Provable Lies of the Warren Commission (#22) (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.
**********************************************************************
"When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964, he claimed for
the first time to have seen another person on the sixth floor." (WCR 251)
What's amusing about this lie, is that the Warren Commission itself, ON THE SAME
PAGE(!!), demonstrates that it lied.
"The only possible corroboration for Rowland's story is found in the testimony
of Roger D. Craig, a deputy sheriff of Dallas Country, whose testimony on other
aspects of the case has been discussed in chapter IV. Craig claimed that about
10 minutes after the assassination he talked to a young couple, Mr. and Mrs.
Rowland, "...and the boy said he saw two men on the sixth floor..." (WCR 251)
Now, either Mr. Rowland was, for the first time, telling someone that he saw two
people on the sixth floor on March 10th, 1964, or he was doing so just 10
minutes after the assassination on November 22nd, 1963. They both cannot be
true.
In their efforts to discredit eyewitnesses who had damaging testimony to offer -
the Warren Commission would *ALWAYS* either ignore their testimony, refuse to
take their testimony, lie about their testimony, or discredit their testimony.
But no-one can dispute that in this case, the Warren Commission Report itself
demonstrated that they lied.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Gil Jesus
> **********************************************************************
> 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.
> **********************************************************************
>
> "When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964, he claimed for
> the first time to have seen another person on the sixth floor." �(WCR 251)
>
> What's amusing about this lie, is that the Warren Commission itself, ON THE SAME
> PAGE(!!), demonstrates that it lied.
>
> "The only possible corroboration for Rowland's story is found in the testimony
> of Roger D. Craig, a deputy sheriff of Dallas Country, whose testimony on other
> aspects of the case has been discussed in chapter IV. �Craig claimed that about
> 10 minutes after the assassination he talked to a young couple, Mr. and Mrs.
> Rowland, "...and the boy said he saw two men on the sixth floor..." (WCR 251)
I love how they use the term "possible corroboration". It either
corroborates or it doesn't.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this
girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some
other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two
men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over
there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he
thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it.
This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever
arrived.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if that boy's name would have been Arnold
Rowland---(spelling) R-o-w-l-a-n-d?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Does that sound like it?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; it sounds like the name---yes.
Mr. BELIN. His wife might be Barbara Rowland?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; I believe her name was Barbara.
( 6 H 263 )
> Now, either Mr. Rowland was, for the first time, telling someone that he saw two
> people on the sixth floor on March 10th, 1964, or he was doing so just 10
> minutes after the assassination on November 22nd, 1963. �
>They both cannot be true.
>
>
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Jun 28, 11:25=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> **********************************************************************
>ly
>> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change m=
>an be
>> recognized by their refusal to address the evidence, and their frequent u=
>se of
>> ad hominem attacks.
>>
> deny
>> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simpl=
>y run
>> with insults. =EF=BF=BDThese trolls are only good material for the killfi=
>les.
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>> "When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964, he
>> claimed for the first time to have seen another person on the sixth
>> floor." (WCR 251)
>>
>> What's amusing about this lie, is that the Warren Commission itself,
>> ON THE SAME PAGE(!!), demonstrates that it lied.
>>
>> "The only possible corroboration for Rowland's story is found in the
>> testimony of Roger D. Craig, a deputy sheriff of Dallas Country, whose
>> testimony on other aspects of the case has been discussed in chapter IV."
>> Craig claimed that about 10 minutes after the assassination he talked
>> to a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Rowland, "...and the boy said he saw
>> two men on the sixth floor..." (WCR 251)
>
>
>I love how they use the term "possible corroboration". It either
>corroborates or it doesn't.
Hmmm... perhaps Craig was talking to ANOTHER young couple by the same name
who'd seen two men on the 6th floor?
After all, the Warren Commission "stretched the truth" far more than this on
numerous occasions.
But they were clearly unwilling to try asserting this.
This might be one reason LNT'ers just hate Roger Craig...
>Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
>
>Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this
>girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some
>other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two
>men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over
>there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he
>thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it.
>This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever
>arrived.
>
>Mr. BELIN. Do you remember if that boy's name would have been Arnold
>Rowland---(spelling) R-o-w-l-a-n-d?
