DEBATING KEN RAHN

Gil Jesus

unread,

Mar 24, 2009, 10:59:22 AM3/24/09

to

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf

Kenneth A. Rahn

unread,

Mar 24, 2009, 12:23:47 PM3/24/09

to

Gil,

VERY old news.

Ken Rahn

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5399f7dc-f060-4ba2...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf

Steve

unread,

Mar 25, 2009, 7:24:05 PM3/25/09

to

On Mar 24, 9:23 am, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> Gil,
>
> VERY old news.
>
> Ken Rahn
>

> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5399f7dc-f060-4ba2...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with Dr. Rahn's position and statements 100%. As a
professional educator myself I too am inundated with lengthy e-mails
from former students, friends of former students, enemies of former
students, who have read an Internet article, a portion of a book, or
recently watched "JFK" and they expect me to sit down and answer
fifteen questions which it took them fifteen seconds to write and it
takes me fifteen hours to respond to. Then, when I don't physically
have the time they proclaim victory and parade off the field of battle
with arms upstretched in celebration. I am not nearly as busy as is
Dr. Rahn but not even I have time to answer the call every time
someone wants me to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
Besides I learned long ago that trying to talk reason to a conspiracy
nut is like talking to a drawing of a windmill.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 25, 2009, 8:40:12 PM3/25/09

to

In article <7bbd8701-1b65-4db5...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Steve says...

>
>On Mar 24, 9:23=A0am, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
>> Gil,
>>

>> =A0 =A0 VERY old news.

>>
>> Ken Rahn
>>
>> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5399f7dc-f060-4ba2...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf
>>
>

>I agree with Dr. Rahn's position and statements 100%. As a
>professional educator myself I too am inundated with lengthy e-mails
>from former students, friends of former students, enemies of former
>students, who have read an Internet article, a portion of a book, or
>recently watched "JFK" and they expect me to sit down and answer
>fifteen questions which it took them fifteen seconds to write and it
>takes me fifteen hours to respond to. Then, when I don't physically
>have the time they proclaim victory and parade off the field of battle
>with arms upstretched in celebration. I am not nearly as busy as is
>Dr. Rahn but not even I have time to answer the call every time
>someone wants me to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
>Besides I learned long ago that trying to talk reason to a conspiracy
>nut is like talking to a drawing of a windmill.

Many, if not most of the questions I raise have been around for decades, if not
for over 45 years.

The LNT'er camp has had plenty of time to answer them.

Thus intelligent people are led to the inevitable conclusion that it's not a
lack of time, BUT YOUR INABILITY TO ANSWER that drives your apparent cowardice.

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

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 25, 2009, 8:44:05 PM3/25/09

to

On Mar 25, 8:40 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <7bbd8701-1b65-4db5-880a-8d728d419...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

The "lone nut camp" is aware that you like to play games, Holmes, and
that is why no one
in "the lone nut camp" takes your bait.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 25, 2009, 9:16:23 PM3/25/09

to

In article <61cac085-a0e3-4598...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Mar 25, 8:40=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <7bbd8701-1b65-4db5-880a-8d728d419...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups=

>.com>,
>> Steve says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 24, 9:23=3DA0am, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
>> >> Gil,
>>

>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 VERY old news.

>>
>> >> Ken Rahn
>>
>> >> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>

>> >>news:5399f7dc-f060-4ba2...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.=
>..
>>
>> >> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf
>>
>> >I agree with Dr. Rahn's position and statements 100%. =A0As a

>> >professional educator myself I too am inundated with lengthy e-mails
>> >from former students, friends of former students, enemies of former
>> >students, who have read an Internet article, a portion of a book, or
>> >recently watched "JFK" and they expect me to sit down and answer
>> >fifteen questions which it took them fifteen seconds to write and it

>> >takes me fifteen hours to respond to. =A0Then, when I don't physically

>> >have the time they proclaim victory and parade off the field of battle

>> >with arms upstretched in celebration. =A0I am not nearly as busy as is

>> >Dr. Rahn but not even I have time to answer the call every time
>> >someone wants me to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
>> >Besides I learned long ago that trying to talk reason to a conspiracy
>> >nut is like talking to a drawing of a windmill.
>>
>> Many, if not most of the questions I raise have been around for decades,
>> if not for over 45 years.
>>
>> The LNT'er camp has had plenty of time to answer them.
>>
>> Thus intelligent people are led to the inevitable conclusion that it's
>> not a lack of time, BUT YOUR INABILITY TO ANSWER that drives your
>> apparent cowardice.
>>
>

>The "lone nut camp" is aware that you like to play games, Holmes, and
>that is why no one in "the lone nut camp" takes your bait.

