TIME FOR A KOOK-BASHING REPLAY
David Von Pein
October 2007:
>>> "This guy {VB} smokes as much stuff as you do." <<<
That's curious....I thought I *WAS* him. (My identity crisis has reach
its zenith.)
~head swirling~
>>> "How was the gun linked to LHO?" <<<
You mean BESIDES the paper trail leading to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas
and the palmprint and the backyard photos and the Walker shooting
(which involved a bullet that almost certainly came from C2766, and Oz
admitted he shot at Walker...and I kinda doubt he used a spitwad-
thrower to do the job on the retired General)?
Besides those little piddly items, I guess there's nothing. So, I
guess you're right. Oz is in the clear.
>>> "It is claimed he ordered it via mail order." <<<
He did. But you, being in the "ABO" (Anybody But Oswald) Club, have to
reject that verified evidence. It MUST mean that some schnook named
"A.J. Hidell" (who happens to have Lee Harvey Oswald's exact same
handwriting) really ordered the rifle and shipped it to LHO's P.O.
Box.
It's obvious, you dolt! Hidell did it!
>>> "No one ever saw him with the gun at anytime, period." <<<
It sure gets tiresome having to correct your stupid errors every day.
(Maybe Rob-Kook is a "CT Plant", placed here to make even the likes of
Walt and Ben look good.)
Fact is -- Marina saw LHO dry-firing his rifle during the calendar
year of 1963. He covered the rifle with a raincoat, and would then sit
on the porch and practice working the bolt and dry-firing in the
pitch-
darkness of night.
It's a wonder that Marina didn't take the baby and run for the hills
after putting up with some of the shit this kook named Lee did,
including, of course, several wife-beating sessions. What a great guy.
>>> "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard to be fake." <<<
LOL. Scotland Yard is in the mix now, eh? Where did that fairy tale
come from? Care to show us?
>>> "The brother and sister tag team don't matter as they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day." <<<
Oh, I see. The fact that Wesley and Linnie Mae were "brother and
sister" somehow disqualifies them as reliable witnesses with respect
to being able to say for certainty whether or not they saw LHO with a
bulky package on November 22.
Nice made-up kook rule you've got there, I must say.
So, I guess if Donny & Marie had each seen Lee with the package,
they'd be disqualified too, huh?
It's also good to know that Linnie's and Wesley's testimony is
worthless...because that means I can now toss out their testimony
about the length of the bag. (Or is THAT part of their observations
still valid, Mr. Kook, because it supports your ABO position?)
>>> "How were the bullets linked to LHO?" <<<
Through Rifle #C2766 which fired them (a rifle owned by LHO).
Time for a "Duh" here.
>>> "They {the bullets} weren't, as they were linked to a gun that was never linked to LHO." <<<
Kook.
>>> "You ever hear the term "frame up"? " <<<
When it comes to the JFK assassination case, that's the only term you
kooks have EVER heard of --- LHO was "framed" for the Walker shooting.
LHO was "framed" for the JFK shooting. LHO was "framed" for the Tippit
shooting.
Care to go for one more? Maybe Oz shot Medgar Evers too.
>>> "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at General Walker?" <<<
Same gun, you stupid fool.
>>> "LNers can't have it both ways. If he {the Saint named Oswald} shot at Walker with a Springfield 30.6, where was that gun on 11/22/63?" <<<
Walker wasn't shot with a 30.06, you kook. The bullet taken out of
Walker's wall was a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, just like Oswald's
ammunition.
>>> "Secondly, he {Sweet LHO} could have purchased a gun at hundreds of places in Texas with cash and left no record." <<<
Shame on Lee for not living up to the standard "He Should Have Done It
This Way" requirements that the kooks demand.
Lee should have been shot for such stupidity. (Oh, yeah, he was.)
>>> "VB forgets to tell the sucker, er, the reader that no fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried the gun into the TSBD with." <<<
You can't possibly be this ignorant of the basic facts, can you?
Oswald's verified prints were located on BOTH the gun and the paper
bag.
Two prints were on the bag, with one of them (a RIGHT-hand palmprint)
perfectly corroborating Wesley Frazier's testimony of how LHO carried
the bag (cupped in his RIGHT hand).
Next idiotic point please?.....
>>> "How does that happen?" <<<
It didn't. See above.
>>> "Flight from the murder scene? I love this one. He {the "patsy" for all Texas murders, circa 1963: LHO} could have simply left for the day. Like work was going to continue anyway." <<<
Yeah, who gives a damn about all of that chaotic activity going on
outside your workplace's front door at 12:33 when Oswald decides (on
his own) that there won't be any more work done that day (just three
measly MINUTES after the shooting that YOU say Lee Oswald knew nothing
about).
Kooky.
>>> "Unprovable lies after he was arrested. How do you know this?" <<<
You meant to say "provable" lies, idiot.
And many of LHO's lies can easily be proven. But, being an ABO nutjob,
you couldn't see a Boeing 747 if it had just crashed through your
ceiling.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
>>> "How does VB know this?" <<<
Mainly due to the fact he's not a conspiracy kook.
>>> "Neither one of you was there." <<<
And you were, of course.
>>> "I have laid out what happened." <<<
Stop the presses!! A kook has it all "laid out"!!
Only one problem with it -- you haven't a speck of evidence to support
a single thing you assert.
But that never stopped a kook, did it?
(Embarrassment doesn't run in your family I see.)
>>> "Show how we know the gun is his {Patsy Extraordinaire Oswald's}." <<<
He ordered it.
He paid for it.
His prints are on it. (And on the triggerguard too. CTers like to
ignore those.)
>>> "A card with an alias that was the name used to order it. Please, a good lawyer would shred this." <<<
Even though it was in Oswald's handwriting, huh?
Did "Hidell" just happen to write exactly like Lee Oswald? Is that the
"Magic Coincidental Handwriting Theory"?
But, being a kook, I guess the testimony of the handwriting experts
who said that the order form for the rifle was written in Lee Oswald's
own handwriting is just another of the many pieces of "official"
evidence you kooks can simply ignore. Right?
>>> "Especially when he could subpeona the FBI/CIA for their employee records regarding LHO." <<<
No such records exist, Mr. Kook.
>>> "Wasn't he {Vince Bugliosi} part of the prosecution team in the RFK case?" <<<
No. Vincent got involved in the RFK thing in the mid-1970s. He
investigated the possibility that more than just Sirhan's gun was
involved in RFK's murder. (Based primarily, I think, on the number of
bullet holes in the doors and walls of the hotel's kitchen pantry.)
But I believe that Vince is now content with the idea that Sirhan
Sirhan acted alone.
Steve Barber, who first discovered the "crosstalk" on the Dictabelt
tape that the HSCA claimed proved a JFK conspiracy, has also done
extensive work on the RFK acoustics evidence too. And Steve's work has
established the fact that only one gun was used to murder Senator
Robert Kennedy in June 1968.
>>> "Like there was a doubt Manson would go to jail. Come on, he scared the shit out {of} every juror--it was a slam dunk." <<<
How can you call it a "slam dunk" when Manson himself never killed
anyone in August 1969? Seems to me that would be a very rough road to
hoe for VB (or any prosecutor).
