d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >On Dec 20, 12:11=3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:hgj91...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
>> >> > <2b671929-5030-4b0b-926a-b169a90eb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 year=
>s.
>>
>> >> >>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>>
>---=3D
>> >--=3DAD----------------------------------'
>> >> Ben wrote;
>>
>> >> > Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the
>> >> > "insults"
>> >> > bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>>
>> >> I write;
>>
>> >> I seem to recall seeing some of your posts about sexual depravity Ben;
>>
>> >> You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always in
>> >> Retaliation.
>>
>.
>>
>> Yep... I well recognize *my* style of writing as well. I'm happy that you
>> understand.
>>
>---=3D
>> >--=3DAD------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >>I can only quote his words!
>>
>e
>> >> >>and out.
>>
>> >> > So too, as I've proved, do I.
>>
>> >> > I knew, for example, that Marina had testified about Oswald owning a
>> >> > watch.
>>
>aim=3D
>> >ed
>> >> > it
>> >> > said.
>>
>> >> >>I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't leave =
>me
>> >> >>alone. =3DA0Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
>>
>> >> > I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
>>
>an
>> >> > easily be
>> >> > seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
>>
>two=3D
>> >,
>> >> > then
>> >> > disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that the
>> >> > shooter was
>> >> > one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
>>
>s.
>> >> > You do
>> >> > the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then we are =
>*al=3D
>> >l*
>> >> > guilty
>> >> > of your false claims.
>>
>ree=3D
>> >d
>> >> > (and
>> >> > not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back wound was at
>> >> > T-3/T-4... you
>> >> > attacked viciously for that simple truth.
>>
> sh=3D
>> >ill
>> >> > that
>> >> > you are?
>>
>> >> >>> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>>
>com=3D
>> >...
>> >> >>> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> >> >>> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >> >>> > Anyone else ?
>>
>> >> >>> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>ven i=3D
>> >f
>> >> >>> you =3D3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that=
> you =3D
>> >feel
>> >> >>> the =3D3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "=
>Sam M=3D
>> >c
>> >> >>> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >> >>> =3D3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D3D96 11=
>/2/09)
>>
>> >> >>> When will you debate him???
>>
>> >posts!!
>>
>> And yet, clearly I do. =A0Robsie occasionally argues with himself, as he =
>doesn't
>> understand how to count '>'...
>>
>> You see, I'm capable of figuring out who said what, and responding
>> appropriately.
>>
>>
>> Why would he be? We both agree that there was a conspiracy, but we quite
>> clearly have writing styles that aren't interesting to each other. I suspect
>> that Tom is quite a nice guy, as long as he perceives no insults... just as I
>> can be "sweetness & light" if you simply refuse to put words in my mouth
>> that I never said. (And refuse to lie about the evidence)
>>
>> >CJ
>
Why would someone want a friend who lies? Do you really think friendship is
important enough to overlook lies over?
Tell us C.J, does *ANY* JFK Death Certificate state that the cause of death is a
"high-velocity bullet to the head"?
>I like all writing
>styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
>like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
>person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
>Will Ben ever debate in a speech
>orientated forum? I don't think so.....
Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me or stop on
by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free to do so.
Just be prepared to cite.
aeffects
> On Dec 18, 11:15 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > You can always Debate the contents of that website HERE
> >>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
> In the past couple of years, the LN trolls in this newsgroup have been
> rocked by witness videos, unanswered questions and more recently by
> debates and testimony.
>
> They have been shown to be frauds and cowards, impotent in their
> knowledge of the case and unable to discuss the inconsistencies in the
> evidence.
>
> Their purpose here is clearly to divert discussion away from the
> evidence and testimony and they do so by insulting people.
>
> By now I'm sure the lurkers realize that LN insults are a sign of lack
> of knowledge.
>
> Although, I admit, I like teasing them myself from time to time.
>
> They've become my play toy.
>
> Don't expect them to stand up for what they believe. They don't care
> about the case. Many are either Kennedy haters or CT haters.
>
simply, they're paid.... they are OBLIGATED. It's they're collective
Waterloo....
mucher1
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hgj91...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >>On Dec 18, 12:40=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>
> >>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
> Ben wrote;
>
> > Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the
> > "insults"
> > bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>
> I write;
>
> I seem to recall seeing some of your posts about sexual depravity Ben;
You and Ben obviously have much in common, but his trademark insults
are "liar", "coward", "troll", etc.
> You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always in
> Retaliation.
No, you enjoy it too much. So does Ben.
> Out of respect, for you, I'll stay on my side of the line you've drawn.
Respect? For a mean-spirited garden variety conspiracy buff?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <969d8e0f-bc31-4b42-8274-1331165fa...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 18, 7:21=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> >> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> >> Anyone else ?
>
> >Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> >=93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> >the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>
> >=93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>
> >When will you debate him???
>
YOU have "fun" with someone who shows what a liar you?
>Tom at least has the good sense to refer to
> the evidence all the time. He just enjoys insulting people too much.
LOL!! This is a CLASSIC from this WC shill!
He calls people "child molesters" all the time yet he has an issue
with Tom's "insults!"
LOL!!
He has insulted my mom, who has NEVER POSTED on this board, with the
most vulgar stuff, yet he has an issue with Tom using "insults"!
LOL!!!
I cite the evidenc too, but I also mention how it does NOT support or
prove any of the claims the WC (and you) made regarding LHO, and that
REALLY PISSES YOU OFF, doesn't it?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <2b671929-5030-4b0b-926a-b169a90eb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Dec 18, 12:40=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>
> >> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>
> Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the "insults"
> bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
Bendsie is sooo "confused" he is responding to two people here! Tom
wrote this part!
> >I can only quote his words!
>
> >My guess is he stays away from you since you know the WC stuff inside
> >and out.
>
> So too, as I've proved, do I.
LOL!!
> I knew, for example, that Marina had testified about Oswald owning a watch.
Too bad you did NOT prove he owned or wore it DURING THE TIME WE WERE
discussing, huh?
(Bendsie takes "credit" for knowing when the truth is the moron has a
"searchable WC CD"! Even a moron like him can type in "watch" and
then peruse the results!)
> I knew, for example, that neither Death Certificate said what you claimed it
> said.
YOU did, then why did you agree with me?
“I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
***bullet***, his doctor and the WC did.” (Robert)
“Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
– 5/24/09)
OF course despite the FACT I used NOTHING BUT THE WORD BULLET he would
lie and make it about the weapon/rifle instead so he could say they
were NOT ballistics experts!