None of the questions I raise are unique to me. They have been asked by others
at least once, and in some cases, by multiple authors.

They aren't unknown to the LNT'er crowd. Yet for decades, you, and other
LNT'ers have been totally unable to respond to them.

IOW's, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.

You can keep reaching for excuses - but there really aren't any - you *must*
stay away from the evidence, it doesn't support your stance.

It's been known since the early 1990's, for example, that the HSCA flat lied
about the medical testimony.

When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve? And why are you ducking
and running away from any evidential debate?

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 25, 2009, 9:21:52 PM3/25/09

to

On Mar 25, 9:16 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <61cac085-a0e3-4598-bc65-bce97f69b...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> snl141...@yahoo.com says...

You mean like you have with this "yellow pants" lady?

Sometimes, given ample rope, people ( in this case, you) tangle
themselves up.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 25, 2009, 9:28:16 PM3/25/09

to

>>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<

The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.

But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
death of JFK.

Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.

And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
"lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.

Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alone
while killing them.

~Mark VII~

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 26, 2009, 4:14:54 PM3/26/09

to

Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2009, 4:33:11 PM3/26/09

to

In article <8d6b2edc-8cec-428d...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Mar 25, 9:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <61cac085-a0e3-4598-bc65-bce97f69b...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 25, 8:40=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7bbd8701-1b65-4db5-880a-8d728d419...@d25g2000prn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Steve says...

>>
>> >> >On Mar 24, 9:23=3D3DA0am, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> Gil,
>>

>> >> >> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 VERY old news.

>>
>> >> >> Ken Rahn
>>
>> >> >> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>

>> >> >>news:5399f7dc-f060-4ba2...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.c=
>om.=3D
>> >..
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf
>>
>> >> >I agree with Dr. Rahn's position and statements 100%. =3DA0As a

>> >> >professional educator myself I too am inundated with lengthy e-mails
>> >> >from former students, friends of former students, enemies of former
>> >> >students, who have read an Internet article, a portion of a book, or
>> >> >recently watched "JFK" and they expect me to sit down and answer
>> >> >fifteen questions which it took them fifteen seconds to write and it

>> >> >takes me fifteen hours to respond to. =3DA0Then, when I don't physica=
>lly
>> >> >have the time they proclaim victory and parade off the field of battl=
>e
>> >> >with arms upstretched in celebration. =3DA0I am not nearly as busy as=

> is
>> >> >Dr. Rahn but not even I have time to answer the call every time
>> >> >someone wants me to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
>> >> >Besides I learned long ago that trying to talk reason to a conspiracy
>> >> >nut is like talking to a drawing of a windmill.
>>

>> >> Many, if not most of the questions I raise have been around for decade=

>s,
>> >> if not for over 45 years.
>>
>> >> The LNT'er camp has had plenty of time to answer them.
>>
>> >> Thus intelligent people are led to the inevitable conclusion that it's
>> >> not a lack of time, BUT YOUR INABILITY TO ANSWER that drives your
>> >> apparent cowardice.
>>
>> >The "lone nut camp" is aware that you like to play games, Holmes, and
>> >that is why no one in "the lone nut camp" takes your bait.
>>

>> None of the questions I raise are unique to me. =A0They have been asked b=

>y others
>> at least once, and in some cases, by multiple authors.
>>

>> They aren't unknown to the LNT'er crowd. =A0Yet for decades, you, and oth=

>er
>> LNT'ers have been totally unable to respond to them.
>>
>> IOW's, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.
>>

>> You can keep reaching for excuses - but there really aren't any - you *mu=

>st*
>> stay away from the evidence, it doesn't support your stance.
>>
>> It's been known since the early 1990's, for example, that the HSCA flat
>> lied about the medical testimony.
>>
>> When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve? And why are you
>> ducking and running away from any evidential debate?
>
> You mean like you have with this "yellow pants" lady?