Sure, Manson scared some people with his crazy, whacked-out looks and
actions in the courtroom. But that's a far cry of PROVING he ordered
SEVEN MURDERS.
Vince did a brilliant job in that case. Of course, I'll admit, if it
hadn't been for Linda Kasabian making a deal with the LA DA's office,
it might have been a different story. Linda ratted out the killers
(and Manson).
Plus: Just because Vince got convictions against the Tate-LaBianca
killers (Atkins, Van Houten, and Krenwinkel), that didn't mean the
jury had to ALSO convict Charles Manson of "murder" as well.
If the jury had any reasonable doubt about Manson ordering the
murders, they could have let Charlie off the hook, and he might still
be among the free to this day. But VB, thank goodness, was able to
convince the jury that Charlie was the Grand Master behind the
killings.
BOOK REVIEW -- "HELTER SKELTER":
www.amazon.com/review/RDPQ2O3NXYWA
>>> "He {St. Oswald} didn't kill anyone either. Why doesn't VB use his experience in convicting Manson for conspiracy to commit murder in the LHO case?" <<<
Well...uh...maybe it has something to do with this little fact shown
below (in VB's own words):
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-
Castro Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there
has not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone
but Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy. ....
My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
alone." -- Vince Bugliosi; circa 2001
~~~~~
A BONUS VB GEM:
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- Vince Bugliosi; 1986
>>> "...Because there is more money in defending the crazy official theory." <<<
There is? Is that why the number of pro-conspiracy books outnumbers
the pro-"LN" books by about a 10-to-1 margin (maybe more than that
even)? Because there's "more money in defending the crazy official
theory"??
Sounds like "conspiracy" sells the most books to me.
>>> "Why don't you marry this guy {VB}?" <<<
How can I marry myself??
(Is this the "SST" maybe? I.E.: The "Single Spouse Theory"?)
>>> "Are you president of his {VB's} fan club?" <<<
I wouldn't make myself President of my OWN fan club, you silly-willy.
(I'm merely the Treasurer.)
>>> "Sounds like VB is shoving something up your butt." <<<
Again, I thought I WAS Vince. So how could I perform the above raunchy
act (unless I was a really good contortionist)?
Gil Jesus
to display your superior intellect by "bashing" others.
Keep stoking that ego, David, you're a legend in your own mind.
David Von Pein
>>> "I guess when you run out of lies to tell, the only thing left to do is to display your superior intellect by "bashing" others." <<<
It certainly doesn't require any kind of "superior intellect" to knock
down kooks like Rob and Gil and Rossley, et al? A piece of moldy
cheese could do that.
I merely like to highlight the idiocy that exists within the beliefs
of people like Robcap (who seems to love the bashing....he must, since
he keeps popping his bloodied head back up for more time and again).
Here are a few examples of the mind-boggling idiocy from the lips of
Robby-boy (from just my re-post above):
"How was the gun linked to LHO?"
"The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard
to be fake."
"The brother and sister tag team [Randle/Frazier] don't matter[,] as
they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day."
"How were the bullets linked to LHO?"
"They [the bullets]...were linked to a gun that was never linked to
LHO."
"Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at
General Walker?"
"No fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried
the gun into the TSBD with."
"He [LHO] didn't kill anyone either."
tomnln
That's where you'll find the Proof that the ONLY "Provable Crimes" were
committed by the authorities.
"Evidence Tampering"
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c71ce93-5aa0-4fbd...@f77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>>>> "I guess when you run out of lies to tell, the only thing left to do is
>>>> to display your superior intellect by "bashing" others." <<<
>
> It certainly doesn't require any kind of "superior intellect" to knock
> down kooks like Rob and Gil and Rossley, et al? A piece of moldy
> cheese could do that.
>
> I merely like to highlight the idiocy that exists within the beliefs
> of people like Robcap (who seems to love the bashing....he must, since
> he keeps popping his bloodied head back up for more time and again).
>
> Here are a few examples of the mind-boggling idiocy from the lips of
> Robby-boy (from just my re-post above):
>
> "How was the gun linked to LHO?"
>
> "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard
> to be fake."
>
> "The brother and sister tag [Randle/Frazier] team don't matter[,] as
> they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day."
>
> "How were the bullets linked to LHO?"
>
> "They [the bullets]...were linked to a gun that was never linked to
> LHO."
>
> "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at
> General Walker?"
>
> "No fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried
> the gun into the TSBD with."
>
> "He [LHO] didn't kill anyone either."
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I guess when you run out of lies to tell, the only thing left to do is to display your superior intellect by "bashing" others." <<<
>
> It certainly doesn't require any kind of "superior intellect" to knock
> down kooks like Rob and Gil and Rossley, et al? A piece of moldy
> cheese could do that.
So you are saying a piece of "moldy cheese" is smarter than you?
> I merely like to highlight the idiocy that exists within the beliefs
> of people like Robcap (who seems to love the bashing....he must, since
> he keeps popping his bloodied head back up for more time and again).
Boy, isn't it sad how all these LNers have such LOW SELF-ESTEEM that
they have to lie to themselves that they have won a debate even though
they provide NO proof?
> Here are a few examples of the mind-boggling idiocy from the lips of
> Robby-boy (from just my re-post above):
IOW, here is the truth.
> "How was the gun linked to LHO?"
>
> "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard
> to be fake."
>
> "The brother and sister tag team [Randle/Frazier] don't matter[,] as
> they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day."
>
> "How were the bullets linked to LHO?"
>
> "They [the bullets]...were linked to a gun that was never linked to
> LHO."
>
> "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at
> General Walker?"
>
> "No fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried
> the gun into the TSBD with."
>
> "He [LHO] didn't kill anyone either."
Notice how Dave skipped ANSWERING them?????? Because he can't.
Walt
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 12:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "I guess when you run out of lies to tell, the only thing left to do is to display your superior intellect by "bashing" others." <<<
>
> > It certainly doesn't require any kind of "superior intellect" to knock
> > down kooks like Rob and Gil and Rossley, et al? A piece of moldy
> > cheese could do that.
>
> So you are saying a piece of "moldy cheese" is smarter than you?
Rob, There are some things that Pea Brain is right about....and this
is one of those things.
THINK about what he's saying..... WHERE did he get that idea? Have
you ever presented anything that caused him to reach this conclusion?
>
> > I merely like to highlight the idiocy that exists within the beliefs
> > of people like Robcap (who seems to love the bashing....he must, since
> > he keeps popping his bloodied head back up for more time and again).
>
> Boy, isn't it sad how all these LNers have such LOW SELF-ESTEEM that
> they have to lie to themselves that they have won a debate even though
> they provide NO proof?
>
> > Here are a few examples of the mind-boggling idiocy from the lips of
> > Robby-boy (from just my re-post above):
>
> IOW, here is the truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "How was the gun linked to LHO?"
>
> > "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard
> > to be fake."
>
> > "The brother and sister tag team [Randle/Frazier] don't matter[,] as
> > they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day."
>
> > "How were the bullets linked to LHO?"
>
> > "They [the bullets]...were linked to a gun that was never linked to
> > LHO."
>
> > "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at
> > General Walker?"
>
> > "No fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried
> > the gun into the TSBD with."
>
> > "He [LHO] didn't kill anyone either."