> >I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't leave me
> >alone. Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
>
> I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
What does Dennis Prager have to do with anything? I can QUOTE your
words for you!
“Sad to say, Robsie, but I value the truth over agreement.” (Bendsie
Holmes)
NO you don't liar because NO one lies more on here than Wally, and YOU
NEVER call him out for his lies!
> When you bring to the table such poorly constructed arguments that can easily be
> seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
YOU would know since YOU do this all the time, huh?
> Much like that nutcase who appeared in the forum for just a week or two, then
> disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that the shooter was
> one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
Too bad you can't show me making any PRO-WC comments or whacky
comments from the CT side, huh?
> Such a ridiculously stupid argument that only invites scorn on CT'ers. You do
> the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then we are *all* guilty
> of your false claims.
I make no claims as I am simply responding to the claims the WC made,
and YOU SUPPORT, so what is your point liar?
> Your shill status can be seen in the thread where I quite clearly agreed (and
> not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back wound was at T-3/T-4... you
> attacked viciously for that simple truth.
NO, I attacked you because YOU said none of the doctors who said the
wound was at the T-3 level were "ballistics experts" and that they HAD
TO BE THIS TO PLACE THE WOUND when this is an out and out lie!
YOU lied, and the ONLY purpose for that lie would be to DISCREDIT the
PH doctors, thus leaving us with the prosectors who placed it a T-1
level! THAT PLACEMENT BENEFITS THE WC!
YOU lied for the BENEFIT of the WC! Tis that simple liar.
> Do you really think that people aren't seeing you for the government shill that
> you are?
Funny how this WC shill is NOW using the same claim against me when I
can SHOW HIM SUPPORTING THE WC ON MANY ISSUES, AND HE CAN'T SHOW ME
SUPPORTING THEM ONE ISSUE!
LOL!!
Boy, is he desperate or what?
> >> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> >> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> >> > Anyone else ?
>
> >> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> >> =93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> >> you =A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> >> the =A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> >> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>
> >> =93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>
> >> When will you debate him???
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <aae34e24-a656-494f-8143-d5e7f7d6a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 18, 3:04=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 11:25=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> >> wrote:> On Dec 18, 7:21=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> >> > > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> >> > > Anyone else ?
>
> >> > Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> >> I am still waiting for him to debate Vinnie like he beats the drum
> >> for. Trouble is I don't think he has ever showed up at a CT Confrence
> >> like COPA. Would he ever debate an Armstrong on LHO and the Rifle?
> >> I don't think you would see him 3 states near!
>
> >My debates with Bendsie has left the impression of a "lounge chair
> >researcher" with me. In the beginning of a topic he has NO real clue
> >about it as he is just chasing me over some word or words in an effort
> >to save Wally, but over time he starts to learn more and more after he
> >does some Google searches or has John or someone else e-mail him some
> >stuff.
>
> Anyone who follows your threads knows that this is a fairly accurate description
> of you.
LOL!! Liar, aren't you?
> The Death Certificate thread is an excellent example - people can even note, to
> the very day, the first time you actually went and LOOKED at the two Death
> Certificates.
I think they can do this for you SINCE YOU AGREED WITH ME UP TO THE
DAY YOU LOOKED AT THE ONE YOU KEPT CLAIMING I WAS REFERRING TO!
YOU lied and made the whole discussion about a weapon/rifle when I
never used any word but BULLET after high velocity!
When you have to lie to make your point...
> As for "chasing you", post number 100 is usually saying the very same thing that
> post number 1 said. In fact, the Death Certificate thread is a good example of
> that.
YOU have me confused with yourself again!
> YOU STILL CANNOT PRODUCE ANY QUOTE OF DR. BURKLEY OR ANY DEATH CERTIFICATE THAT
> SAYS WHAT YOU CLAIMED IT SAID!!!
YOU STILL CANNOT PRODUCE ANY QUOTE THAT CONTAINS THE WORD "NAVAL" CAN
YOU? I can't be held accountable for your thoughts. YOU AGREED WITH
ME, that is all I know!
“I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
bullet, ***his doctor*** and the WC did.” (Robert)
“Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
– 5/24/09)
His doctor was Dr. George Burkley!
> Nor will you retract your lies.
I can't retract lies I HAVE NOT TOKD, now can I?
> >He is very average at best and Tom would eat him for lunch.
>
> >Why he said the above comment is beyond me as Tom is exactly what he
> >professes to like--a person who ONLY CITES THE OFFICIAL evidence and
> >avoids speculation!
>
> >Why he would be "buds" with Wally is beyond me as you don't find a
> >person doing more "speculating" than Wally east of Oklahoma!!! Unless
> >of course they are the same person or both LNers.
>
> Can't make up your mind? Or can't figure out which claim will get more
> traction?
I think you two are "gay lovers" as your ENDLESS DEVOTION to a KNOWN
WC SHILL is very odd otherwise!
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <b52afb0e-ebff-4811-89da-9c8a30137...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
LOL!! Is this guy for real??? He is BEST FRIENDS with the guy who lies
in every post he he types---Wally!
Why is he "friends" with a guy who lies constantly? Because they are
GAY LOVERS and he can't throw him under the bus!
> Tell us C.J, does *ANY* JFK Death Certificate state that the cause of death is a
> "high-velocity bullet to the head"?
IF NOT why did YOU agree with me?
“I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
bullet, his doctor and the WC did.” (Robert)
“Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
– 5/24/09)
IF he keeps insisting the ONLY place Dr. Burkley "said this" WAS ON
THE NAVAL DEATH CERTIFICATE, and that the NAVAL DEATH CERTIFICATE DOES
NOT SAY THIS, then he has to be A LIAR TOO AS HE AGREED WITH ME ABOUT
HIM SAYING THIS!
> >I like all writing
> >styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
> >like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
> >person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
>
> Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
The better question is WHEN WILL YOU EVER DEFEND YOUR OWN WORDS WITH
CITES AND EVIDENCE?
> >Will Ben ever debate in a speech
> >orientated forum? I don't think so.....
>
> Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me or stop on
> by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free to do so.
Watch out CJ, he likes to "prove" his stuff "face to face"! LOL!!
"I do my "proving" face to face. Come on by, let's see how much
"convincing" you
need." (Bendsie Holmes)
I wonder what he means by "convincing", huh?