Were you there, Steve? Were *YOU* willing to answer the simple questions I
asked?

I had trolls and LNT'ers running like crazy when all I would ask is "how many
people are seen in this frame?"

Just as *YOU* are running right now from the evidence you invited.

Why such a coward, Steve? Let's try it again...

It's been known since the early 1990's, for example, that the HSCA flat lied
about the medical testimony.

When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve? And why are you ducking
and running away from any evidential debate?

Do you plan to duck and run again?

> Sometimes, given ample rope, people ( in this case, you) tangle
>themselves up.

All I've been doing, Steve, is providing you with what you can't deal with.

You've been demonstrating just what a coward you are.

Understandable, of course, the evidence doesn't support you, and you know it.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2009, 4:34:48 PM3/26/09

to

In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...

>
>On Mar 25, 9:28=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>>
>> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>>
>> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
>> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
>> death of JFK.
>>
>> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
>> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.

And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.

>> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.

A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.

>> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alone
>> while killing them.
>>
>> ~Mark VII~
>
> Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.

Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 26, 2009, 4:43:58 PM3/26/09

to

On Mar 26, 4:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> snl141...@yahoo.com says...

>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 9:28=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>
> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>
> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
> >> death of JFK.
>
> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>
> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.

Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar", and no, he
isn't..

>
> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>
> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.

> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alone
> >> while killing them.
>
> >> ~Mark VII~
>
> > Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
>
> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.

Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
in here
asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue, and
you have yet to do so.
Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".

I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2009, 10:56:38 PM3/26/09

to

In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Mar 26, 4:34=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups=

>.com>,
>> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>>
>> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>>
>> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
>> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
>> >> death of JFK.
>>
>> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
>> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>>
>> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>
> Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_%27bald_faced_lie%27_or_another_variation

http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-bald-face-liar-76365.html

If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that both are
accepted as correct.

>and no, he isn't..

If that were true, you'd have no problems defending the HSCA on their lies about
the medical testimony.

But you duck and run instead. Do you think you're convincing anyone?

>> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>>
>> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>>

>> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alo=

>ne
>> >> while killing them.
>>
>> >> ~Mark VII~
>>

>> > =A0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.

>>
>> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
>
> Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
>in here asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue,

Why not go back to the original threads, and read 'em?

They're still there for anyone who cares. And JUST AS YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW,
the trolls were ducking and running from the debate.

Indeed, I couldn't even get anyone to specify how many people were visible in a
given frame. When you can't even establish a common fundamental understanding
of the evidence, you can't debate.

So tell us Steve - why are you refusing to defend the lies that the HSCA told
about the medical testimony?

>and
>you have yet to do so.

Bringing up old issues that you have no idea about won't hide the fact that
you're running as fast as you can from the evidence I've cited.

>Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".

I'm sure that there's *someone*, somewhere, who believes your opinion. But in
the meantime, why are you running from the evidence I cited?

Why did you lie about even the fact that I'd provided evidence? Why are you now
refusing to even respond to those posts?

> I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.

You started it, coward. Now you can't finish it.

aeffects

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 3:20:10 AM3/27/09

to

ohhhhh-yeah, now here is a tough Lone Nutter, sticks his head out long
enough from under .john's dress to ask about the Lady in yellow
pants..... ROTFLMFAO what-a-pussy.... Trying to change the subject, ya
run kiddo, you've always run when confronted and your bosom pals were
no where to be seen..... Speaking of which, there is not ONE Lone Nut
on this board competent to speak to the Zapruder Film, no CT cares
what Lone Nut dipshits think about the Z-film. Now if you're gonna
drag your sorry ass back in here to discuss other case evidence, lets
see what you got.... Knock off the sniveling...

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 9:14:26 AM3/27/09

to

On 27 Mar., 03:56, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63-af13-36a21ba6b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >On Mar 26, 4:34=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>
> >> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>
> >> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
> >> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
> >> >> death of JFK.
>
> >> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
> >> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>
> >> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>
> > Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",
>
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
>

> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_...
>
> http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-ba...