>
> Notice how Dave skipped ANSWERING them?????? Because he can't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 20 Oct, 11:52, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 12:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "I guess when you run out of lies to tell, the only thing left to do is to display your superior intellect by "bashing" others." <<<
>
> > > It certainly doesn't require any kind of "superior intellect" to knock
> > > down kooks like Rob and Gil and Rossley, et al? A piece of moldy
> > > cheese could do that.
>
> > So you are saying a piece of "moldy cheese" is smarter than you?
>
> Rob, There are some things that Pea Brain is right about....and this
> is one of those things.
WOW!!! Walt is siding with a man who PROVIDES NO PROOF FOR HIS CLAIMS
JUST LIKE WALT, I'm shocked and outraged!!! You two are on the same
side so of course you will agree with him. I could care less what you
think.
> THINK about what he's saying..... WHERE did he get that idea?
From the same "Troll" seminar you attended?
> Have you ever presented anything that caused him to reach this conclusion?
YES!! I presented him with the FACT that he was full of crap and
couldn't PROVE one thing he claimed. I think I have done the same
thing to you recently.
Are the WC trolls having a reunion weekend or something?
Walt has NO problem with the FACT Dave ignroed all the questions he
CAN'T answer, but then again, Walt does this too!
David Von Pein
>>> "I could care less what you think." <<<
Rob The Moron can't even get this right (of course, almost everybody
gets this wrong too, for some reason)....
Rob really means: He COULDN'T care less what Walt thinks.
He doesn't mean he COULD care less (obviously)--because if he COULD
care less....he would.
Why do so many people get this could/couldn't thing wrong almost all
the time? That's almost as big a mystery to me as why Rob is the Mega-
Kook he is. (Almost.)
David Von Pein
Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
hysterical.
It's akin to one idiot savant in the mental ward saying to the fellow
idiot sitting next to him -- "I'm smarter than you are; so there!!"
Hilarious.
And the most hilarious part about it (which Walt doesn't realize, of
course, since he's in the very same leaky boat with Robcap) is that
Walt thinks he has scored some extra points for his own brainless
theories by bashing a fellow kook who spouts additional brainless
garbage.
You can't make up shit like this. It's classic.
Thanks, boys, for being the kooks you are.
Bud and I appreciate the entertainment that your retardedness [coined
word] consistently provides. (And I'm sure other reasonable people
[LNers] that wander in here occasionally feel likewise.)
aeffects
sitdown Keating, you fucking moron. Say, did you ever get paid for all
this Bugliosi nonsense?
aeffects
> Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
> hysterical.
sitdown Keating you fucking idiot -- you've been rendered irrelevant
when it comes to the JFK assassination matters
> It's akin to one idiot savant in the mental ward saying to the fellow
> idiot sitting next to him -- "I'm smarter than you are; so there!!"
>
> Hilarious.
your damn right you are
> And the most hilarious part about it (which Walt doesn't realize, of
> course, since he's in the very same leaky boat with Robcap) is that
> Walt thinks he has scored some extra points for his own brainless
> theories by bashing a fellow kook who spouts additional brainless
> garbage.
>
> You can't make up shit like this. It's classic.
we've been pointing out your idiocy for years now... yet you insist on
going your merry way still thinking mosquitos in Goshen Indian don't
need saddles....
> Thanks, boys, for being the kooks you are.
we can't do it woithout you and daBugliosi and your idiotic dedication
to a guy that has royally ripped your sorry ass off...
> Bud and I appreciate the entertainment that your retardedness [coined
> word] consistently provides. (And I'm sure other reasonable people
> [LNers] that wander in here occasionally feel likewise.)
GAWD I love Dudster too! He invented the tin-foil beanie ya know...
Little short on smarts, can't keep two hands on the keyboard but what-
the-hell....
Carry on CREEPO! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
David Von Pein
....And Healy's fight against mental instability continues...
Walt
> Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
> hysterical.
Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
ours.....
Walt:
This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
troll pretending to be a CTer.
It seems that his agenda is:
a.) to discredit CTers with his foolishness
and
b.) drive a wedge between CTers. The old "divide and conquer"
technique. It seems that he's been at it between yourself and Tom
Rossley and again between yourself and Ben Holmes.
I've had my suspicions about this clown ever since he arrived on the
scene and the trolls tried to pass him off as me. Of course, he denied
it, but it seemed that he agreed with almost everything I posted, thus
adding fuel to the fire that we were the same person.
That sounded the little "alarm" in me.
Why would someone deny something, then do everything they could to
imply the opposite ?
It also seems to me that with the passage of time, he himself is
becoming less of a target of the meat heads.
These are just a few of my thoughts on the guy and I wanted to share
them with you.
The man that sent me this E mail probably won't want to admit that he
sent it.......But It's genuine believe me.
Oh and BTW ....Thank you for recognizing who is the basher and who is
the recipient ....... That indicates that you do some ability to
reason....
tomnln
ALL in her own words.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:e8fe1d42-3506-4484...@e2g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> MEET THE REAL WALT>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> ALL in her own words.
Well, well,well.....Lookie here who's offended by my posting of an E
mail I received.
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> >> [LNers] that wander in here occasionally feel likewise.)- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I could care less what you think." <<<
>
> Rob The Moron can't even get this right (of course, almost everybody
> gets this wrong too, for some reason)....
I like how Dave EDITS your replies, a HIGHLY DISHONEST act, as he left
out this part in front of the "I could care less....".
"WOW!!! Walt is siding with a man who PROVIDES NO PROOF FOR HIS
CLAIMS
JUST LIKE WALT, I'm shocked and outraged!!! You two are on the same
side so of course you will agree with him." (Rob)
Why did you do that Dave?
>
> Rob really means: He COULDN'T care less what Walt thinks.
NO, I meant I could care less what YOU and WALT think as you are on
the SAME SIDE.
> He doesn't mean he COULD care less (obviously)--because if he COULD
> care less....he would.
See how Dave can play mind games by EDITING my reply??? He learned
this at "TROLL 101" class.
> Why do so many people get this could/couldn't thing wrong almost
all
> the time? That's almost as big a mystery to me as why Rob is the Mega-
> Kook he is. (Almost.)
Why do you EDIT my repsonse leaving out the part I was refering
to???
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
> > hysterical.
>
> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
> ours.....
>
> Walt:
>
> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
> troll pretending to be a CTer.
Your OPINION is NOT worth much as you are a WC shill!!! Prove where I
have hurt the cause of CTers!
> It seems that his agenda is:
>
> a.) to discredit CTers with his foolishness
Wrong, I only discredit men who lie constantly about the evidence like
Walt. Look at "Wally World" for all of his LIES that benefit the WC's
position for proof.
> and
>
> b.) drive a wedge between CTers. The old "divide and conquer"
> technique. It seems that he's been at it between yourself and Tom
> Rossley and again between yourself and Ben Holmes.
What??? What is he blabbing on about??? The only two on here who have
attacked CTers (real ones too unlike Walt) constantly is Walt and
"Anobody But Walt" (ABW). He is mad as we are exposing him for what
he is - a WC shill.
> I've had my suspicions about this clown ever since he arrived on the
> scene and the trolls tried to pass him off as me. Of course, he denied
> it, but it seemed that he agreed with almost everything I posted, thus
> adding fuel to the fire that we were the same person.