> Just be prepared to cite.
That a nice to way to "put it", huh?
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"mucher1" <muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2627f6d1-70fe-40a2...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> In article <b52afb0e-ebff-4811-89da-9c8a30137...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
went speaking to Rob in the same rebuttal answer. Either you are
delusional, or can't count. Which is it?
> >I like all writing
> >styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
> >like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
> >person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
>
> Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
>
Yep, no proof LHO order a rifle, and the FBI had no jurisdiction in
the JFK case on 11/22/63.
> >Will Ben ever debate in a speech
> >orientated forum? I don't think so.....
>
> Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me or stop on
> by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free to do so.
>
Why are you absent from the Education Forum or from assemblies where
CT'ers meet?
> Just be prepared to cite.
>
Those in the business for years will rake you over the coals with
them.
CJ
> >CJ
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
curtjester1
wrote:
because someone else made the malicious insults first! When he gets
by that one, I might face him with a suit of armor on first....hehe.
CJ
> "I do my "proving" face to face. Come on by, let's see how much
> "convincing" you
> need." (Bendsie Holmes)
>
> I wonder what he means by "convincing", huh?
>
> > Just be prepared to cite.
>
> That a nice to way to "put it", huh?- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 18, 9:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <969d8e0f-bc31-4b42-8274-1331165fa...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Dec 18, 7:21=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> >> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >> Anyone else ?
>>
>> >Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>> >you =A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
>> >the =A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >=3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/2/09)
>>
>> >When will you debate him???
>>
>> I'm having too much fun with you.
>
>YOU have "fun" with someone who shows what a liar you?
Nope... never met such a person...
>>Tom at least has the good sense to refer to
>> the evidence all the time. He just enjoys insulting people too much.
>
>LOL!! This is a CLASSIC from this WC shill!
>
>He calls people "child molesters" all the time
Nope... untrue.
>yet he has an issue
>with Tom's "insults!"
Yep.
>LOL!!
>
>He has insulted my mom, who has NEVER POSTED on this board, with the
>most vulgar stuff, yet he has an issue with Tom using "insults"!
They were your words... I was just commenting on them.
>LOL!!!
>
>I cite the evidenc too,
How about the Death Certificate? You know, the one that says what you claimed
it said?
>but I also mention how it does NOT support or
>prove any of the claims the WC (and you) made regarding LHO, and that
>REALLY PISSES YOU OFF, doesn't it?
Why would any truth that you stumble upon be worthy of comment?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <429b1f7c-aa16-4c1d-99f7-3e3e8fe9f...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 18, 9:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <969d8e0f-bc31-4b42-8274-1331165fa...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Dec 18, 7:21=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> >> >> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> >> >> Anyone else ?
>
> >> >Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>
> >> >=3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> >> >you =A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> >> >the =A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> >> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D94 (Walt)
>
> >> >=3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/2/09)
>
> >> >When will you debate him???
>
> >> I'm having too much fun with you.
>
> >YOU have "fun" with someone who shows what a liar you?
>
> Nope... never met such a person...
Liar, aren't you?
> >>Tom at least has the good sense to refer to
> >> the evidence all the time. He just enjoys insulting people too much.
>
> >LOL!! This is a CLASSIC from this WC shill!
>
> >He calls people "child molesters" all the time
>
> Nope... untrue.
Very true you stinking WC shill!
> >yet he has an issue
> >with Tom's "insults!"
>
> Yep.
LOL! What a hypocrite, huh?
> >LOL!!
>
> >He has insulted my mom, who has NEVER POSTED on this board, with the
> >most vulgar stuff, yet he has an issue with Tom using "insults"!
>
> They were your words... I was just commenting on them.
Liar, aren't you homo? Of course you are fag, you lie about your
sexuality all the time. We all know you love little kids, but you
ONLY admit to being a homo!
>
> >LOL!!!
>
> >I cite the evidenc too,
>
> How about the Death Certificate? You know, the one that says what you claimed
> it said?
Which one? YOU made the reference and how ironic is it that you
AGREED WITH ME!
“I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
bullet, his doctor and the WC did.” (Robert)
“Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
– 5/24/09)
> >but I also mention how it does NOT support or
> >prove any of the claims the WC (and you) made regarding LHO, and that
> >REALLY PISSES YOU OFF, doesn't it?
>
> Why would any truth that you stumble upon be worthy of comment?
Why are you soooo obsessed with me then? I told you I don't swing YOUR
way homo, so take a hike!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 19, 2:20=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2b671929-5030-4b0b-926a-b169a90eb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 18, 12:40=3DA0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 years.
>>
>> >> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>>
>> Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, the "insults"
>> bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>
>Bendsie is sooo "confused" he is responding to two people here! Tom
>wrote this part!
I'm amused that both you and C.J. apparently can't figure out that I can respond
to two different people in one post. I *was* responding to Tom in the above
statement. That explains why I stated that I didn't care for Tom's writing
style, which involves too much in the way of "insults".
>> >I can only quote his words!
>>
>> >My guess is he stays away from you since you know the WC stuff inside
>> >and out.
>>
>> So too, as I've proved, do I.
>
>LOL!!
>
>> I knew, for example, that Marina had testified about Oswald owning a watch.
>
>Too bad you did NOT prove he owned or wore it DURING THE TIME WE WERE
>discussing, huh?
I knew, for example, that Marina had testified about Oswald owning a watch.
>(Bendsie takes "credit" for knowing when the truth is the moron has a
>"searchable WC CD"!
Of course! Don't you?
Anyone *serious* about the JFK case should at *least* own the relevant evidence
in this case.
>Even a moron like him can type in "watch" and
>then peruse the results!)
As could a moron before making a provably false assertion about the evidence.
>> I knew, for example, that neither Death Certificate said what you claimed it
>> said.
>
>YOU did, then why did you agree with me?
I both did and didn't. I *NEVER* agreed with your silly assertion, I agreed
with your poor grammar.
>=93I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
>shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
>***bullet***, his doctor and the WC did.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
>=96 5/24/09)
>
>OF course despite the FACT I used NOTHING BUT THE WORD BULLET he would
>lie and make it about the weapon/rifle instead so he could say they
>were NOT ballistics experts!
Bullet velocity is properly the domain of the ballistics expert.
>> >I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't leave me
>> >alone. Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
>>
>> I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
>
>What does Dennis Prager have to do with anything? I can QUOTE your
>words for you!
