"Battling" CT'ers...

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum:


In article <07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&newContentID=Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7&store=books#Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7
>
>
>GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
>I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
>book well before the publication date.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
>Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
>at the top of my review.
>
>
>GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
>The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
>volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
>MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:
>
>WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
>WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm
>
>WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm
>
>How many more indexes do you require?


"DVP" is showing here just what an idiot he is. He doesn't appear to be
embarrassed either...

It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain an index to
it's contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great accomplishments was to create one.

"DVP" is simply lying by his implication that Garry wasn't telling the absolute
truth.



>GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
>That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is,
>the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive
>(certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be
>determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally,
>you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?
>
>The WC's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look at the autopsy
>photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on inaccurate drawings
>made by Mr. Rydberg.


It wasn't a "mistake". Their "conclusion" couldn't have been made had they
actually examined the evidence.


>But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to
>discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because
>the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and
>X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP
>came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was
>shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND. And
>the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to
>the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?


Yep.



>GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
>You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with
>it. So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not
>meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be
>hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)
>
>
>GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
>He [Vincent Bugliosi] did very little actual research (almost none in
>fact) and although the book was 20 years in the making, precious
>little of that time was used in researching and writing this book.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Between
>approximately 2001 and November 2006, Mr. Bugliosi worked 80 to 100
>hours per week on "Reclaiming History". And to say he did almost no
>research for the book is to simply ignore the 10,000 source notes that
>appear in the book.
>
>Get real, Garry. So far you're anything but.


When Bugliosi gave the description of the original bullet wound, as given by
Perry and Carrico, he was either lying, or so completely ignorant that he
couldn't have done much research.

You argue that he wasn't ignorant, yet that he wasn't lying either.

It's an incredible position to maintain.



>GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
>I wasn't aware that Mr. Garrison had been "thoroughly discredited." By
>whom?
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>By anyone with a smidgen of common sense, that's by whom. Just read
>Vincent's section on that topic in "Reclaiming History" (beginning on
>Page 1361). Apparently you didn't.
>
>For Pete sake, Jim Garrison's own lead investigator, William Gurvich,
>resigned in disgust and told the world that Garrison had "no case"
>whatsoever against the man Garrison was prosecuting for murder--Clay
>Shaw.
>
>Read more about Garrison's total lack of evidence against Shaw and
>Gurvich's comments about the case here ("RH" page 1361):
>
>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bqOUgo/s1600/RH-Excerpt.png


Of course, even the federal government was intensely interested in Garrison, and
what he was doing.

This refutes your silly idea that he was "discredited".



>GARRY PUFFER PUFFED:
>
>Your review suffers from the same faults as "Reclaiming History": It
>is voluminous but without substance, it contains untruths, and it
>avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your
>review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're
>getting for your review of my review.
>
>The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that
>undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren
>Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line.


The description of the original throat wound...


Bugliosi lied about it. Why don't you ask him to explain why?


>Thus far no conspiracy
>theorist has been able to do that.


We do it repeatedly, and you keep lying about it.


>But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer
>of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.


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

[Walt]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:....."forgive me for not meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)"

I agree.... You should be hanged, but not for the reason you gave. And, YES I do have some rope, that I'll give you if you're serious, and really want to use it in showing that you're sorry for wasting your God given gift by believing the devil's lie.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain an index to its contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great accomplishments was to create one." <<<

What are these things below then--figments? ......

[timstter]

On Oct 9, 1:00 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Found in the censored forum:
>

> In article <07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2-88de-28bb779f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?...

>
> >GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> >I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
> >book well before the publication date.
>
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
> >Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
> >at the top of my review.
>
> >GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> >The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> >volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
> >MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:
>
> >WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> >WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:

> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...

>
> >WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:

> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...

> >http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bq...

Hey Holmes, what is THIS then:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm

Is there NOTHING you won't lie about, Holmes?

You appear to have about as much of a clue on things as Gary Puffer.

And he appears to have run out of puff @ the first hurdle.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[aeffects]

sitdown Fatboy, as the current president of the Ben Holmes fan club,
YOU need expect and respect those that have much more case-evidence
knowledge than you. You're making a damn fool of yourself here (not
that I mind--lmao!)

> And he appears to have run out of puff @ the first hurdle.

Damn, I'm glad you agree, Von Pein is indeed a blithering idiot....
Glad we got that out of the way... Appears lone nuts are having a very
difficult time these days.... Tell .john to buckup he's got 13 months
to go... btw, how many copies of his book did he sell? Was it another
Bugliosi Reclaiming History best seller type? R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O....

Carry on, Fatboy. Carry on.
...

[SaintlyOswald]

Adolf Hitler is in the Warren Commission index? But not Warren Caster?

[aeffects]

C'mon Rebecca, er Fatboy er, Tim Brennan aka Tim Shell failed standup
comic.....

[SaintlyOswald]

About the battle. It may feel good and sharpen some skills, but I don't think simple positive assertion should be abandoned. Talking over the Nutters may be a good way of reaching normal people who might find the battle unattractive.

[timstter]

Dave/Ringo, it appears that you missed THIS out of your blowhard hero
Benny's first post in this thread:

QUOTE ON:

It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
an index to it's contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great
accomplishments was to create one.

QUOTE OFF

Er, well if Benny is RIGHT on that, Dave/Ringo, would you mind
explaining what THIS is?:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm

Looks like an INDEX to the WCR to me, Dave/Ringo.

