David Von Pein's Desperate Attempts To Defend The Impossible

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the Amazon forums:

David Von Pein quotes me: "By the way, you really *should* explain to Henry
Sienzant, Axelson, Dale, Kevin, and any other Warren Commission defenders that
I've missed naming, that Bugliosi was "mistaken". They all still claim that he
was correct.

Then David whimpers: "Which only goes to show just how easily somebody CAN be
mistaken and/or confused about this "ragged" topic. (Ever think of that, Mr.
Holmes? I doubt you did. You probably think that all of those LNers you just
named above are ALL liars. Right?)"

So all Warren Commission defenders are just too stupid to understand historical
evidence and be able to correctly state facts? Is this your claim?

If so, I agree.


David whines: "I'm not sure Mr. Axelson actually thinks Bugliosi was correct in
this specific "ragged" matter, however. In the posts of his that I saw, he was
merely saying that he had beaten you based ONLY on the challenge you made to
LNers to find ANY place in the records where Dr. Carrico utilized the word
"ragged". And Mr. Axelson did that."

No liar, he did not. Nor have *you* been able to.

Only by pretending that the topic is something else can you even *begin* to
propose such lies.

The topic is very simple... forensic determination of entry & exit.

Which is *NEVER* done utilizing internal organs.


David cries: "It's not his fault (or mine) that your initial challenge wasn't
worded properly. You needed to be more specific. Instead of saying "ORIGINAL
BULLET WOUND IN JFK'S THROAT", you should have specified "OUTER-SKIN BULLET
WOUND IN KENNEDY'S THROAT". You didn't do that in your challenge. Just like you
failed to be specific enough when you first challenged the LNers on this issue
on May 24, 2011"

So your complaint is that I didn't hold your hand sufficiently enough to enable
you to come to the truth?

Why... do you suppose... that after all the shouting and attempted refutations
are over with, it's almost always the CT'er who's proven correct?

Henry has run away, but Axelson, Dale, and Kevin are still denying that Perry
and Carrico *NEVER* described the original bullet wound in JFK's throat as
"ragged".

And, stupid as you must be, tell us how a trachea can be considered the
"original bullet wound in JFK's throat"... do you think bullets strike the
trachea first, *THEN* the skin?

Are you stupid enough to believe that Bugliosi was basing an argument about the
*DIRECTION* of a bullet on the *TRACHEAL* damage?

And if you can't understand such a *simple* topic, how are you *EVER* going to
understand more complicated historical evidence?


David whimpers: "Just like you failed to be specific enough when you first
challenged the LNers on this issue on May 24, 2011 (see link below).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/792b019338335e90

Well, let's QUOTE it for everyone to read and marvel at your ignorance:

********************************************************************
Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)

Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
this anywhere?

What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?

Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...

Which will it be?
*******************************************************************

Now tell us stupid... did you *REALLY* believe that Bugliosi was making an
"entry exit" argument based on an internal organ? If so, you're too forensically
challenged to be debating this topic with me.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-erratic-drifter-Harvey-Oswald-/forum/Fx1PW7HP0SZ0SAA/Tx3BQKN094W8XC2/9/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0805096663&cdMsgID=Mx1J5MOD2F2P5UF&cdMsgNo=205&cdSort=oldest#Mx1J5MOD2F2P5UF

BENJAMIN HOLMES SAID:

So all Warren Commission defenders are just too stupid to understand
historical evidence and be able to correctly state facts? Is this your
claim?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You get sillier with each passing day. (As hard as that is to fathom.)

BENJI SAID:

Now tell us stupid... did you *REALLY* believe that Bugliosi was
making an "entry exit" argument based on an internal organ?

DVP SAID:

There's evidence from the various responses by different people in
THIS VERY AMAZON DISCUSSION to indicate that this "ragged" topic is
quite confusing and, therefore, can easily result in mistaken
interpretation. I guess, however, Holmes is too stupid to realize that
fact.