David Von Pein Trying To Explain His Lie...

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the Amazon forums:


>> You admit that Bugliosi was "wrong" - yet when I point out that "Mr.
>> Bugliosi was a liar and that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word
>> "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat." - you label that untrue.
>> But if it's untrue, then Bugliosi is *NOT* wrong.
>
> No. It means that Bugliosi was simply WRONG, but not a LIAR.

That's *your* opinion. I find it very simple, when someone invents facts to
SUPPORT his theory, he's not merely "mistaken", he's lying.

This is really quite simple - let's put the shoe on the other foot... let's
pretend that Mark Lane was "mistaken" about evidence that "proved" a
conspiracy...
do you *really* think that Vincent Bugliosi would merely assert that Mark Lane
was
"mistaken"? Or that Mark Lane *lied*?

You *know* the answer to that question - yet you aren't willing to believe that
Bugliosi simply lied to make his point. You're just going to have to face the
fact
that Bugliosi lied. He didn't simply make a mistake on historical information...
like saying that the limousine's color was 'black'. He made a "mistake" on one
of
the most famous and critical bits of evidence for CONSPIRACY... and you know it.

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.

> Why is it you can't understand the difference between "OUTRIGHT LIE" and
> "JUST BEING WRONG FOR SOME REASON *OTHER* THAN LYING WITH THE INTENT TO
> DECEIVE"?"

Because I *DO* understand the difference. Bugliosi could *NOT* have been unaware
of the fact that the original bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry... there was
simply too much testimony on the topic, as well as the hoopla surrounding the
"Press Conference" that he *must* have known about. Then, on top of the fact
that
he *MUST* have known... he used his 'verbal slip' to make the case that the
bullet
came from the rear... HE BASED HIS ARGUMENTS ON A LIE. It's quite hard to see it
as anything other than an outright lie. You know it, I know it, and intelligent
thoughtful readers know it.


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

[Bud]

On Mar 2, 2:14 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Posted in the Amazon forums:
>
> >> You admit that Bugliosi was "wrong" - yet when I point out that "Mr.
> >> Bugliosi was a liar and that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word
> >> "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat." - you label that untrue.
> >> But if it's untrue, then Bugliosi is *NOT* wrong.
>
> > No. It means that Bugliosi was simply WRONG, but not a LIAR.
>
> That's *your* opinion. I find it very simple, when someone invents facts to
> SUPPORT his theory, he's not merely "mistaken", he's lying.

Like when Lane says CE399 is "undeformed"? Or just about anything
Walt says?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

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?)

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.

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 (see link below).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/792b019338335e90

[Walt]

On Mar 2, 1:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> 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.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> 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?)
>
> 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.
>
> 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".

How dishonest and petty can you be??....... here you are
acknowledging that Ben was correct , but you saw a loophole because
you thought he hadn't worded his post correctly.....NOT that Ben had
the facts wrong, but he hadn't stated them to your satifaction.
You're a lying asshole......Davey Pea Brain

Ben has always said that Bugliosi lied by trying to make the ragged
INTERNAL wound on the treacea appear to be the wound that Dr carrico
reported that he saw when he first saw the "small penetrating wound in
the anterior neck in the lower 1/3".... Dr Carrico said that the
tiny 3 to 5mm clearly punched hole on the EXTERIOR skin of the throat
was NOT ragged.

[David Von Pein]

How many times do I have to say it, Walt: BUGLIOSI WAS WRONG with
respect to this specific "ragged" topic. I've already said that
several times already, including in my article on my website:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

But let me repeat this important point for the 14th time too:

"I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was)
an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to
print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I
will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent
Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort
of devious cloth. If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree
with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just
said." -- DVP; July 2011

[Ben Holmes]

In article <cb1472ef-495f-4957...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

As the kook just stated in the Amazon forums:

"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."

So he's now trying to claim that *MANY* LNT'ers are too stupid to follow a
simple point... that bullet entry & exit wounds ON THE OUTSIDE SKIN of a person
are what is used forensically to determine bullet direction.


But even *AFTER* they fully understand the topic - they STILL lie about it.

>Ben has always said that Bugliosi lied by trying to make the ragged
>INTERNAL wound on the treacea appear to be the wound that Dr carrico
>reported that he saw when he first saw the "small penetrating wound in
>the anterior neck in the lower 1/3".... Dr Carrico said that the
>tiny 3 to 5mm clearly punched hole on the EXTERIOR skin of the throat
>was NOT ragged.

See below...

>> 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 (see link below).
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/792b019338335e90

For anyone too lazy to look this up, here it is in it's entirety:
********************************************************************
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?
*******************************************************************

The morons such as Dudi Van Peiny can't read, and are forensically challenged.

I really shouldn't *have* to hold their hand, and explain that bullet wounds on
the OUTSIDE SKIN are used to forensically determine entry and exit. If they are
too stupid to already *know* this - then they aren't smart enough to be debating
me.

[Walt]

On Mar 2, 3:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> How many times do I have to say it, Walt: BUGLIOSI WAS WRONG with
> respect to this specific "ragged" topic. I've already said that
> several times already, including in my article on my website:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>
> But let me repeat this important point for the 14th time too:
>
>       "I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was)
> an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to
> print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE.

Well that's just STUPID!.... Bugliosi claimed he studied this case
very throughly, and I don't doubt that.....So he can't be given a pass
for trying to make that bullet entry wound appear to be a ragged exit
wound. He KNEW what he was attempting to do...... change the
direction from which that bullet was fired.

If you worship him and believe he's the messiah then you belong in a
mental institution.