I wouldn't want to use his well-turned phrase without attribution. It's only
the polite thing to do.
>=93Sad to say, Robsie, but I value the truth over agreement.=94 (Bendsie
>Holmes)
Still true.
>NO you don't liar because NO one lies more on here than Wally, and YOU
>NEVER call him out for his lies!
When you have to lie to make a point...
>> When you bring to the table such poorly constructed arguments that can
>> easily be seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
>
>YOU would know since YOU do this all the time, huh?
And yet, you can't provide even a single example, along with citations... why is
that, stupid?
>> Much like that nutcase who appeared in the forum for just a week or two,
>> then disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that
>> the shooter was one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
>
>Too bad you can't show me making any PRO-WC comments or whacky
>comments from the CT side, huh?
Indeed, I do EXACTLY that. Your wacky claim about the Death Certificate is an
excellent example.
One that you STILL can't cite for... and haven't retracted.
>> Such a ridiculously stupid argument that only invites scorn on CT'ers.
>> You do the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then
>> we are *all* guilty of your false claims.
>
>I make no claims
Yes you do. And you CONSTANTLY refuse to support them. Your claim about what
Dr. Burkley and the Death Certificate said is merely one example.
Caught in a lie on that one - and YOU STILL REFUSE TO RETRACT!!!
>as I am simply responding to the claims the WC made,
>and YOU SUPPORT, so what is your point liar?
Sorry stupid, JFK really *DID* die on 11/22/63.
>> Your shill status can be seen in the thread where I quite clearly
>> agreed (and not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back
>> wound was at T-3/T-4... you attacked viciously for that simple truth.
>
>NO, I attacked you because YOU said none of the doctors who said the
>wound was at the T-3 level were "ballistics experts" and that they HAD
>TO BE THIS TO PLACE THE WOUND when this is an out and out lie!
Nope. Never said that. Once again, you're a liar, and you can't quote any such
statement.
Since I've carefully explained those statements several times now - all you're
doing is demonstrating your IQ, or rather, your lack of it.
>YOU lied, and the ONLY purpose for that lie would be to DISCREDIT the
>PH doctors,
Nope... the discussion was *NEVER* on the PH doctors.
I've corrected you each time you spout this lie.
>thus leaving us with the prosectors who placed it a T-1
>level! THAT PLACEMENT BENEFITS THE WC!
You're the one placing it there... not I. Government shill, aren't you?
>YOU lied for the BENEFIT of the WC! Tis that simple liar.
As is easily seen, it's *YOU* that's lying to support the WCR.
>> Do you really think that people aren't seeing you for the government
>> shill that you are?
>
>Funny how this WC shill is NOW using the same claim against me when I
>can SHOW HIM SUPPORTING THE WC ON MANY ISSUES,
JFK really *DID* die on 11/22/63.
My stance has a long record, the "Provable Lies of the WC", and the "45
Questions" detail a very contrary view to the one you keep pushing.
>AND HE CAN'T SHOW ME
>SUPPORTING THEM ONE ISSUE!
Of course I can... you support them on the fact that JFK died on 11/22/63. It's
a FACT that the WCR asserts this... it's a FACT that you agree with them.
>LOL!!
>
>Boy, is he desperate or what?
Oh, I'll let lurkers judge that one...
>> >> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.=
>..
>> >> On Dec 18, 7:21 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> >> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >> > Anyone else ?
>>
>> >> Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
>> >> =3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
>> >> you =3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you f=
>eel
>> >> the =3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>> >> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >> =3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/2/09)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 20, 7:30=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <b52afb0e-ebff-4811-89da-9c8a30137...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >On Dec 20, 3:16=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d041d7e1-cf46-4b1b-863e-f9f63a72d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >On Dec 20, 12:11=3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:hgj91...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
>m>,
>> >> >> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >>On Dec 18, 12:40=3D3D3DA0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 y=
>ear=3D
>> >s.
>>
>> >> >> >>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>>
>---=3D
>> >---=3D3D
>> >> >--=3D3DAD----------------------------------'
>> >> >> Ben wrote;
>>
>> >> >> > Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, t=
>he
>> >> >> > "insults"
>> >> >> > bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>>
>> >> >> I write;
>>
>en;
>>
>> >> >> You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always i=
>n
>> >> >> Retaliation.
>>
>> >> >> Out of respect, for you, I'll stay on my side of the line you've dr=
>awn=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> Yep... I well recognize *my* style of writing as well. I'm happy that =
>you
>> >> understand.
>>
>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------=
>---=3D
>> >---=3D3D
>> >> >--=3D3DAD------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> >> >>I can only quote his words!
>>
>sid=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >>and out.
>>
>> >> >> > So too, as I've proved, do I.
>>
>g a
>> >> >> > watch.
>>
>> >> >> > I knew, for example, that neither Death Certificate said what you=
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > said.
>>
>> >> >> >>I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't lea=
>ve =3D
>> >me
>> >> >> >>alone. =3D3DA0Is this normal behavior for a supposed CTer?
>>
>> >> >> > I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
>>
>t c=3D
>> >an
>> >> >> > easily be
>> >> >> > seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
>>
>or =3D
>> >two=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> > then
>> >> >> > disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that =
>the
>> >> >> > shooter was
>> >> >> > one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
>>
>'er=3D
>> >s.
>> >> >> > You do
>> >> >> > the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then we a=
>re =3D
>> >*al=3D3D
>> >> >l*
>> >> >> > guilty
>> >> >> > of your false claims.
>>
> ag=3D
>> >ree=3D3D
>> >> >d
>> >> >> > (and
>> >> >> > not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back wound was at
>> >> >> > T-3/T-4... you
>> >> >> > attacked viciously for that simple truth.
>>
>ent=3D
>> > sh=3D3D
>> >> >ill
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > you are?
>>
>> >> >> >>> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in mess=
>age
>>
>> >> >> >>>news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com=3D3D>> >> >> >>> > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this gr=
>oup
>> >> >> >>> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >> >> >>> > Anyone else ?
>>
>k!"
>>
>> >> >> >>> =3D3D3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..=
>... E=3D
>> >ven i=3D3D
>> >> >f
>> >> >> >>> you =3D3D3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak=
> that=3D
>> > you =3D3D
>> >> >feel
>> >> >> >>> the =3D3D3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Capri=
>o", "=3D
>> >Sam M=3D3D
>> >> >c
>> >> >> >>> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D3D3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >> >> >>> =3D3D3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D=
>3D3D96 11=3D
>> >/2/09)
>>
>> >> >> >>> When will you debate him???