Even this is a LIE, can this guy EVER STOP LYING???? The trolls,
a.k.a. Walt's friends, accused me of being Gil, NOT Walt. They KNEW
Walt was one of them.
> That sounded the little "alarm" in me.
How can something that NEVER happened set off an "alarm" in Walt????
By the way, don't you like how Dave has SET UP Walt for this
repsonse??? Give another assist to Dave.
> Why would someone deny something, then do everything they could to
> imply the opposite ?
When did I ever deny being you???? Prove this statement (of course we
will discover ice in the desert before Walt ever provides proof of
anything, but I have to demand it nonetheless) as I never claimed to
be you. I was said to be Gil.
> It also seems to me that with the passage of time, he himself is
> becoming less of a target of the meat heads.
What a loser, he is like a man on his last leg, grasping for straws,
anything to stay in the "sheep dip" of being a CTer, but it is too
late.
> These are just a few of my thoughts on the guy and I wanted to share
> them with you.
Thanks to Dave you were able to, and thanks to your lying ways we see
further proof of what a liar you are.
> The man that sent me this E mail probably won't want to admit that he
> sent it.......But It's genuine believe me.
Sure, the "dreaded e-mail" stuff, more accusations WITHOUT proof by
Walt. IF the person won't step up and admit he sent it so I can
counter it (if any such e-mail really even exists) then he is a liar
like you.
> Oh and BTW ....Thank you for recognizing who is the basher and who is
> the recipient ....... That indicates that you do some ability to
> reason....
More wink-wink stuff with Dave his underling. Poor Walt, all he has
NOW is his shill friends.
muc...@gmail.com
>
> NO, I meant I could care less what YOU and WALT think as you are on
> the SAME SIDE.
Perhaps you care too much(?)
Gil Jesus
Walt:
Your willingness to publicly reveal messages (e-mails) that were sent
to you, whether made by LNers or Cters, exposes you in a light that is
not favorable to you or the CT community. The issue here is trust and
when one violates that trust, it is very difficult to re-establish it
in the minds of people.
I urge you very strongly to reconsider turning CTers against CTers.
You can't afford to lose what few friends you have here.
tomnln
I NEVER get offended over any of your posts.
Most of your posts have NO Citations because they come from "Ghost Sources".
WHEN are you gonna back up your Lying words?>>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:84fb43b5-1121-42d5...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Looks like More people are wising up to ole Wally World.
Here's Wally>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bf60b664-9f95-4194...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
mail that I received ..... is revealing.
Friends?? or Fair Weather Friends... Nobody needs Fair Weather
Friends.... Enemies are more reliable.
I have few friends here.... Friends are people who are helpful and
supportive. At one time I counted you among
my friends... But when I tried to help you understand Roger Craigs
lies you attacked me. There was a time when I counted Tom and Rob and
Sam among my friends.... But they like you don't want any help ....
They want to continue on down a trail that leads to nowhere, because
it's only is a big circle .
I take the blame for driving you off.... I'm too outspoken for my own
good.... Don't care, I've got no time to mollycoddle a fool. Either
the person will accept what I say or they won't.... There's nothing I
can do about that.
Have a nice journey down that path
curtjester1
HABITUAL LIAR would not acknowledge what he has done over the past few
months.
Walt:
Your willingness to publicly reveal messages (e-mails) that were sent
to you, whether made by LNers or Cters, exposes you in a light that
is
not favorable to you or the CT community. The issue here is trust and
when one violates that trust, it is very difficult to re-establish it
in the minds of people.
I urge you very strongly to reconsider turning CTers against CTers.
(Or 'secret' LN'ers turning CTer against CTers).
CJ
> Friends?? or Fair Weather Friends... Nobody needs Fair Weather
> Friends.... Enemies are more reliable.
>
> I have few friends here.... Friends are people who are helpful and
> supportive. At one time I counted you among
> my friends... But when I tried to help you understand Roger Craigs
> lies you attacked me. There was a time when I counted Tom and Rob and
> Sam among my friends.... But they like you don't want any help ....
> They want to continue on down a trail that leads to nowhere, because
> it's only is a big circle .
>
> I take the blame for driving you off.... I'm too outspoken for my own
> good.... Don't care, I've got no time to mollycoddle a fool. Either
> the person will accept what I say or they won't.... There's nothing I
> can do about that.
>
> Have a nice journey down that path
>
> .- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
>
> Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
> post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
> mail that I received ..... is revealing.
Then you leave me no choice but to admit publicly that it was I who
sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
You failed to mention, however, that I wrote that letter a month ago
and since that time, I have seen who the REAL troublemaker is here.
Your ego is huge my man, and unless you can get off your high horse
and learn that you're not here to educate us and that we're all equals
here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
And I mean "no class" in more than one way.
Funny that you no longer consider me a friend. I've never felt that
way about you. I've always held you in the highest regard. Even when
you pissed me off with your e-mails, I never shot back.
Even when you called me an "idiot", I never retaliated with childish
name-calling.
And when you were being attacked by everyone under the sun, I wouldn't
participate. I wouldn't comment on your ridiculously absurd
speculations without any basis of fact. Yes I don't agree with you on
Craig, but I never attacked you. I just posted links to stories on
Craig and Weitzman, that's all.
You have insulted me and tried to drive a wedge between me and robcap
my revealing an e-mail that I sent to you in private. You have
violated any trust that I put in you and you have destroyed whatever
credibility you had in my mind.
You didn't have a right to do that.
But by doing that, you proved that my decision to block you from
sending me e-mails was the right one to make.
So here it is Walt.....we're through. There will be no more
communication between you and I.
Your posts will be completely blocked by my reading server and you
will be indefinitely blocked from sending me e-mails.
You have done more damage to the CT community in the last week on this
board than the trolls have done in the last year.
There's a reason why their posts are down. YOU'RE doing their work for
them. All they have to do is sit back and laugh. No wonder they come
to your aid. Yours is a fire they can stoke.
In addition, you've sought to drag me into this Walt vs. Tomnln-Robcap-
Curtjester war that's been raging over the last week.
Not them Walt, YOU have tried to drag me into it.
As for Rob Caprio, I hope he will accept my apology for judging him
before I had all the facts.
In the past couple of weeks, Rob has shown a stick-to-it-tive-ness
that is admirable and a lot of guts to stand up to whoever challenges
him.
At least he's man enough not to stab people in the back.
aeffects
> ....And Healy's fight against mental instability continues...
I'l keep batting you worthless Lone Nut WCR jock-strap supporting no-
nothings around if not, just for the sport of it. Carry on troll!
Walt
> On Oct 21, 12:33 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
> > post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
> > mail that I received ..... is revealing.
>
> Then you leave me no choice but to admit publicly that it was I who
> sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
> is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
>
> You failed to mention, however, that I wrote that letter a month ago
> and since that time, I have seen who the REAL troublemaker is here.
> Your ego is huge my man, and unless you can get off your high horse
> and learn that you're not here to educate us and that we're all equals
> here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
>
> And I mean "no class" in more than one way.
>
> Funny that you no longer consider me a friend. I've never felt that
> way about you. I've always held you in the highest regard. Even when
> you pissed me off with your e-mails, I never shot back.