>
> If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that both are
> accepted as correct.
>
> >and no, he isn't..
>
> If that were true, you'd have no problems defending the HSCA on their lies about
> the medical testimony.
>
> But you duck and run instead. Do you think you're convincing anyone?
>
> >> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
> >> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>
> >> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>
> >> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alo=
> >ne
> >> >> while killing them.
>
> >> >> ~Mark VII~
>
> >> > =A0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
>
> >> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
>
> > Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
> >in here asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue,
>
> Why not go back to the original threads, and read 'em?
>
> They're still there for anyone who cares. And JUST AS YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW,
> the trolls were ducking and running from the debate.
>
> Indeed, I couldn't even get anyone to specify how many people were visible in a
> given frame. When you can't even establish a common fundamental understanding
> of the evidence, you can't debate.

Ben introduced his *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory in the post that
started the following thread, titled "Z-369 and Proof that Zapruder &
Nix Have Been Altered."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/9f9b9d2b8c6a6b65/a48cd6a84872431b

Ben thought he (or Jack White in MIDL?) had found certain "problems"
with two assassination films (Nix and Zapruder) that could only be
explained in terms of alteration. The first such "problem" was a
couple seen standing behind the Franzen group in Nix and not visible
in Z-369 (Zapruder frame 369). In another thread, Ben had previously
challenged Bob Harris to tell him how many people he could see
standing in the grass in Z-369:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6821c612971c6024

Actually, the shadows and/or legs of the couple can be seen in every
frame between Z-334 and Z355, making Ben's challenge rather
meaningless, and it seems that he later discarded this part of his
theory.

The other "problem" was a *Lady in Yellow Pants* figure seen in later
Nix frames, but not in Zapruder. Ben confidently modified the
challenge to his critics:

BEN ON

The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?

How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?

This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between
"2" and "3".

BEN OFF

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4375be1606567904

The correct answer to the second question is "2" (or "the same number
of people"). The location occupied by the *Lady in Yellow Pants*
(included in Ben's count of "3") was never filmed by Zapruder. She
would have appeared much earlier than Z-377, btw, but was standing too
far back. Nix and Zapruder were filming from opposite sides, the
latter standing much further down the road and in an elevated
position, so their perspectives were vastly different. Debunking Ben's
foolish theory isn't particularly difficult; the hard part is getting
him to admit he was wrong.

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 11:02:52 AM3/27/09

to

On Mar 26, 10:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63-af13-36a21ba6b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 26, 4:34=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>
> >> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>
> >> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
> >> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
> >> >> death of JFK.
>
> >> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
> >> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>
> >> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>
> > Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",
>
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
>

> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_...
>
> http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-ba...

Thanks for your thoughts, Holmes.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 1:30:53 PM3/27/09

to

In article <3b5d59eb-c80f-4865...@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Mar 26, 10:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63-af13-36a21ba6b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 26, 4:34=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...

>>
>> >> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>>
>> >> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
>> >> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
>> >> >> death of JFK.
>>

>> >> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- =

>but
>> >> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>>
>> >> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>>
>> > Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",
>>
>> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
>>
>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_...
>>
>> http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-ba...
>>

>> If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that bo=

>th are
>> accepted as correct.
>>
>> >and no, he isn't..
>>

>> If that were true, you'd have no problems defending the HSCA on their lie=

>s about
>> the medical testimony.
>>

>> But you duck and run instead. =A0Do you think you're convincing anyone?

>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> >> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>>
>> >> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>>

>> >> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted =
>alo=3D

>> >ne
>> >> >> while killing them.
>>
>> >> >> ~Mark VII~
>>

>> >> > =3DA0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.

>>
>> >> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
>> >in here asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue=

>,
>>
>> Why not go back to the original threads, and read 'em?
>>

>> They're still there for anyone who cares. =A0And JUST AS YOU'RE DOING RIG=

>HT NOW,
>> the trolls were ducking and running from the debate.
>>

>> Indeed, I couldn't even get anyone to specify how many people were visibl=
>e in a
>> given frame. =A0When you can't even establish a common fundamental unders=

>tanding
>> of the evidence, you can't debate.
>>

>> So tell us Steve - why are you refusing to defend the lies that the HSCA =

>told
>> about the medical testimony?
>>
>> >and
>> >you have yet to do so.
>>

>> Bringing up old issues that you have no idea about won't hide the fact th=

>at
>> you're running as fast as you can from the evidence I've cited.
>>
>> >Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".
>>

>> I'm sure that there's *someone*, somewhere, who believes your opinion. =
>=A0But in

>> the meantime, why are you running from the evidence I cited?
>>

>> Why did you lie about even the fact that I'd provided evidence? =A0Why ar=

>e you now
>> refusing to even respond to those posts?
>>

>> > =A0I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.