>>
>> >> >posts!!
>>
>> >> And yet, clearly I do. =3DA0Robsie occasionally argues with himself, a=
>s he =3D
>> >doesn't
>> >> understand how to count '>'...
>>
>> >> You see, I'm capable of figuring out who said what, and responding
>> >> appropriately.
>>
>>
>> >> Why would he be? We both agree that there was a conspiracy, but we qui=
>te
>> >> clearly have writing styles that aren't interesting to each other. I s=
>uspect
>> >> that Tom is quite a nice guy, as long as he perceives no insults... ju=
>st as I
>> >> can be "sweetness & light" if you simply refuse to put words in my mou=
>th
>> >> that I never said. (And refuse to lie about the evidence)
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>>
>> Why would someone want a friend who lies? Do you really think friendship is
>> important enough to overlook lies over?
>
>LOL!! Is this guy for real??? He is BEST FRIENDS with the guy who lies
>in every post he he types---Wally!
When you have to lie to make a point...
>Why is he "friends" with a guy who lies constantly? Because they are
>GAY LOVERS and he can't throw him under the bus!
>
>> Tell us C.J, does *ANY* JFK Death Certificate state that the cause of
>> death is a "high-velocity bullet to the head"?
>
>IF NOT why did YOU agree with me?
>
>=93I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
>shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
>bullet, his doctor and the WC did.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
>=96 5/24/09)
Sorry stupid, that's not agreement... you were in the process of changing the
topic, and I was brushing off your attempt. The WC certainly *DID* say that.
>IF he keeps insisting the ONLY place Dr. Burkley "said this"
Dr. Burkley *WAS* the personal physician to JFK, right?
If he wrote down a cause of death in the Death Certificate, IT CAN ONLY BE
REFERRING TO THE NAVAL DEATH CERTIFICATE!
Yet you lied, and said you'd never been referencing this particular Death
Certificate.
You *DID* lie, and got caught at it.
>WAS ON
>THE NAVAL DEATH CERTIFICATE, and that the NAVAL DEATH CERTIFICATE DOES
>NOT SAY THIS, then he has to be A LIAR TOO AS HE AGREED WITH ME ABOUT
>HIM SAYING THIS!
*********************************************************
>The death certificate says "high-velocity" bullet,
Quote it, or cite it.
...
>> >They sure do, and the death certificate said death was CAUSED BY A
>> >HIGH-VELOCITY BULLET TO THE HEAD!
>> Quote it.
Dead silence...
*********************************************************
You've been running from the very start... and you're STILL running - because
the simple truth is that you lied. Dr. Burkley and the Death Certificate DO NOT
SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED THEY SAID!
And you *were* speaking of the Naval Death Certificate.
>> >I like all writing
>> >styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
>> >like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
>> >person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
>>
>> Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
>
>The better question is WHEN WILL YOU EVER DEFEND YOUR OWN WORDS WITH
>CITES AND EVIDENCE?
When you have to lie to make a point...
>> >Will Ben ever debate in a speech
>> >orientated forum? =A0I don't think so.....
>>
>> Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me
>> or stop on by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free
>> to do so.
>
>Watch out CJ, he likes to "prove" his stuff "face to face"! LOL!!
>
>"I do my "proving" face to face. Come on by, let's see how much
>"convincing" you
>need." (Bendsie Holmes)
>
>I wonder what he means by "convincing", huh?
You'd never have the courage to find out.
>> Just be prepared to cite.
>
>That a nice to way to "put it", huh?
I well understand your reluctance to cite - since the evidence doesn't support
your silly faith.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 21, 3:22=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <429b1f7c-aa16-4c1d-99f7-3e3e8fe9f...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Dec 18, 9:25=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <969d8e0f-bc31-4b42-8274-1331165fa...@k19g2000yqc.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Dec 18, 7:21=3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
>> >> >> debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >> >> Anyone else ?
>>
>> >> >Bendsie, NOW is your chance since you think Tom is a "CT'er kook!"
>>
> if
>> >> >you =3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you =
>feel
>> >> >the =3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam M=
>c
>> >> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D3D96 11/2/=
It doesn't matter, stupid; NEITHER of them say what you claimed.
And I've proven that you lied when you tried to assert that the Death
Certificate written by Dr. Burkley was never the Death Certificate you were
speaking of.
>YOU made the reference and how ironic is it that you
>AGREED WITH ME!
>
>=93I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
>shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
>bullet, his doctor and the WC did.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Nor is anyone stating that they did *NOT* say this." (Bendsie Holmes
>=96 5/24/09)
And, of course, provably the WC did.
Trying to weasel out of your lies on Dr. Burkley and the Death Certificate by
trying to claim that I agreed with you is sheerest nonsense. I've pointed out
time and time again that you can't quote any such statement by me, or by Dr.
Burkley or any Death Certificate.
>> >but I also mention how it does NOT support or
>> >prove any of the claims the WC (and you) made regarding LHO, and that
>> >REALLY PISSES YOU OFF, doesn't it?
>>
>> Why would any truth that you stumble upon be worthy of comment?
>
>Why are you soooo obsessed with me then? I told you I don't swing YOUR
>way homo, so take a hike!
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Dec 20, 7:30=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <b52afb0e-ebff-4811-89da-9c8a30137...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >On Dec 20, 3:16=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d041d7e1-cf46-4b1b-863e-f9f63a72d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >On Dec 20, 12:11=3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:hgj91...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
>m>,
>> >> >> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >>On Dec 18, 12:40=3D3D3DA0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> I've been reading Ben Holmes on these newsgroups for about 10 y=
>ear=3D
>> >s.
>>
>> >> >> >>> I've never been aware of any conflict between Ben & myself.
>>
>---=3D
>> >---=3D3D
>> >> >--=3D3DAD----------------------------------'
>> >> >> Ben wrote;
>>
>> >> >> > Neither am I... but I really don't care for your writing style, t=
>he
>> >> >> > "insults"
>> >> >> > bit, so I don't bother to read your posts.
>>
>> >> >> I write;
>>
>en;
>>
>> >> >> You've been around long enough to know thay my insults are always i=
>n
>> >> >> Retaliation.