> Even when you called me an "idiot", I never retaliated with childish
> name-calling.
>
> And when you were being attacked by everyone under the sun, I wouldn't
> participate. I wouldn't comment on your ridiculously absurd
> speculations without any basis of fact.
Well you should have....This isn't the "I'll kiss your ass, and you
kiss mine" Club
Wait a minute!!.... maybe it is... Hells bells, I should have seen it
earlier......That's what the CT contingent in this NG has become.
Yes I don't agree with you on
> Craig, but I never attacked you. I just posted links to stories on
> Craig and Weitzman, that's all.
>
> You have insulted me and tried to drive a wedge between me and robcap
> my revealing an e-mail that I sent to you in private. You have
> violated any trust that I put in you and you have destroyed whatever
> credibility you had in my mind.
>
> You didn't have a right to do that.
I don't have the right??? Yer kidding....
>
> But by doing that, you proved that my decision to block you from
> sending me e-mails was the right one to make.
Gil, ,just last week you said it was "computer glitch" that had me
blocked...so now you admit that you are a liar...
Well, I'll give ya credit for admitting that you're dishonest ....
That's something that none of your "friends" in the Gang of Goofies
will admit.
>
> So here it is Walt.....we're through. There will be no more
> communication between you and I.
> Your posts will be completely blocked by my reading server and you
> will be indefinitely blocked from sending me e-mails.
>
> You have done more damage to the CT community in the last week on this
> board than the trolls have done in the last year.
>
> There's a reason why their posts are down. YOU'RE doing their work for
> them. All they have to do is sit back and laugh. No wonder they come
> to your aid. Yours is a fire they can stoke.
>
> In addition, you've sought to drag me into this Walt vs. Tomnln-Robcap-
> Curtjester war that's been raging over the last week.
>
> Not them Walt, YOU have tried to drag me into it.
>
> As for Rob Caprio, I hope he will accept my apology for judging him
> before I had all the facts.
> In the past couple of weeks, Rob has shown a stick-to-it-tive-ness
> that is admirable and a lot of guts to stand up to whoever challenges
> him.
>
> At least he's man enough not to stab people in the back.
I to recognize that Rob has the persistence to be one of the best CT's
ever....He just lacks the honesty and the ability to think
rationally.... And If he'll admit it, I've told him that in E mails.
tomnln
Don't worry about it Wally;
You still have your "Cheerleader Squad">>>
chuck
David V P
mucher
Timmy
justme
JLeyden.
Ohhhhhhhhh, Don't forget these>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e80d6e68-ffbe-41e5...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Walt
>
> news:e80d6e68-ffbe-41e5...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 12:33 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
> > post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
> > mail that I received ..... is revealing.
>
> Then you leave me no choice but to admit publicly that it was I who
> sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
> is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
Perhaps the person who sent me the Email informing me that Tom was on
an ego trip and wanted desperately to be the "Hero" who solved the
mystery about the assassination will also confess....
Walt
>
> news:e80d6e68-ffbe-41e5...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 12:33 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
> > post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
> > mail that I received ..... is revealing.
>
> Then you leave me no choice but to admit publicly that it was I who
> sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
> is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
>
> You failed to mention, however, that I wrote that letter a month ago
> and since that time, I have seen who the REAL troublemaker is here.
> Your ego is huge my man, and unless you can get off your high horse
> and learn that you're not here to educate us and that we're all equals
> here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
unless you can get off your high horse and learn that you're not here
to educate us and that we're all equals
here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
"We are all equals here"...... Are you kidding?? Do you really
think that you're as crazy (and i mean insane) as Rob and as sick as
Tom??
I knew long ago that I couldn't teach some people anything... There's
not a teacher in the world that can impart information to people who
have their head up their ass..... However I had hoped that you were
one of the rational people in this NG.
tomnln
And to think that ALL of this started with my asking Walty to Document his
claim that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts"
Walt decided to reply with an INSULT ! ! !
Walt has a Habit of making "Lying Stupid Bastard Claims WITHOUT Citations.
Hey Walt;
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:d31b73d9-28c7-4639...@j68g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:d31b73d9-28c7-4639...@j68g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
unless you can get off your high horse and learn that you're not here
to educate us and that we're all equals
here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
"We are all equals here"...... Are you kidding?? Do you really
think that you're as crazy (and i mean insane) as Rob and as sick as
Tom??
I knew long ago that I couldn't teach some people anything... There's
not a teacher in the world that can impart information to people who
have their head up their ass..... However I had hoped that you were
one of the rational people in this NG.
Wally;
You repeatedly asked me for evidence/testimony.
I asked you to Document your Lies.
WHICH one of us is "The Teacher"????
Don't forget that you have THESE to answer for>>>
Hey Walt;
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> HAHAHAHAHA;
>
> And to think that ALL of this started with my asking Walty to Document his
> claim that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts"
Yup.... Looks like you can now send a message to .john..... You've
succeeded, where he failed.
He said he was going to make a shambles out of this NG, and he
failed. You've managed to get the support of a few nuts, and fools,
and made this place look like a laughing academy .... But you can't
take all the credit, yer gang of goofies certainly deserve some
credit. I'm sure you all will enjoy singin row, row, row, yer boat,
and congradulating each other on what great researchers you are, and
what great progress yer makin.....Trouble is; you've only got one oar
in the water.
>
> Walt decided to reply with an INSULT ! ! !
>
> Walt has a Habit of making "Lying Stupid Bastard Claims WITHOUT Citations.
>
> Hey Walt;
>
> You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
> You never proved that Walker called Germany.
> You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
> You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
> You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
> You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
> You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
> You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
> jacketed.
> You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
> You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
> You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
> You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
> You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
> 11/22/63.
>
> You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > At least he's man enough not to stab people in the back.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Oct 21, 12:33 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
> > post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
> > mail that I received ..... is revealing.
>
> Then you leave me no choice but to admit publicly that it was I who
> sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
> is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
It is okay Gil. I think you do great work with YouTube and you knew
Walt for a long time.
> You failed to mention, however, that I wrote that letter a month ago
> and since that time, I have seen who the REAL troublemaker is here.
> Your ego is huge my man, and unless you can get off your high horse
> and learn that you're not here to educate us and that we're all equals
> here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
>
> And I mean "no class" in more than one way.
I am surprised though it took you sooooo long to realize Walt's true
character, as he CAN'T tolerate anyone's opinions but his own. This
is the wrong approach for this case, really any topic, as there is too
much to still sort out to have ONE person monopolize the issue of what
really happened. Especially when they CAN'T ever provide proof for
their claims.
> Funny that you no longer consider me a friend. I've never felt that
> way about you. I've always held you in the highest regard. Even when
> you pissed me off with your e-mails, I never shot back.
> Even when you called me an "idiot", I never retaliated with childish
> name-calling.
>
> And when you were being attacked by everyone under the sun, I wouldn't
> participate. I wouldn't comment on your ridiculously absurd
> speculations without any basis of fact. Yes I don't agree with you on
> Craig, but I never attacked you. I just posted links to stories on
> Craig and Weitzman, that's all.
I figured as much, but you are very good at posting something that
showed or shows the opposite of Walt's silly claim, thus you are
speaking out but just not in a confrontational manner. Which is a way
I prefer as well, but Walt has given me no choice.