>
>Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
>
>Mr. BELIN. Does that sound like it?
>
>Mr. CRAIG. Yes; it sounds like the name---yes.
>
>Mr. BELIN. His wife might be Barbara Rowland?
>
>Mr. CRAIG. Yes; I believe her name was Barbara.
>
>( 6 H 263 )
>
>
>> Now, either Mr. Rowland was, for the first time, telling someone that he
>> saw two people on the sixth floor on March 10th, 1964, or he was doing
>> so just 10 minutes after the assassination on November 22nd, 1963.
>
>>They both cannot be true.
>>
>>
>> But no-one can dispute that in this case, the Warren Commission Report
>> itself demonstrated that they lied.
I wonder where all the LNT'ers are? Surely they can't allow me to continue
pointing out provable lies of the Warren Commission unrefuted!?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5f4c72726a635b4
A super-kook named Ben Holmes is now implying that the Warren
Commission was so stupid that they "lied" one minute....and then went
ahead and started telling the truth the next minute....with the
"truth" therefore negating the so-called "lie" they told on the very
same page of the WCR.
Yes, Holmes, that does indeed appear to be an inconsistent statement
made by the WC on page 251. But it certainly would be really, really
WEIRD (not to mention DUMB) if they deliberately "LIED" on the very
same page where they also had to know they were EXPOSING THAT "LIE".
Right, Ben?
The bottom line is (as it always is) -- Kook Holmes is nitpicking the
888 pages of the excellent Warren Commission Report to death, in order
to dredge up some kind of inconsistencies that he (Kook Holmes) can
prop up as alleged "lies".
And, naturally, if someone spends all of their days and nights going
over some type of very lengthy and intricate document (like the Warren
Report) with a fine-toothed comb, searching for things to gripe
about....they're probably going to end up finding a few things to
gripe about -- especially when that lengthy document is the WCR, which
is a report that was written in a fairly-short amount of time (when
considering the vast amount of material that had to be weighed,
considered, and placed into the report in about a 9-month time
period).
Yes, it's true that the Warren Commissioners and staff members have
always said they were not really "rushed" in any way to get their work
done. But, let's face facts, there was a LOT of stuff to go through
before those 888 pages were typed up and put in print in September
1964, including the task of having to assess the testimony of 552
witnesses!
Good gosh, it takes most authors several YEARS to write lengthy books
(and I doubt that any of those authors had to weigh and consider the
testimony of 552 witnesses before publishing their books). The Warren
Commission completed its work in just nine months. So a few ragged
edges can be expected here and there. And, in my opinion, the number
of "ragged edges" in the Warren Commission Report is a very small
number indeed.
But a kook named Benjamin Holmes, though, undoubtedly considers all
888 pages of the WCR to be "ragged". Right, Mr. Chaff?
aeffects
now the shithead is twittering.... ROTFLMFAO -- a liar in one place
transferred to another is STILL a liar, dipshit. We're gonna have to
drop your sorry ass down to justme1952's level, David Von Pein aka
Dave Reitzes.....
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks like "Little Bennie" has a bell he rings everytime he needs his
lapdog Healy to come barking in his defense LOL
blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah
shithead
aeffects
wrote:
sniff.... sniff yep, it **IT** again...... pssssty, Von Pein aka Dave
Reitzes doesn't care about you sorry ass, wake up shithead! Smell the
tuna!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
No thanks Healy, I don't want to get that close to your wife or
daughter....we'll leave the tuna sniffing at home with you right where
it belongs. Here's a little shocker for ya junkie, because no one
cares about your sorry ass doesn't mean the rest of us are treated the
way you are. Haven't you ever noticed you pathetic fool, you bark for
little Bennie and he ignores the shit out of you just like everyone
else does ROFLMAO You're even an embarrassment to your master but too
damn stupid to realize it!
aeffects
the old broken down skankroid, she still loves me, how quaint.....
ROTFLMFAO!
aeffects
bump da bump-bump
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Loving you is like loving a turd, it stinks is filthy and you can
flush it down the sewer where it belongs LMAO
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 29, 9:26=A0am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 12:16=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 9:12=A0am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 29, 12:00=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jun 28, 4:15=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5f4c72726a635b4
>>
>> > > > > A super-kook named Ben Holmes is now implying that the Warren
>went
>> > > > > ahead and started telling the truth the next minute....with the
>ery
>> > > > > same page of the WCR.
