Provable Lies of the Warren Commission (#21) (New!)
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.
**********************************************************************
"One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work, but
he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entered the
door." (WCR 133)
Let's examine the actual testimony to see if the Warren Commission accurately
rendered it:
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
...
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would
remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I
didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty just
"believed" he'd seen Oswald coming to work, when Dougherty wasn't unsure at all.
He was quite definite on that point, and the Warren Commission simply lied.
If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty simply didn't
remember if Oswald had anything in his hands, yet the testimony shows that he
was quite positive on that fact... again, the Warren Commission simply lied in
order to present their case.
When does the truth need lies to support it?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a31238511522ee2b
Mr. Chaff (Holmes) is at it yet again, splitting more hairs and making
more silly accusations.
Fact is -- the quoted passage Holmes cites on Page 133 of the WCR
(shown below) is perfectly reasonable, especially in light of the fact
that we KNOW beyond all doubt that Lee Oswald DID carry a package with
him in the back door of the Book Depository on 11/22/63.
So, regardless of whether Jack Dougherty physically saw any package in
Oswald's hands or not that day, we know for sure that LHO brought a
package to work.
"One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald
coming to work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in
his hands as he entered the door." -- WR, p.133
WR; PAGE 133:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
The number of meaningless threads started by Ben Holmes regarding the
WC's alleged "lies" (which weren't lies at all, of course) will no
doubt reach 300 by December 2009. At that point, Kook Holmes will
branch out and start posting some meaningless threads about the
"HSCA's Lies".
Right, Ben?
Conspiracy kooks like Ben are -- in one word -- pathetic.
timstter
> **********************************************************************
> 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
What a petty, pathetic point to nitpick on! Old Yellow Pants has
really lost it this time if he thinks junk like this is important,
LOL!
KUTGW, Benny! The laffs @ your expense never end! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
No advertising, shithead...
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3536bd89-b17d-47e2...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLMAO!!!
bigdog
> **********************************************************************
> 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
WOOHOO!!!. I'm up to number 3 in the rankings. It is my goal to become
numero uno!!!
justm...@gmail.com
> "aeffects" <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Drugs must really be good ones tonight for the junkie, he's telling
Bennie no advertising and calling him a shithead ROFLMAO
aeffects
wrote:
your shivering thighs, make one stop and and realize, 'this is a real
two-bit skank we got here'....
you shithead, can't even post as a certified flamer arteeeeeest.....
you've got no hope as a JFK researcher shithead, take your putrid,
tuna encrusted thunder thighs to George *Rob* Spencer's (St. John
Fisher College -- upah nu yawk) house shithead, his wife is expecting
you and the other sniveling website builders -- I promise I won't
divulge your secret(s)...
ROTFLMFAO!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah
shitead
timstter
Looks like The Lap Dog has turned on Yellow Pants!
KUTGW, Lap Dog!
Alarmed Regards,
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
Scratch 21 Ben. It's not a lie - at best, it's a case of mild spin.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
No thankyou. The evidence that the Warren Commission had in front of them they
failed to pass on to the American people. You call it "mild spin", but it's an
outright misrepresentation of Dougherty's testimony.
The Warren Commission said Dougherty "does not remember" that Oswald had
anything in his hands, Dougherty *ACTUALLY* testified quite differently.
That's an outright lie, any way you care to look at it.
Gil Jesus
> Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
> Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
( 6 H 377 )
But the WC "interpreted" this "positively had nothing in his hands" as
"DOES NOT REMEMBER".
One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to
work, but he DOES NOT REMEMBER that Oswald had anything in his hands
as he entered the door.
( Warren Report, Chapter IV, "The Assassin" - The rifle in the
building. pg. 133.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
Failing to pass on information does not constitute a "lie".
The simple test of whether it is a lie or not, is to ask, "Did he in
fact, believe that he saw Oswald coming to work."
If he did not believe that, then it was a lie. If he did, then it was
true.
Obviously, he did, since he stated that belief in his testimony.