> You have insulted me and tried to drive a wedge between me and robcap
> my revealing an e-mail that I sent to you in private. You have
> violated any trust that I put in you and you have destroyed whatever
> credibility you had in my mind.
>
> You didn't have a right to do that.
You are still good in my book Gil, you allow others to say what they
want, but set the record straight with links to the other side of the
issue. You have NEVER in my time here forced your opinion or claims
on to other people.
> But by doing that, you proved that my decision to block you from
> sending me e-mails was the right one to make.
>
> So here it is Walt.....we're through. There will be no more
> communication between you and I.
> Your posts will be completely blocked by my reading server and you
> will be indefinitely blocked from sending me e-mails.
>
> You have done more damage to the CT community in the last week on this
> board than the trolls have done in the last year.
I realize you were friends with him so I don't say this lightly to
you, I think that is his "mission" and it has worked very well for
many years. This board should have way more CTers here than it does,
and like I said before it is NOT because of the LNers arguments that
we don't. This is a great board and could be the best board for real
information if the opposing view was delivered with more respect,
especially, between CTers.
Walt, and "ABW" don't view this as sides, they say the truth is
important, and it is, but how can you NOT have sides? The LNers are
claiming one thing and we are saying something totally different. I
think the non-sides argument served Walt well for many years. It made
it easy to explain why he was attacking CTers all the time.
> There's a reason why their posts are down. YOU'RE doing their work for
> them. All they have to do is sit back and laugh. No wonder they come
> to your aid. Yours is a fire they can stoke.
>
> In addition, you've sought to drag me into this Walt vs. Tomnln-Robcap-
> Curtjester war that's been raging over the last week.
>
> Not them Walt, YOU have tried to drag me into it.
>
> As for Rob Caprio, I hope he will accept my apology for judging him
> before I had all the facts.
> In the past couple of weeks, Rob has shown a stick-to-it-tive-ness
> that is admirable and a lot of guts to stand up to whoever challenges
> him.
>
> At least he's man enough not to stab people in the back.
I gladly accept your apology Gil. I realize you were friends with Walt
for many years and I understand you wanted to believe he was working
for the good of the CT cause, but his words and claims speak louder
than anything I could say.
My only goal here is to ferret out the phony CTers so we can make this
board a much more credible board, as now it is a laughingstock like
McA wanted. For too long the CT community has been used, willingly and
unwillingly, to set back our cause. For example, when the Ricky White
story broke in the early 90's the first person (or one of the first)
to shoot it down was none other than Harold Weisberg! We didn't even
have all the details yet and he said it was garbage (Roscoe White
shooting JFK and JDT). I believe he didn't shoot JFK but the point is
all the information wasn't even out yet. This is NOT working together
for the grand cause of proving a conspiracy in my book.
I appreciate the nice words Gil. Thanks!
Walt
Nor would you extend a hand as a friend would..... As I said... with
friends like you...Enemies are preferable.
> > At least he's man enough not to stab people in the back.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
tomnln
On 21 Oct, 13:26, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> HAHAHAHAHA;
>
> And to think that ALL of this started with my asking Walty to Document his
> claim that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts"
Wally wrote;
Yup.... Looks like you can now send a message to .john..... You've
succeeded, where he failed.
He said he was going to make a shambles out of this NG, and he
failed. You've managed to get the support of a few nuts, and fools,
and made this place look like a laughing academy .... But you can't
take all the credit, yer gang of goofies certainly deserve some
credit. I'm sure you all will enjoy singin row, row, row, yer boat,
and congradulating each other on what great researchers you are, and
what great progress yer makin.....Trouble is; you've only got one oar
in the water.
I write;
Wrong AGAIN Wally;
Look at the loss of posts on McAdams' newsgroup.
WE knocked the shit out of it.
As for OUR newsgroup;
We just "took out the Garbage" ! ! !
(showing you for what you ARE, A WC SHILL ! ! ! )
Here's the Bullshit you posted to make CT's look Bad>>>
David Von Pein
>>> "NO, I meant I could care less what YOU and WALT think as you are on the SAME SIDE." <<<
LOL. Rob still can't get it right.
Obviously, EVERY time a person says "I could care less"...they really
mean: "I couldn't care less". Because if you COULD care less--then you
obviously WOULD care less (given the context in which this phrase is
always used by every person on the planet when writing it out or
uttering it audibly).
You didn't really mean that you really COULD care less what Walt & I
think. Why in the world would somebody EVER say that and mean it
literally? Phrasing it that way means you DO "care" some.
You really meant that the amount that you care could not possibly be
any less...therefore, you COULDN'T possibly care LESS.
Should I explain it a third time for the retard?
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4YpLk.2896$Kf6....@newsfe05.iad...
Walt
Guess who gave you five stars?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 20, 9:34=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
>> > hysterical.
>>
>> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
>> ours.....
>>
>> Walt:
>>
>> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
>> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
>> troll pretending to be a CTer.
>
>Your OPINION is NOT worth much as you are a WC shill!!! Prove where I
>have hurt the cause of CTers!
There is no proof you will accept. So the challenge is meaningless.
But to the average person - to have someone who can't parse simple logic, and
who makes scientifically indefensible assertions - clearly "hurts" the cause.
Because many people will simply look at some of your assertions and say "what a
kook - I need to go look at the other side of the issue..."
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Just my two cents worth... I've always admired Dennis Praeger and his statement
that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
Rather profound, if you consider it. I'm in the same boat, I'd prefer an honest
assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see someone,
LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.
Gil Jesus
> Just my two cents worth... I've always admired Dennis Praeger and his statement
> that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>
> Rather profound, if you consider it. �I'm in the same boat, I'd prefer an honest
> assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see someone,
> LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
And I have no problem with that Ben.
I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
whatever by someone who I never insulted.
I have a problem when I say something in private and the person I say
it to goes public with it.
There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
they show it in the way they deal with people.
We don't get enough sh*t from the trolls, now we have to put up with
it from our own side.
Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
That's what he seems to want.
Walt
> In article <28685552-94a1-4e6f-b729-58b62cd2c...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Hooorah!!.... My sentiments precisely....What kinda fool would want to
be a member of the "I'll kiss yer ass and you kiss mine" club? I
thought that club was an exclusuve club for LNer's because they sure
as hell gather under that banner. But it now appears there are CT's
that want to gather under that banner also.
Walt
Speaking of assessment of the evidence...I'd welcome a RATIONAL
discussion of the evidence surrounding the Ammo clip. Are you in
position to discuss that clip? What are your thoughts about it. I
feel it is one of the critical issues because I think it lends
credence to the idea that the Mannlicher Carcano was nothing but a
stage prop, which hadn't even been fired that day. I've tried once
again to engage Rob in an intelligent discussion but he's hopeless.
You can read my posts in the Ammo clip thread and get a good idea what
my position is. If you pretty much agree with my assassment, but
still have questions, I'd love to hear them.
tomnln
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED THESE ISSUES YET>>>
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> YOU HAVEN'T EVEN FINISHED THESE ISSUES YET>>>
I realize that yer shriveled up, old, diseased brain doesn't function
very well.... I 'm looking for RATIONAL discussion..... I've tried to
have discussions with you only to have you veer off course and start
talkin about homosexual sex.