>>
>> You started it, coward. Now you can't finish it.
>>
>

> Thanks for your thoughts, Holmes.

Well, the truth comes out, coward.

You like to bluster, but you end up running away.

The sad thing is ... you probably don't even realize what this looks like to the
average lurker.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 1:39:20 PM3/27/09

to

In article <c2b32b2b-283c-4b71...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 26, 1:43=A0pm, snl141...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 4:34=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > snl141...@yahoo.com says...

>>
>> > >On Mar 25, 9:28=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>>
>> > >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>>
>> > >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
>> > >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
>> > >> death of JFK.
>>

>> > >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- b=

>ut
>> > >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>>
>> > And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>>

>> =A0Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar", and no, he

>> isn't..
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> > >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>>
>> > A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.

>> > > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted a=

>lone
>> > >> while killing them.
>>
>> > >> ~Mark VII~
>>

>> > > =A0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
>>
>> > Hardly. =A0The trolls ran. =A0Just as you're running right now.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people

>> in here
>> asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue, and
>> you have yet to do so.
>> Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".
>
>ohhhhh-yeah, now here is a tough Lone Nutter, sticks his head out long
>enough from under .john's dress to ask about the Lady in yellow
>pants.....

I DEFY this coward to name my "theory", then debate or refute it.

This is just another excuse to try to get away...

How did Weisberg put it? Something about just whacking 'em upside the head with
the evidence, over and over again?

>ROTFLMFAO what-a-pussy.... Trying to change the subject, ya
>run kiddo, you've always run when confronted and your bosom pals were
>no where to be seen..... Speaking of which, there is not ONE Lone Nut
>on this board competent to speak to the Zapruder Film, no CT cares
>what Lone Nut dipshits think about the Z-film. Now if you're gonna
>drag your sorry ass back in here to discuss other case evidence, lets
>see what you got.... Knock off the sniveling...
>

>> =A0 I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.
>>
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 2:00:27 PM3/27/09

to

On Mar 27, 1:30 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3b5d59eb-c80f-4865-aea5-75b5a70ca...@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

I could care less "what it looks like to average lurker!!!!!

aeffects

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 3:12:29 PM3/27/09

to

On Mar 27, 10:39 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <c2b32b2b-283c-4b71-bf5b-8cb9c006f...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,

close enough for government work, in fact HaroldW. told me: "just beat
them over the head with the evidence, the exhibits, photos, film and
the testimony. That's all you need."

justm...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 5:12:12 PM3/27/09

to

Well Mark, looks like little "Sadam" ingored your post again about his
lady in yellow pants. Why would anyone expect differently. Holmes is
just like Robcrap, if the words "PROOF" and "COWARD" weren't in their
vocabulary, they would have nothing to say. Holmes is a little midget
who thinks he's a man.

aeffects

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 6:03:13 PM3/27/09

to

On Mar 27, 2:12 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

whew, stinks of tuna in here, close your legs troll!

snl1...@yahoo.com

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 6:04:58 PM3/27/09

to

On Mar 26, 10:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63-af13-36a21ba6b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 26, 4:34=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>
> >> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>
> >> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
> >> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
> >> >> death of JFK.
>
> >> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
> >> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>
> >> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>
> > Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",
>
> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
>

> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_...
>
> http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-ba...

>
> If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that both are
> accepted as correct.

LOL! You would, being that you are a fool. You didn't read close
enough Holmes. "Bald faced" came into existence only because
someone misunderstood the term "bold faced", and said "bald faced",
much like people turned the word "pesty" into "pesky".
No such word as "pesk", no such thing as a "bald face".