>>
>> >> >> Out of respect, for you, I'll stay on my side of the line you've dr=
>awn=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> Yep... I well recognize *my* style of writing as well. I'm happy that =
>you
>> >> understand.
>>
>> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------=
>---=3D
>> >---=3D3D
>> >> >--=3D3DAD------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>sid=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >>and out.
>>
>> >> >> > So too, as I've proved, do I.
>>
>g a
>> >> >> > watch.
>>
>> >> >> > I knew, for example, that neither Death Certificate said what you=
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > said.
>>
>> >> >> >>I have NOT made one comment that supports the WC yet he won't lea=
>ve =3D
>> >me
>>
>> >> >> > I prefer clarity to agreement. - Dennis Prager.
>>
>t c=3D
>> >an
>> >> >> > easily be
>> >> >> > seen as false - you *DO* support the WC.
>>
>or =3D
>> >two=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> > then
>> >> >> > disappeared - who claimed that he was a CT'er - and he knew that =
>the
>> >> >> > shooter was
>> >> >> > one of the three men on the grassy knoll stairs.
>>
>'er=3D
>> >s.
>> >> >> > You do
>> >> >> > the same thing - and if other CT'ers don't correct you, then we a=
>re =3D
>> >*al=3D3D
>> >> >l*
>> >> >> > guilty
>> >> >> > of your false claims.
>>
> ag=3D
>> >ree=3D3D
>> >> >d
>> >> >> > (and
>> >> >> > not, of course, for the first time) that JFK's back wound was at
>> >> >> > T-3/T-4... you
>> >> >> > attacked viciously for that simple truth.
>>
>ent=3D
>> > sh=3D3D
>> >> >ill
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > you are?
>>
>> >> >> >>> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in mess=
>age
>>
>> >> >> >>>news:969d8e0f-bc31-4b42...@k19g2000yqc.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com=3D3D
>oup
>> >> >> >>> > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>>
>> >> >> >>> > Anyone else ?
>>
>k!"
>>
>> >> >> >>> =3D3D3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..=
>... E=3D
>> >ven i=3D3D
>> >> >f
>> >> >> >>> you =3D3D3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak=
> that=3D
>> > you =3D3D
>> >> >feel
>> >> >> >>> the =3D3D3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Capri=
>o", "=3D
>> >Sam M=3D3D
>> >> >> >>> Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D3D3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >> >> >>> =3D3D3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D=
>3D3D96 11=3D
>>
>> >> >> >>> When will you debate him???
>>
>> >> >posts!!
>>
>> >> And yet, clearly I do. =3DA0Robsie occasionally argues with himself, a=
>s he =3D
>> >> understand how to count '>'...
>>
>> >> You see, I'm capable of figuring out who said what, and responding
>> >> appropriately.
>>
>>
>> >> Why would he be? We both agree that there was a conspiracy, but we qui=
>te
>> >> clearly have writing styles that aren't interesting to each other. I s=
>uspect
>> >> that Tom is quite a nice guy, as long as he perceives no insults... ju=
>st as I
>> >> can be "sweetness & light" if you simply refuse to put words in my mou=
>th
>> >> that I never said. (And refuse to lie about the evidence)
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>>
>> Why would someone want a friend who lies? =A0Do you really think friendsh=
>ip is
>> important enough to overlook lies over?
>>
>th is a
>> "high-velocity bullet to the head"?
>>
>Ben you can't even count to two. You were speaking to Tom and then
>went speaking to Rob in the same rebuttal answer. Either you are
>delusional, or can't count. Which is it?
You're just as dumb as Rob.
I'm perfectly capable, and have many times in the past, responded to multiple
people in the same post.
I understand why that's challenging to Rob, but I would have expected you to be
able to follow such...
>> >I like all writing
>> >styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
>> >like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
>> >person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
>>
>> Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
>>
>Yep, no proof LHO order a rifle,
Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle.
Nor have I *EVER* claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. The
BY photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.
>and the FBI had no jurisdiction in
>the JFK case on 11/22/63.
Feel free to cite the law anytime, CJ.
But I suspect, judging from your past refusal to cite the law, that you'll run
as usual.
>> >Will Ben ever debate in a speech
>> >orientated forum? =A0I don't think so.....
>>
>> Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me or
>> stop on by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free to do so.
>>
>Why are you absent from the Education Forum or from assemblies where
>CT'ers meet?
That is such an incredibly dumb question, that I think I'll just let it stew
there...
>> Just be prepared to cite.
>>
>Those in the business for years will rake you over the coals with
>them.
Feel free to rake away... I'm here - I'm willing to read your cites.
curtjester1
>
> >Ben you can't even count to two. You were speaking to Tom and then
> >went speaking to Rob in the same rebuttal answer. Either you are
> >delusional, or can't count. Which is it?
>
> You're just as dumb as Rob.
>
have more education on JFK assassination than myself (even though he's
off on a few..:))
> I'm perfectly capable, and have many times in the past, responded to multiple
> people in the same post.
>
And I just went to my head doctor, and he said, "WE'RE doing just fine
now." Of course sane people jump all over the place and don't
identify who they are speaking to correct? And would you offer us
any proof from the past that you were doing just so, in the same
manner?
> I understand why that's challenging to Rob, but I would have expected you to be
> able to follow such...
>
Right, just like you were able to follow all the laws enacted for
ADDING people that the FEDS could have an umbrella under for their
jurisdiction in murders. Avoiding this, per chance, About the Law'?
About the Law
In 1963 it was not a federal law to kill a U.S. president. Thus
jurisdiction rested with local and State authorities.
The horror story of Dallas convinced Congress that a remedy was
required.
Public Law 89-141, signed on August 28, 1965, enacted 18 U.S.C. 1751,
prohibiting the killing, kidnapping, conspiracy, assault or attempt
to
kill or kidnap the President or Vice President. Jurisdiction was now
federal.
Similarly, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy was killed in June 1968,
there was no general Federal statute that prohibited the
assassination
of Members of Congress. Public Law 91-644, signed on January 2, 1971,
enacted 18 U.S.C. 351, which extended the protection of the Federal
criminal law to Members of Congress, paralleling that extended to the
President and the Vice President.
> >> >I like all writing
> >> >styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
> >> >like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
> >> >person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
>
> >> Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
>
> >Yep, no proof LHO order a rifle,
>
> Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle.
>
This has got to be the classic of classics!! Why don't you explain to
us why the Zapruder film is true because there is a limousine in
it???!!