Now, in a situation like this, you might make the case that the WC was
negligent or dishonest in how they represented the testimony. But their
statement cannot be a "lie", unless it is false.
And even then, to make such an accusation, you bear the responsibility
of proving that a false statement was *deliberately* false, and not an
error.
Apply the same rigorous standards to your own accusations that you do to
your adversaries, Ben. You will become a lot more credible if you do.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
But *misrepresenting* that evidence surely does.
Perhaps you don't think it's important... but what you understand reading the
WCR and what you understand reading Dougherty's testimony are quite different
things.
>The simple test of whether it is a lie or not, is to ask, "Did he in
>fact, believe that he saw Oswald coming to work."
No Robert, the simple test of whether what the Warren Commission asserted is a
lie or not, is "Does it conform to their own collected evidence"
It doesn't... they lied.
It's really just that simple.
If the Warren Commission had asserted, for example, "Dougherty is not convincing
in his belief that he failed to see anything in Oswald's hands as he entered the
depository", that couldn't be a lie, merely a spun opinion.
But the Warren Commission was not implying that they were offering their
opinion, they flat said: "he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his
hands as he entered the door."
That is not true, is it Robert?
>If he did not believe that, then it was a lie. If he did, then it was
>true.
>
>Obviously, he did, since he stated that belief in his testimony.
>
>Now, in a situation like this, you might make the case that the WC was
>negligent or dishonest in how they represented the testimony. But their
>statement cannot be a "lie", unless it is false.
It *IS* false. If all you read was the WCR's version, you'd think that
Dougherty didn't remember if Oswald had anything in his hands when he entered.
That is *NOT* what Dougherty said, is it?
You seem to think that the Warren Commission can be "dishonest", but not
actually lie.
"Dishonesty" might be (as one example) failing to mention his testimony at all.
But it's an outright lie to misrepresent what he *DID* say, if you're going to
report it.
>And even then, to make such an accusation, you bear the responsibility
>of proving that a false statement was *deliberately* false, and not an
>error.
Nope... I'm not going to go there. The Warren Commission *PROVABLY* lied on
numerous occasions.
Indeed, I defy you to produce a SINGLE assertion by the Warren Commission that
was in error, and not shown by the evidence, THAT FAVORED OSWALD OR REFLECTED
BADLY ON THE 'LONE NUT' THEORY!
You can't.
A distinct pattern emerges - and it's not favorable to the Warren Commission.
Indeed, they seem to have been much more honest among themselves, as the few
internal memos I've seen seem to imply.
>Apply the same rigorous standards to your own accusations that you do to
>your adversaries, Ben. You will become a lot more credible if you do.
When you're willing to assert that the Warren Commission did *NOT* lie about
Dougherty's testimony - your credibility is indeed placed on the line.
Bud
> 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
> BrokedadBud
> Burlyguard
> Cdddraftsman
> Chuck Schuyler
> David Von Pein
> Grizzlie Antagonist
> Justme1952
> JGL
> Marty Baughman
> Miss Rita
There seems two possibilities...
One, Dougherty believed he saw Oswald come into work that morning.
Two, Dougherty did not believe he saw Oswald come into work that
morning.
The WC went with "1", but Ben thinks that is a lie. I guess that
leaves him going with "2".
aeffects
grow up Dudster....
timstter
> In article <reharris1-1D42D7.12520228062...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <h281t90...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <reharris1-4B9848.02361628062...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> >> Robert Harris says...
>
> >> >In article <h25h2b0...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> > Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> **********************************************************************
> >> >> 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
Has anyone else ever concluded that Benny may well be mentally ill? On
this showing he is in very bad shape.
Concerned Regards,
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 28, 1:22=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 12:23 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > **********************************************************************
>only
>> > purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change=
> can be
>> > recognized by their refusal to address the evidence, and their frequent=
> use of
>> > ad hominem attacks.
>>
>ly deny
>> > the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or sim=
>ply run
>> > with insults. =A0These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
>> > **********************************************************************
>>
>> > "One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to wo=
>rk, but
>> > he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entere=
>d the
>> > door." (WCR 133)
>>
>rately
>> > rendered it:
>>
>> > Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
>> > Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
>> > ...
>> > Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
>ld
>> > remember whether he did or didn't?
>; I
>> > didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
>> > Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
>is hands?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
>> > Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
>>
>> > If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty just
>e at all.
>> > He was quite definite on that point, and the Warren Commission simply l=
>ied.
>>
>> There seems two possibilities...
>>
>> One, Dougherty believed he saw Oswald come into work that morning.
>>
>> Two, Dougherty did not believe he saw Oswald come into work that
>> morning.
>>
>> The WC went with "1", but Ben thinks that is a lie. I guess that
>> leaves him going with "2".
>
>grow up Dudster....
Actually, the two possibilities are:
Tell the truth about Dougherty's testimony.
Lie about Dougherty's testimony.
I've stated what the Warren Commission picked, and it's notable that no LNT'er
can refute it.
>> > If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty simpl=
>y didn't
>> > remember if Oswald had anything in his hands, yet the testimony shows t=
>hat he
>> > was quite positive on that fact... again, the Warren Commission simply =
mucher1
We'll know for sure when he invites Harris to come to his dojo.
Gil Jesus
>
> > Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
> > Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
> > Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
>
> ( 6 H 377 )
>
The WC LIED about what Dougherty said with regard to whether or not
Oswald had
anything in his hands when he entered the building, changing his
testimony of positively
had nothing in his hands to "DOES NOT REMEMBER".
> One employee, Jack Dougherty,......DOES NOT REMEMBER that Oswald had anything in his > hands as he entered the door.
>
> ( Warren Report, Chapter IV, "The Assassin" - The rifle in the building. pg. 133 )
That's not an error folks. That is an obvious lie.
Ben is correct. The Warrennati apologists are not.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Jun 28, 11:32am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
>> > Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing
>> > in his hands?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
>> > Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
>> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
>>
>> ( 6 H 377 )
>>
>
>The WC LIED about what Dougherty said with regard to whether or not
>Oswald had anything in his hands when he entered the building, changing his
>testimony of positively had nothing in his hands to "DOES NOT REMEMBER".
Yep... Gil, you clearly have the average American ability to read a statement,
and pick out what it says. Then use simple logic to compare it to the evidence
that supports it. (Sadly, this isn't a compliment, *MOST* people have this
'extraordinary' ability you've just demonstrated :)
I wonder why LNT'ers, trolls, and even Robert Harris can't do as much?
It takes no particular intelligence to do so. The Warren Commission was surely
composed of people who had more intelligence, more education, and more
accomplishments than both Gil and myself put together, yet how is it that they
couldn't simply tell the truth?
>> One employee, Jack Dougherty,......DOES NOT REMEMBER that Oswald had anyt=
>hing in his > hands as he entered the door.
>>
>> ( Warren Report, Chapter IV, "The Assassin" - The rifle in the building. =
>pg. 133 )
>
>
>That's not an error folks. That is an obvious lie.
>
>Ben is correct. The Warrennati apologists are not.
Sadly, I'm at an end again ... This series of "Provable Lies of the Warren
Commission" has finished for now... I'm sure that in the future, I'll expand
this list again (there's so much material to work with!), but tomorrow begins
the reposting of the 'Facts LNT'ers Just HATE!'...
Bud
> In article <2b1a68b9-4350-44e1-9202-6edf47e2e...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
They did, retard. Dougherty did believe he saw Oswald come into work
that morning.
> Lie about Dougherty's testimony.
How do you lie by stating a fact?
> I've stated what the Warren Commission picked, and it's notable that no LNT'er
> can refute it.
They didn`t lie, idiot. Dougherty did in fact believe he saw Oswald
come into work that morning, just as the WC asserted he did.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31d89def-b94b-4705...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;
WOOHOO!!!. I'm up to number 3 in the rankings. It is my goal to become
numero uno!!!
I write;
We'll let you know when we start listing ASSHOLES ! ! !
When I get this guy on a radio debate, am I gonna be charged with "Voluntary
Manslaughter"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------