I already did. You're an fool and an idiot, Holmes.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 11:22:17 PM3/27/09

to

In article <b9c8da1f-2788-43e4...@l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Mar 27, 1:30=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3b5d59eb-c80f-4865-aea5-75b5a70ca...@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 26, 10:56=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63-af13-36a21ba6b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Mar 26, 4:34=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3D3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> w=

>rote:
>> >> >> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>>
>> >> >> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that

>> >> >> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to t=
>he
>> >> >> >> death of JFK.
>>
>> >> >> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there =
>-- =3D

>> >but
>> >> >> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>>
>> >> >> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>>
>> >> > Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",
>>
>> >>http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
>>

>> >>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_..=
>.
>>
>> >>http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-ba..=
>.
>>
>> >> If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that=
> bo=3D

>> >th are
>> >> accepted as correct.
>>
>> >> >and no, he isn't..
>>

>> >> If that were true, you'd have no problems defending the HSCA on their =
>lie=3D

>> >s about
>> >> the medical testimony.
>>

>> >> But you duck and run instead. =3DA0Do you think you're convincing anyo=
>ne?
>>
>> >> >> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC per=

>son
>> >> >> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>>
>> >> >> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>>

>> >> >> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly act=
>ed =3D
>> >alo=3D3D

>> >> >ne
>> >> >> >> while killing them.
>>
>> >> >> >> ~Mark VII~
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue=

>.
>>
>> >> >> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen=
> people
>> >> >in here asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" is=
>sue=3D

>> >,
>>
>> >> Why not go back to the original threads, and read 'em?
>>

>> >> They're still there for anyone who cares. =3DA0And JUST AS YOU'RE DOIN=
>G RIG=3D

>> >HT NOW,
>> >> the trolls were ducking and running from the debate.
>>

>> >> Indeed, I couldn't even get anyone to specify how many people were vis=
>ibl=3D
>> >e in a
>> >> given frame. =3DA0When you can't even establish a common fundamental u=
>nders=3D

>> >tanding
>> >> of the evidence, you can't debate.
>>

>> >> So tell us Steve - why are you refusing to defend the lies that the HS=
>CA =3D

>> >told
>> >> about the medical testimony?
>>
>> >> >and
>> >> >you have yet to do so.
>>

>> >> Bringing up old issues that you have no idea about won't hide the fact=
> th=3D

>> >at
>> >> you're running as fast as you can from the evidence I've cited.
>>
>> >> >Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".
>>
>> >> I'm sure that there's *someone*, somewhere, who believes your opinion.=

> =3D
>> >=3DA0But in

>> >> the meantime, why are you running from the evidence I cited?
>>

>> >> Why did you lie about even the fact that I'd provided evidence? =3DA0W=
>hy ar=3D

>> >e you now
>> >> refusing to even respond to those posts?
>>

>> >> > =3DA0I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.

>>
>> >> You started it, coward. Now you can't finish it.
>>
>> > Thanks for your thoughts, Holmes.
>>
>> Well, the truth comes out, coward.
>>
>> You like to bluster, but you end up running away.
>>
>> The sad thing is ... you probably don't even realize what this looks like
>> to the average lurker.
>>
>

>I could care less "what it looks like to average lurker!!!!!

Of course not! You don't mind acting the fool.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 27, 2009, 11:31:17 PM3/27/09

to

In article <49101759-e81d-4501...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
snl1...@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Mar 26, 10:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <8fe9a89c-d044-4b63-af13-36a21ba6b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> snl141...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 26, 4:34=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <13a60ce5-e819-4843-886d-3d3c346a5...@j38g2000yqa.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> snl141...@yahoo.com says...

>>
>> >> >On Mar 25, 9:28=3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
>>
>> >> >> The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
>>
>> >> >> But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
>> >> >> anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
>> >> >> death of JFK.
>>

>> >> >> Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- =

>but
>> >> >> he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
>>
>> >> And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>>
>> > Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar",
>>
>> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
>>
>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_correct_term_%27bold_face_lie%27_or_...
>>
>> http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-ba...
>>
>> If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that
>> both are accepted as correct.
>
> LOL! You would, being that you are a fool.

Actually, this is a perfectly ordinary usage documented by the dictionary. So
you'll have to take it up with them.

>You didn't read close
>enough Holmes. "Bald faced" came into existence only because
>someone misunderstood the term "bold faced", and said "bald faced",
>much like people turned the word "pesty" into "pesky".
>No such word as "pesk", no such thing as a "bald face".

Indeed, I cited for this. But in contradiction to your assertion, the
dictionary accepts it.

Is this all you have? Why do you keep running away from the evidence IN THIS
CASE, Steve? Coward?

>> >and no, he isn't..
>>