> Nor have I *EVER* claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. The
> BY photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.
>
And the Zapruder film is proof that the film was authentic because it
was holding pictures of many things that people described in Dealey
Plaza about 12:30 in the afternoon on 11/22/63. Of course this group
is beyond what one can call evidence, and goes to evaluating the
quality and potential admissability of such evidence. Certainly you
must understand this, and wouldn't use this for your supporting that
Oswald owned a rifle?
> >and the FBI had no jurisdiction in
> >the JFK case on 11/22/63.
>
> Feel free to cite the law anytime, CJ.
>
> But I suspect, judging from your past refusal to cite the law, that you'll run
> as usual.
>
The law is *NOT* what you interpret, or want it to be. ALL murders
aren't part of any law cite accorded to the FEDS. Anyone can use a
phrase or word to make a blanket statement when it's proven that the
statement doesn't apply. The whole language is based on
interpretations of the written word, and argued constantly for it's
'proper' usages. I have cited laws that were enacted from the future
to ADD more murders to the FBI's jurisdiction, which have been in
front of your being since the topic arose. Yet, why do you refuse
constantly to address their need to be enacted, if they already had
jursidiction of what was enacted? Could it be your interpretation of
law is inaccurate??!!
> >> >Will Ben ever debate in a speech
> >> >orientated forum? =A0I don't think so.....
>
> >> Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me or
> >> stop on by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free to do so.
>
> >Why are you absent from the Education Forum or from assemblies where
> >CT'ers meet?
>
> That is such an incredibly dumb question, that I think I'll just let it stew
> there...
>
My guess, is that there would be much more opposition to your
statements with savvy researchers, but don't let me get in your way.
There wasn't any opposition or flak for you, until now.
> >> Just be prepared to cite.
>
> >Those in the business for years will rake you over the coals with
> >them.
>
> Feel free to rake away... I'm here - I'm willing to read your cites.
>
You have been raked for the FBI's jurisdiction. You refuse to support
the evidence LHO didn't own a rifle beyond your interpretation of a
picture. My guess is that you will refuse to find any posts of your's
that have you talking to two people at the same time. Ball is in your
court.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
><SNIP>
>>
>> >Ben you can't even count to two. =A0You were speaking to Tom and then
>> >went speaking to Rob in the same rebuttal answer. =A0Either you are
>> >delusional, or can't count. =A0Which is it?
>>
>> You're just as dumb as Rob.
>>
>No, I am dumber. I admit it when people have more time invested and
>have more education on JFK assassination than myself (even though he's
>off on a few..:))
If the moron would learn to look things up, instead of backing himself into a
corner all the time, he could be a useful addition to the CT'ers on this forum.
>> I'm perfectly capable, and have many times in the past, responded to multiple
>> people in the same post.
>>
>And I just went to my head doctor, and he said, "WE'RE doing just fine
>now." Of course sane people jump all over the place and don't
>identify who they are speaking to correct?
Can you count the '>'?
Have you ever noticed my strange habit of breaking the conversation to PRECISELY
the place I want to interject?
>And would you offer us
>any proof from the past that you were doing just so, in the same
>manner?
No. Unless you're willing to put up some money, and make it worth my while to
go back over years of postings to find examples. They aren't common, and if I
can take some money off you, then I'll be happy to look it up, and provide at
least one previous example.
>> I understand why that's challenging to Rob, but I would have expected
>> you to be able to follow such...
>>
>Right, just like you were able to follow all the laws enacted for
>ADDING people that the FEDS could have an umbrella under for their
>jurisdiction in murders. Avoiding this, per chance, About the Law'?
You've continued to refuse to cite the law that provides jurisdiction for the
FBI, so when you're ready to cite, let me know.
>About the Law
>
>In 1963 it was not a federal law to kill a U.S. president. Thus
>jurisdiction rested with local and State authorities.
>
>The horror story of Dallas convinced Congress that a remedy was
>required.
>
>Public Law 89-141, signed on August 28, 1965, enacted 18 U.S.C. 1751,
>prohibiting the killing, kidnapping, conspiracy, assault or attempt
>to
>kill or kidnap the President or Vice President. Jurisdiction was now
>federal.
>
>Similarly, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy was killed in June 1968,
>there was no general Federal statute that prohibited the
>assassination
>of Members of Congress. Public Law 91-644, signed on January 2, 1971,
>enacted 18 U.S.C. 351, which extended the protection of the Federal
>criminal law to Members of Congress, paralleling that extended to the
>President and the Vice President.
The implication that JFK's murder wasn't against the law is a false one.
>> >> >I like all writing
>> >> >styles that are supported by truth and aren't so acidic as to feel
>> >> >like one is intimidating by some crazy gauntlet that's in some
>> >> >person's mind a form of 'clarity'.
>>
>> >> Can *YOU* defend Robsie's false assertions of what I've "said"?
>>
>> >Yep, no proof LHO order a rifle,
>>
>> Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle.
>>
>This has got to be the classic of classics!! Why don't you explain to
>us why the Zapruder film is true because there is a limousine in
>it???!!
Feel free to cite for the meaning of the word "evidence".
>> Nor have I *EVER* claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence.
>> The BY photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.
>>
>And the Zapruder film is proof that the film was authentic because it
>was holding pictures of many things that people described in Dealey
>Plaza about 12:30 in the afternoon on 11/22/63.
No, it's *EVIDENCE*.
>Of course this group
>is beyond what one can call evidence, and goes to evaluating the
>quality and potential admissability of such evidence.
Absolutely! But when certain people refuse to even label evidence as such, then
a debate on the quality and persuasiveness of *this* evidence vs. *that*
evidence isn't even possible.
WHEN YOU DENY THAT THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, THEN USUALLY, IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, YOU'RE LYING.
>Certainly you
>must understand this, and wouldn't use this for your supporting that
>Oswald owned a rifle?
Is there evidence that Oswald owned a rifle? The *ONLY* answer to that question
that an honest man can make is "yes". Whether it's persuasive, or whether other
evidence is more convincing, is a completely different discussion.
>> >and the FBI had no jurisdiction in
>> >the JFK case on 11/22/63.
>>
>> Feel free to cite the law anytime, CJ.
>>
>> But I suspect, judging from your past refusal to cite the law, that
>> you'll run as usual.
>>
>The law is *NOT* what you interpret, or want it to be.
Can't discuss what you'll refuse to cite.
