Provable Lies of the Warren Commission (#10)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Balds...@gmail.com
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
David Von Pein
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
JGL
Marty Baughman
Miss Rita
Muc...@Gmail.com
Osprey
Sam Brown
Steve sahi...@yahoo.com
Tara Lachat
Tims...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
The names change from time to time as they create new aliases, but they can be
recognized by their refusal to address the evidence, and their frequent use of
ad hominem attacks.
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
**********************************************************************
"Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day,
and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that
he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before
proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,
Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved
to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left
England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in
provable conflict with their own evidence:
Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no
commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order
to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the
only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This
wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply
lie about the day Owald left London...
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
(And why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Steve
> **********************************************************************
> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
>
> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> Baldoni
> Bigdog
> Bill
> Brokedad
> Bud
> Burlyguard
> Cdddraftsman
> Chuck Schuyler
> David Von Pein
> Grizzlie Antagonist
> Justme1952
> JGL
> Marty Baughman
> Miss Rita
> Osprey
> Sam Brown
> Steve sahist...@yahoo.com
> Tara Lachat
> Timst...@Gmail.com
> Todd W. Vaughan
> YoHarvey
>
> The names change from time to time as they create new aliases, but they can be
> recognized by their refusal to address the evidence, and their frequent use of
> ad hominem attacks.
>
> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
> **********************************************************************
>
> "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day,
> and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that
> he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before
> proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,
> Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved
> to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
>
> Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left
> England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in
> provable conflict with their own evidence:
>
> Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
>
>
> and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
>
> But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no
> commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order
> to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the
> only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This
> wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply
> lie about the day Owald left London...
>
> Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
>
> (And why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?)
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
So please explain how, if your assertion is true, does that change the
fact that Oswald's rifle with his prints and clothing fibers on it,
the rifle that matched ALL bullets and fragments thereof, and Oswald's
lack of a credible alibi, and Oswald's eyewitness identification
firing a rifle during the third shot, and Oswald's frantic flight from
justice, and Oswald murder of Officer Tippit, and Oswald's attempted
murder of Officer McDonald, and Oswald's ownership and personal
possession of the handgun that killed Officder Tippit, how does a
flight Oswald took years earlier make ANY difference in Oswald's
guilt?
This post alone demonstrates EXACTLY why conspiracy kooks have
deservedly earned the title "kooks." This post leads NOWHERE.
tomnln
So please explain how, if your assertion is true, does that change the
fact that Oswald's rifle with his prints and clothing fibers on it,
the rifle that matched ALL bullets and fragments thereof, and Oswald's
lack of a credible alibi, and Oswald's eyewitness identification
firing a rifle during the third shot, and Oswald's frantic flight from
justice, and Oswald murder of Officer Tippit, and Oswald's attempted
murder of Officer McDonald, and Oswald's ownership and personal
possession of the handgun that killed Officder Tippit, how does a
flight Oswald took years earlier make ANY difference in Oswald's
guilt?
This post alone demonstrates EXACTLY why conspiracy kooks have
deservedly earned the title "kooks." This post leads NOWHERE.
That's the difference between
Winners/Losers.
A Loser wants to address ONLY those who already Agree
with him.
(because his position is NOT defensible)
A Winner addresses
his ADVERSARIES to discuss evidence/testimony.
(because his position IS
defensible)
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select
Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.
Then select Government &
Politics.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F.
Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can
transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY
Testimony from WC/Church Committee/HSCA Volumes.
David Von Pein
>>> "And why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?" <<<
I addressed this silly "#10" item two years ago.
Ben, however, will pretend that no LNer ever addressed the issue, so
that he can write: "Why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from
these posts?"
Here's my December 2007 reply to this hilarious crap dredged up by Mr.
Chaff (aka: Kook Holmes):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/037a05276c52079b
>>> "[Quoting the WCR:] "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690) .... Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence: Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7 and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"." <<<
Oh boy! The dates are a WHOLE DAY off! I guess this MUST mean that a
massive conspiracy to kill future President John F. Kennedy FOUR YEARS
LATER was afoot!
Or maybe that horrendous 24-hour discrepancy in the dates means that
Lee Oswald was in the employ of the CIA or the military or ONI or
Boeing Aircraft Company or Castro or the National Biscuit Company or
_______ (fill in the agency of your choice). Right, Ben?
Geesh. (And a <chuckle>.)