It's amusing how quickly Benny ran from the thread the minute he
realised his horrible mistake, isn't it, Dave/Ringo?

[Mark Ulrik]

I guess "subject index" is the term Ben was looking for. It would be
wise of ol' Yellow Pants to stick to his usual brand of citation-free
innuendo, as his hatred for the WC all too often gets in the way of
accuracy and precision.

> Informative Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

[timstter]

LOL! Mark it was amusing how quickly ol' Yellow Pants ran from the
thread when he realised what a FOOL he had made of himself.

Perhaps he thought he could lie as blatantly as his hero, Mark
Lane! :-)

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[aeffects]

On Oct 11, 4:23 am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
> On 11 Okt., 12:07, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> I guess "subject index" is the term Ben was looking for. It would be
> wise of ol' Yellow Pants to stick to his usual brand of citation-free
> innuendo, as his hatred for the WC all too often gets in the way of
> accuracy and precision.

That you Paul May (aka Mark Ulrik-Jason Burke)? Hiding behind behind
Fatboy again? That's a **lot** to hide behind. Mark Lane has you by
the short ones too? Carry on, nutless!

[Mark Ulrik]

On 11 Okt., 19:21, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:23 am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>
> > On 11 Okt., 12:07, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I guess "subject index" is the term Ben was looking for. It would be
> > wise of ol' Yellow Pants to stick to his usual brand of citation-free
> > innuendo, as his hatred for the WC all too often gets in the way of
> > accuracy and precision.
>
> That you Paul May (aka Mark Ulrik-Jason Burke)? Hiding behind behind
> Fatboy again? That's a **lot** to hide behind. Mark Lane has you by
> the short ones too? Carry on, nutless!

Don't you have some trannies to chase, Ringo?

[aeffects]

On Oct 11, 1:59 pm, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
> On 11 Okt., 19:21, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 4:23 am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 Okt., 12:07, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > I guess "subject index" is the term Ben was looking for. It would be
> > > wise of ol' Yellow Pants to stick to his usual brand of citation-free
> > > innuendo, as his hatred for the WC all too often gets in the way of
> > > accuracy and precision.
>
> > That you Paul May (aka Mark Ulrik-Jason Burke)? Hiding behind behind
> > Fatboy again? That's a **lot** to hide behind. Mark Lane has you by
> > the short ones too? Carry on, nutless!
>
> Don't you have some trannies to chase, Ringo?

Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement is wearing you down isn't it shithead?
The truth will set you free, Paul May (aka Mark Ulrik-Jason Burke)
till then, suck-it-up coward--the check is in the mail... L-M-F-A-
O! ! ! !

[Jason Burke]

Amazingly enough, I don't share the same body as Mark or Paul. Of
course, a fucktard like you wouldn't be able to figure that out, now,
would you?

Any reasonable fellow would be able to check the headers. But again,
since you don't care about the truth. And I suppose that would require
someone with an IQ of at least 50 points above yours - you know, triple
digits. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[aeffects]

all the denial in the world won't change who you are, that being Paul
May, nad up whimp!

> Any reasonable fellow would be able to check the headers. But again,
> since you don't care about the truth. And I suppose that would require
> someone with an IQ of at least 50 points above yours - you know, triple
> digits. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

are you a fucking dipshit too? Check the headers? R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O
(you attempting to pull of a Tim Brennan aka Tim Shell failed stand-up
comic).

You're a waste of bandwidth shithead, never-the-less, a convenient toy
to bat around.... carry on, nutless!

[Jason Burke]

Wow. How do you remember to breathe?

>
>> Any reasonable fellow would be able to check the headers. But again,
>> since you don't care about the truth. And I suppose that would require
>> someone with an IQ of at least 50 points above yours - you know, triple
>> digits. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
>
> are you a fucking dipshit too? Check the headers? R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O
> (you attempting to pull of a Tim Brennan aka Tim Shell failed stand-up
> comic).
>
> You're a waste of bandwidth shithead, never-the-less, a convenient toy
> to bat around.... carry on, nutless!
>

How's that ass doin' Ringo. Ought to get it checked for splinters.

[Jason Burke]

On 10/12/2012 12:56 PM, aeffects wrote:

[aeffects]

still the sphincter cowboy, eh?

[timstter]

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

BUMP! YOO HOO! DAVE/RINGO!

TB

[aeffects]

> > Fresno, Botswana
>
> > *Newsgroup(s) Primo Suck-Ass*
>

...

>
>
>
> BUMP! YOO HOO! DAVE/RINGO!

Fatboy, if your sole purpose in life was to be a standup comic, which you failed, why are you here?

Carry on toots-e-roll.

[timstter]

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!

TB

[timstter]

TOP POST

No need to skulk down the bottom of the post, Dave/Ringo.

Man up and admit that Benny got it hopelessly WRONG about the WCR
index, Dave/Ringo.

I repeat, it was amusing how quickly Benny skuttled off the thread
when he realised that he was wrong, wasn't it, Dave/Ringo.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

> ...
>
> read more »

[timstter]

On Oct 9, 6:28 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!

Is THIS the thread you are whining about over @ Amazon?

If you're SO upset about things how come you SIMPLY RAN AWAY from this
thread when your *WCR Index* lie was exposed, Benny?

You are, quite simply, a hypocritical CLOWN and an open LAUGHING
STOCK, Holmes, hiding behind semantics just like your lying hero, Mark
Lane.

Oh, how are the MIGHTY fallen, Benny...

Sorrowing Regards,