>ALL murders
>aren't part of any law cite accorded to the FEDS.
You'll refuse to cite for this.
>Anyone can use a
>phrase or word to make a blanket statement when it's proven that the
>statement doesn't apply.
Prove away... but first you'll have to cite.
>The whole language is based on
>interpretations of the written word, and argued constantly for it's
>'proper' usages.
But you refuse to CITE this language.
>I have cited laws that were enacted from the future
>to ADD more murders to the FBI's jurisdiction, which have been in
>front of your being since the topic arose. Yet, why do you refuse
>constantly to address their need to be enacted, if they already had
>jursidiction of what was enacted?
Untrue. I've already dealt with this.
>Could it be your interpretation of
>law is inaccurate??!!
Sorry CJ. You'll have to learn to cite before this discussion can go any
further.
>> >> >Will Ben ever debate in a speech
>> >> >orientated forum? =3DA0I don't think so.....
>>
>> >> Come on by, anytime. I'm not hidden on the net - anyone can call me or
>> >> stop on by. If you think you have an argument to make - feel free to d=
>o so.
>>
>> >Why are you absent from the Education Forum or from assemblies where
>> >CT'ers meet?
>>
>> That is such an incredibly dumb question, that I think I'll just let it stew
>> there...
>>
>My guess, is that there would be much more opposition to your
>statements with savvy researchers, but don't let me get in your way.
>There wasn't any opposition or flak for you, until now.
Post my posts over there, then quote the answers here, if you think I can't
handle the evidence.
In fact, it's time to get back to the evidence in this case, so feel free to
respond to my posts anytime.
>> >> Just be prepared to cite.
>>
>> >Those in the business for years will rake you over the coals with
>> >them.
>>
>> Feel free to rake away... I'm here - I'm willing to read your cites.
>>
>You have been raked for the FBI's jurisdiction.
Nah... you've run away. You refuse to cite.
>You refuse to support
>the evidence LHO didn't own a rifle beyond your interpretation of a
>picture.
Is there evidence that Oswald owned a rifle? The only correct answer is "yes".
>My guess is that you will refuse to find any posts of your's
>that have you talking to two people at the same time. Ball is in your
>court.
Pony up the money. Is it worth $100 for you to see a previous example?
timstter
You're avoiding the question.
How did you reach the conclusion that I was the same poster as JustMe?
Where is your answer, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Dec 19, 12:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3bc748af-e2a1-4ead...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> You've Never "Debunked" Anything ! ! !
>
> THAT's why "Debunked/Denial are spelled Differently ! ! !
>
> You can always Debate the contents of that website
> HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
> You can RUN but, You Can't Hide ! ! !
>
> Are you tellin me that you don't know about the red headed Negro at Duran's
> "Forceful Interrogation"?
>
> Not very well read are you ! ! !
>
> Looks like you're Really upset with me for making you look Bad on these>>>
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> > "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:88a3c8c6-26d2-46bc...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 19, 3:15 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > You can always Debate the contents of that website
> > > HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
>
> > > "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3231fde5-95cf-495a...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 19, 8:30 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I was kinda hoping YOU would be the First Suicidal Volunteer ! ! !
>
> > > > "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:241895e4-8130-4b71...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Dec 18, 11:21 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I would like to hear ANY of the LN trolls who post in this group
> > > > > debate Tom Rossley on a radio show.
>
> > > > > Anyone else ?
>
> > > > I would like you to post more videos making a goose of yourself!
>
> > > > :-)
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Tim Brennan
> > > > Sydney, Australia
> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > > I was kinda hoping you would have cleaned up your website by now!
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > LOL! Say, how come every time I debunk something there you pretend it
> > isn't debunked and keep on posting it?
>
> > Curious Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> LOL! You're simply trotting out the same old garbage again.
>
> Is it true you think me and JustMe are the same poster?
>
> Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3afe571d-3a09-4f61...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
timstter
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL! Sounds about as convincing as the rest of your *conclusions*
tomnln.
BTW, is it true that you now openly FEAR *evidence/testimony* in the
form of CE 2121 and CE 2123, tomnln?
I rather thought that that was the case...
Concerned Regards,
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d8c61d4-29ba-4d32...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Concerned Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rob/tim/Azcue/justme/HUGO prefers the written reports of Proven Liars to the
Testimony of actual witnesses.
SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
timstter
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> rob/tim/Azcue/justme/HUGO prefers the written reports of Proven Liars to the
> Testimony of actual witnesses.
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/eusebio_azcue.htm
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL! So your precious *evidence/testimony* is now *the written reports
of Proven Liars* is it, tomnln?
Where is your proof that the Mexican authorities are *Proven Liars*?
CE 2123 is their report with Duran's signature on it, dated 23
November, 1963, tomnln.
As for the *Testimony of actual witnesses* Duran told the HSCA that it
was Oswald she met and that she stood by what she said in CE 2123.
It seems to me that you now openly REJECT evidence/testimony, tomnln.
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89792443-109f-45cc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
rob/tim/Azcue/justme/HUGO wrote;
LOL! So your precious *evidence/testimony* is now *the written reports
of Proven Liars* is it, tomnln?
Where is your proof that the Mexican authorities are *Proven Liars*?
CE 2123 is their report with Duran's signature on it, dated 23
November, 1963, tomnln.
As for the *Testimony of actual witnesses* Duran told the HSCA that it
was Oswald she met and that she stood by what she said in CE 2123.
It seems to me that you now openly REJECT evidence/testimony, tomnln.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
I write;
You just Love gettin your ass Kicked;
Sylvia Duran's tgestimony described the Oswald she met was....
5 foot 3 inches tall
Blond Hair
119 pounds.
timstter
I just love kickin' your arse, you mean. Duran told the HSCA
investigators that the person she met was depicted in Photo Number 57
in the HSCA Mug Book:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0037a.htm
Photo Number 57 in the HSCA Mug Book is a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=99818&relPageId=4
Let's have a look at HSCA Photo Number 57; it's Oswald's 9 August 1963
NOPD mugshot:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Mugbook_-_p4
Let's have a closer look:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/23/Photo_hsca_mugbook_057_loswald.jpg
Now let's look at CE 2788, the photo attached to Oswald's Cuban Visa
Application:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0107a.htm
That application has typed up by Duran and has both her and Oswald's
handwriting on it, tomnln.
I wonder why she thought the person she met was Oswald, eh tomnln? Any
ideas?