BTW, while digging into this matter concerning the October 1959 dates
a little deeper, I found that the WC fully understood and dealt with
the discrepancy that Ben thinks the Commission just flat-out "lied"
about....because the WC, via its abundant source notes, states in
Source Note #480 on Page 862 of the WCR (which is a Source Note that
pertains to CE2677, linked below) that "Oswald could have arrived at
5:05 p.m., flying via Copenhagen, or at 5:35 p.m., via Stockholm. See
Official Airline Guide, North American Edition, October 1959, p.
C-721. But he would have been too late to visit the Russian consulate
that day. See CE 2714".
CE2677:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0034b.htm
So it's fairly obvious that the WC knew that there were some slight
discrepancies regarding the exact flight that Oswald might have taken
from London to Helsinki. But the fact is, the WC acknowledges the
discrepancy and deals with it accordingly....otherwise WHY would they
even be referencing CE2677 at all in that Source Note I mentioned?
Just about every little thing you can think of is sourced in the WCR,
which is quite strange, don't you think, if the WC wanted to hide
something or keep the public from finding out the "truth" or keep
people from looking up a source, etc?
>>> "Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?" <<<
And why can't kooks like Benjamin ever slap together a cohesive
"Conspiracy Plot" that makes some semblance of reasonable sense?
Instead, all Ben can do is pick apart the WC's very extensive
investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
right (like his silly 'One Day Off!' attempt above at calling the WC
"liars"), even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of
beans in the long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like
it proves that a covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's
murder.*
* = And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-
Kook above, it is something that occurred four YEARS before JFK's
assassination (when Oswald was 19 years of age).
Does Ben think Oswald was employed by some covert agency when he was a
teenager? And was it that Ben-imagined covert agency that was
controlling Oswald and perhaps forced him to apply for that hardship
discharge from the Marine Corps in 1959 (at just exactly the same time
when Oswald's mother had suffered a disabling injury, so that Lee
could conveniently use that accident of Marguerite's as an excuse to
lie to his Marine superiors and get out of the Corps on that
"hardship" excuse)?
Maybe the "covert agency" controlling Oswald's destiny also "arranged"
Marguerite Oswald's "accident" in late 1959 too. Huh, Ben?
Ben's silly "Provable Lies" threads are nothing but endless nit-
picking to the Nth degree.
And it's quite obvious to me WHY kooks like Ben perform this daily
nit-
picking task as they pore over the WC and HSCA (or whatever document
they might choose to look at sideways on a particular day) --- It's
because those CT-Kooks of Ben's strange ilk have got nothing else that
they can resort to (in order to keep the idea of their imagined multi-
gun conspiracy alive) EXCEPT nit-picking to death such stupid and
meaningless crap like the "October 9" vs. "October 10" discrepancy
propped up by Ben above.
Ben, in essence, prefers the "October 9 vs. 10" chaff rather than the
"Oswald's Guns Killed JFK and Tippit" wheat.
Ben has a curious chaff-seeking hobby indeed.
Another excellent example of Ben's attraction toward meaningless stuff
in the JFK case is the "Dial Ryder/Gun Scope" incident. Ben loves that
piece of chaff too.
Vincent Bugliosi (as usual) summed up the thinking of conspiracy-happy
kooks quite nicely, via the words reprinted below:
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their
existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split
hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched
and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally
invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
====================
>>> "Why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these {"Provabe Lies Of The Warren Commission"} posts?" <<<
Probably because they're meaningless and ultra-trivial, and because
each silly thread contains stupid, unsupportable, and (frankly) vile
allegations against the Warren Commission and its staff.
In addition: Those forum threads are often ignored because the junk in
them is being uttered by a kook of the "mega" variety named Benjamin
Holmes.
Do I need still more reasons to avoid them? Granted, I didn't avoid
this particular thread.....and that's because the trivial and idiotic
nature of the thread struck me as even more idiotic and trivial than
Ben's norm (as incredible as that might seem). So, I responded with a
dose of CS&L....which is common sense that will, of course, be tossed
in the trash by a certain rabid conspiracist, naturally.
Ben The Mega-Kook, of course, will continue to disgorge more and more
"October 9 vs. 10"-like hunks of ridiculous chaff in the future too.
He's got to....because he's made it his life's work to try and
discredit the perfectly-acceptable lone-assassin conclusion reached by
the Warren Commission.
But what we'll never see out of Ben is proof of the massive conspiracy
he so desperately WANTS to uncover by way of his chaff-hunting
efforts.
In short, we'll never see Ben place on the table anything of SUBSTANCE
as he tries to prove his make-believe "plot(s)". For, if he had
anything truly substantive to place on the evidence table, we
certainly would have seen it by this December 2007 date....right
Benjamin?
David Von Pein
December 11, 2007