>>
>ent
>> > > > > made by the WC on page 251. But it certainly would be really, rea=
>lly
>> > > > > WEIRD (not to mention DUMB) if they deliberately "LIED" on the ve=
>ry
>> > > > > same page where they also had to know they were EXPOSING THAT "LI=
>E".
>>
>> > > > > Right, Ben?
>>
>> > > > > The bottom line is (as it always is) -- Kook Holmes is nitpicking=
> the
>> > > > > 888 pages of the excellent Warren Commission Report to death, in =
>order
>> > > > > to dredge up some kind of inconsistencies that he (Kook Holmes) c=
>an
>> > > > > prop up as alleged "lies".
>>
>ing
>> > > > > over some type of very lengthy and intricate document (like the W=
>arren
>> > > > > Report) with a fine-toothed comb, searching for things to gripe
>> > > > > about....they're probably going to end up finding a few things to
>which
>> > > > > is a report that was written in a fairly-short amount of time (wh=
>en
>> > > > > considering the vast amount of material that had to be weighed,
>> > > > > considered, and placed into the report in about a 9-month time
>> > > > > period).
>>
>ve
>> > > > > always said they were not really "rushed" in any way to get their=
> work
>> > > > > done. But, let's face facts, there was a LOT of stuff to go throu=
>gh
>> > > > > before those 888 pages were typed up and put in print in Septembe=
>r
>> > > > > 1964, including the task of having to assess the testimony of 552
>> > > > > witnesses!
>>
>ooks
>> > > > > (and I doubt that any of those authors had to weigh and consider =
>the
>> > > > > testimony of 552 witnesses before publishing their books). The Wa=
>rren
>> > > > > Commission completed its work in just nine months. So a few ragge=
>d
>> > > > > edges can be expected here and there. And, in my opinion, the num=
>ber
>> > > > > of "ragged edges" in the Warren Commission Report is a very small
>> > > > > number indeed.
>>
>ll
>> > > > > 888 pages of the WCR to be "ragged". Right, Mr. Chaff?
>>
>> > > > >www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein
>>
>> > > > now the shithead is twittering.... ROTFLMFAO -- a liar in one place
>o
>> > > > drop your sorry ass down to justme1952's level, David Von Pein aka
>> > > > Dave Reitzes.....- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > Looks like "Little Bennie" has a bell he rings everytime he needs his
>> > > lapdog Healy to come barking in his defense LOL
>>
>> > > blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah
>> > > shithead
>>
>> > sniff.... sniff yep, it **IT** again...... pssssty, Von Pein aka Dave
>> > Reitzes doesn't care about you sorry ass, wake up shithead! Smell the
>> > tuna!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> No thanks Healy, I don't want to get that close to your wife or
>> daughter....we'll leave the tuna sniffing at home with you right where
>> it belongs. Here's a little shocker for ya junkie, because no one
>> cares about your sorry ass doesn't mean the rest of us are treated the
>> way you are. Haven't you ever noticed you pathetic fool, you bark for
>> little Bennie and he ignores the shit out of you just like everyone
>> else does ROFLMAO You're even an embarrassment to your master but too
>> damn stupid to realize it!
>
>the old broken down skankroid, she still loves me, how quaint.....
>ROTFLMFAO!
>
>> blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah
>> shithead
I wonder why I would ignore myself?
Or perhaps this is one of the kooks who hasn't gotten the word that I'm multiple
posters yet...
Myself... carry on!
aeffects
> In article <76341b0f-4d23-4444-af9b-2154b1029...@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
ths one knows we're multiples, after nearly 5000 posts to this board
(none JFK related) the shithead is finally getting the picture...
> Myself... carry on!
no, by-all-means, Carry On Myself!
aeffects
wrote:
I'm under that paper thin skin, you old shriveled up crone you.....
Dad is pissed!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROFLMAO you wish LIAR
blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah shithead, blah blah blah
shithead.
aeffects
is that sweat or fish oil, shithead.....?
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91ff63a9-52ec-41ce...@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.com...