>
> You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
> You never proved that Walker called Germany.
> You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
> You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
> You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
> You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
> You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
> You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
> jacketed.
> You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
> You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
> You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
> You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
> You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
> 11/22/63.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
You Lying Bastard;
Those issues(LIES) below are issues that YOU brought up.
You never had the balls to document them.
Are you RESALLY a Woman???
tomnln
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <28685552-94a1-4e6f-b729-58b62cd2c...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Speaking of abusing and lying about the evidence, who has been
avoiding any discussion of his ill-conceived *Lady in Yellow Pants*
theory since March?!
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Oct 21, 8:12=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>> Just my two cents worth... I've always admired Dennis Praeger and his sta=
>tement
>> that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>>
>refer an honest
>> assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see someone=
>,
>> LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
>
>And I have no problem with that Ben.
>
>I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
>whatever by someone who I never insulted.
>
>I have a problem when I say something in private and the person I say
>it to goes public with it.
>
>There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
>they show it in the way they deal with people.
>
>We don't get enough sh*t from the trolls, now we have to put up with
>it from our own side.
>
>Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
>
>That's what he seems to want.
I don't see things as "CT'er" vs "LNT'er"... I prefer to see things in terms of
truth vs untruth. Fact vs fiction. Evidence vs 'Opinion & speculation'.
I suspect that you tend to see things in terms of "us" vs. "them" - and when a
"us vs them" meets someone who is more interested in the actual facts than
'brotherhood', you get situations like this - or so my opinion goes...
I think there are a number of people on this forum that make an effort not to be
dogmatic about their beliefs in this case, I know *my* opinions have changed
over the years as I better understood the evidence based on posts by you, Walt,
Don Willis, and countless others that I'm failing to name right now...
When *I* understand a point perfectly - such as the FACT that there are three
different conclusions possible when ballistically testing a bullet:
1. It matches the test bullet
2. It does not match the test bullet
3. Inconclusive - cannot state whether it matches or not.
This is so fundamentally correct, that when someone denies it - I'm going to
KNOW that the other person is an idiot. A kook. A liar. Whatever other name
you want to put to that person. So although I wasn't paying much attention, and
don't recall where Walt called you an idiot, I can well understand exactly *WHY*
such situations come up.
Were *you* to claim, as Rob does, that an "inconclusive" result is identical to
a "does not match" conclusion, I'd call *YOU* an idiot as well. And be rather
justified in doing so.
Tis my opinion, take it for what it's worth...
Walt
> In article <3b74f4df-894d-4309-9d70-1f447cd2a...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
That wouldn't be me..... I'm more than dogmatic... But I don't believe
I'm dogmatic without solid substantiation
I'm not one to discuss a subject that I know nothing about. That's
why I've never engaged you in discussing the 6.5mm round oject on the
Xrays. I no nothing about the medical evidence so I can only rely on
"experts", and I might as well talk to my dog ....because it's the
"experts" who testified on behalf of LBJ that handed us the Warren
Report.
Since my knowledge is limited to the more tangible and physical
asspects of the case I tend to be dogmatic when I KNOW something to be
true. I KNOW that water will not naturally flow uphill, and I will
not abide a fool who babbles incoherent nonsense in arguing that water
will flow uphill.
A good example of foolish nonsense is the Lifshultz bill of lading for
the rifles that were shipped to Kleins. It's patently obvious that
that shipment of 100 rifles had a tare weight of 750 pounds. Since
there were 100 rifles any 4th grader can devide 750 / 100 and find
that each rifle weighed 7.5 pounds. Only a complete idiot would argue
that the rifles weighed any other weight. And only a despicable,
lying ,asshole would attempt to alter the figures on the bill of
lading to make it appear the rifles weighed some other weight.
I know *my* opinions have changed
> over the years as I better understood the evidence
Anybody who's opinions haven't changed as we learn more, has serious
problems with his faculties.
based on posts by you, Walt, Don Willis, and countless others that I'm
failing to name right now...
>
> When *I* understand a point perfectly - such as the FACT that there are three
> different conclusions possible when ballistically testing a bullet:
>
> 1. It matches the test bullet
> 2. It does not match the test bullet
> 3. Inconclusive - cannot state whether it matches or not.
>
> This is so fundamentally correct, that when someone denies it - I'm going to
> KNOW that the other person is an idiot. A kook. A liar. Whatever other name
> you want to put to that person.
Same thing I said above...Just different words....
So although I wasn't paying much attention, and don't recall where
Walt called you an idiot,
Actually neither do I... Not that I couldn't have called Gil an
idiot.... But I don't remember doing it.
I can well understand exactly *WHY*
> such situations come up.
>
> Were *you* to claim, as Rob does, that an "inconclusive" result is identical to
> a "does not match" conclusion, I'd call *YOU* an idiot as well. And be rather
> justified in doing so.
>
> Tis my opinion, take it for what it's worth...- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <2e830155-39fd-41a0-bc22-d1bcc12c3...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 20, 9:34=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
> >> > hysterical.
>
> >> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
> >> ours.....
>
> >> Walt:
>
> >> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
> >> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
> >> troll pretending to be a CTer.
>
> >Your OPINION is NOT worth much as you are a WC shill!!! Prove where I
> >have hurt the cause of CTers!
>
> There is no proof you will accept. So the challenge is meaningless.
NO it isn't, show everyone where I have said things that support the
WC's position like Walt does on a daily basis and you let slide.
> But to the average person - to have someone who can't parse simple logic, and
> who makes scientifically indefensible assertions - clearly "hurts" the cause.
This is YOUR opinion and we know your opinion is that ONLY CTers are
here for the attack by you. When was the last time you had a 3 week
dialog with the LNers? I know I have conversed with you on quite a
few topics that went 3 weeks and NO matter what I put up as cites you
just IGNORED them and acted like I did not provide any.
This is a LNer tactic.
> Because many people will simply look at some of your assertions and say "what a
> kook - I need to go look at the other side of the issue..."
Again your opinion, but when they read how you and Walt defend the WC
they will surely look at our side, the CT side, and that is a big plus
for us.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is Walt's excuse for defending the WC and attacking any CTer who
doesn't agree with the point of his claims being FACTS.
When someone takes the side of the WC, like you have on many issues,
they are the same as a LNer to me.
robcap...@netscape.com
Gil, I haven't even checked to see if Ben responded to you yet, but my
guess is Ben will give you the same spiel about the "truth" being
paramount if he responds. He and Walt have say there are NO sides as
they spend all their time attacking CTers.
This is my guess on why they use this mantra so often.
IF truth was the real goal of Ben's why would he stand by and allow
Walt to lie about so many issues that defend the WC's position? The
excuse of "I have NO interest" is baloney if he is here for the truth
as he says he is.
Walt
wrote:
Rob wrote:...When someone takes the side of the WC, like you have on
many issues, they are the same as a LNer to me.
Thank you....that's EXACTLY how your mind works. ( malfunctions) You
have no ability to evaluate information critically.... Hence, once an
idea becomes implanted in yer head you can't get it out again. It's
burned in and it's there to stay. A thinking person ( someone who
can intelligently evaluate information) would know that the Warren
Report contains both truth and lies. An intelligent person would be
able to sort out the truth from the lies and use that knowledge gained
to advance his overall knowlege of the case. An unthinking idiot on
the other hand would simply say..."Oh, you can't believe anything in
the Warren Report, everything in it is a lie" ..."and anybody who
quotes something from the Warren Report is a LNer."
- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <3b74f4df-894d-4309-9d70-1f447cd2a...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
FOR THE RECORD: I have said you can have a inconclusive result, in
fact, I think I said you can claim anything you want as a "ballistic
expert", but my point has always been you won't get a conviction in a
court of law with an inconclusive. It requires a match to do this,
and I offered Ben the chance to find one case that did have an
inconclusive result that resulted in a guilty verdict (without NAA or
another assassination) and he balked.
This is why NAA was "invented" as it allowed the prosecution to claim
someone was guilty even though their gun, or the gun the DA said was
used and was in the possession of the defendent, was NOT matched to
the bullets and or casings at the scene and in the victim. Remember,
each weapon has a UNIQUE barrel characteristic, so the chance of NOT
matching a bullet or a casing to it if it was fired from it are
impossible based on this fact (expection being if it was too deformed
for testing). Ben want so to argue about two fragments found in the
limo many hours later with NO chain of custody attached to them, why?
Why is he defending the claims of the WC here?
This is what I have said all along, but Ben has twisted it into
something else to suit his needs. He doesn't want to discuss court, a
trick of the LNers by the way, but he fails to grasp this is a murder
case and a court would have been involved if not for the DPD allowing
LHO to be gunned down while in their custody.
> Were *you* to claim, as Rob does, that an "inconclusive" result is identical to
> a "does not match" conclusion, I'd call *YOU* an idiot as well. And be rather
> justified in doing so.
In a court of law it is the same.
> Tis my opinion, take it for what it's worth...
It is a shame he has NO opinion for all of Walt's lies, but as we see
here, he is himself defending the WC's claims so why would he call out
Walt for doing the same thing?
robcap...@netscape.com
I sure do, but I have one sticky point, I like PROOF, call me silly.
You make a ton of claims but back up NONE of them with any valid
proof. I dare say, they don't even makes sense let alone have proof
attached.
> Hence, once an
> idea becomes implanted in yer head you can't get it out again.
This is baloney, as I have changed my mind on quite a few issues over
the years, but you offer nothing to make me agree with you. You want
to be able to say "x, y, z happened, believe me" and that doesn't work
me. I guess on the LN side you are used to that working for you.
> It's
> burned in and it's there to stay. A thinking person ( someone who
> can intelligently evaluate information) would know that the Warren
> Report contains both truth and lies.
It does contain truth, but in most cases it is buried in their far-
fetched lies, so one has to know the whole story to see it is the
truth. I have always said nothing proves conspiracy more than the WCR
and its 26 volumes. This is why 4 of the members (it may have gone to
5) and LBJ didn't buy it either.
> An intelligent person would be
> able to sort out the truth from the lies and use that knowledge gained
> to advance his overall knowlege of the case.
This is what I have done, and this is why I know your claims are lies.
> An unthinking idiot on
> the other hand would simply say..."Oh, you can't believe anything in
> the Warren Report, everything in it is a lie" ..."and anybody who
> quotes something from the Warren Report is a LNer."
Even this is a lie! I never said "anyone who quotes from it is a
LNer", but rather anyone who supports its claims is a LNer. From
where I sit, you have been supporting a whole bunch of its claims.
Walt
You are Damned Liar..... Here are three items that I PROVED to you
1) The clip falls free from the rifle
2) The WC used the ad from the American Rifleman
3) The Lifshultz bill of lading
The fact that you have the problem I've outlined below does NOT alter
the fact that I presented the PROOF
Rob....that's EXACTLY how your mind works. ( malfunctions) You have
no ability to evaluate information critically....Hence, once an idea
> where I sit, you have been supporting a whole bunch of its claims.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
LBJ didn't buy it either.....
Damn!!.....Don't you ever get tired of displaying your stupidity?
LBJ KNEW the whole ugly truth.... Hell HE was THE king pin of the
plot to murder JFK.
The wily old bastard also knew that one of the best ways to shunt
suspiction away from himself was to ACT ACT like he believed there
was a conspiracy but his old butt buddy Hoover hadn't been able to
uncover the plot.
>
> > An intelligent person would be
> > able to sort out the truth from the lies and use that knowledge gained
> > to advance his overall knowlege of the case.
>
> This is what I have done, and this is why I know your claims are lies.
>
> > An unthinking idiot on
> > the other hand would simply say..."Oh, you can't believe anything in
> > the Warren Report, everything in it is a lie" ..."and anybody who
> > quotes something from the Warren Report is a LNer."
>
> Even this is a lie! I never said "anyone who quotes from it is a
> LNer", but rather anyone who supports its claims is a LNer. From
> where I sit, you have been supporting a whole bunch of its claims.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Rob The Liar wrote: "You make a ton of claims but back up NONE of them
with any valid proof."
Walt rebutted: "You are Damned Liar..... Here are three items that I
PROVED to you
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Walt rebutted: "You are Damned Liar..... Here are three items that I
PROVED to you
1) The clip falls free from the rifle
2) The WC used the ad from the American Rifleman
3) The Lifshultz bill of lading
THESE are your "Lying Stupid Bastard" claims that you've NOT Proven Wally.
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
robcap...@netscape.com
What does this prove??? How does this prove a clip was IN the rifle at
the time of discovery?
> 2) The WC used the ad from the American Rifleman
They did NOT use it, they referenced it, they USED the November "Field
& Stream" ad given to them by your pal Holmes.
> 3) The Lifshultz bill of lading
What did you prove about this??? You are delusional if you think this
proves LHO ordered a 40" rifle, or just a plain old liar.
> The fact that you have the problem I've outlined below does NOT alter
> the fact that I presented the PROOF
LOL!!! Walt calls this stuff PROOF, now wonder he is confused as he
fails to understand what proof is.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:99e4be10-2050-4f8d...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt was NEVER "confused".
Walt's Lies are "Intentional" ! ! !
His Bullshit is designed to "Discredit" all CT's.
Walt can RUN ! But, he CAN't HIDE !
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
Hey Tom you senile, old queer.... The post was directed to Rob....Are
you so confused that you don't even know yer true identity anymore??
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Walt was NEVER "confused".
>
> Walt's Lies are "Intentional" ! ! !
>
> His Bullshit is designed to "Discredit" all CT's.
>
> Walt can RUN ! But, he CAN't HIDE !
>
> You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
> You never proved that Walker called Germany.
> You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
> You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
> You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
> You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
> You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
> You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
> jacketed.
> You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
> You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
> You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
> You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
> You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
> 11/22/63.
>
> You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Walt
What does this prove??? It proves that yer a lying little maggot....
I can retrieve the posts from a year ago if neccessary ... Remember
the posts where you insisted that the clip was EJECTED like from an M!
1 Garand.
I proved that you were wrong. And since I provided that proof it shows
that you are a cowardly liar when you say
Quote...."You make a ton of claims but back up NONE of them with any
valid proof. ".... Unquote
2) The WC used the ad from the American Rifleman
They did NOT use it, they referenced it, they USED the November
"Field
& Stream" ad given to them by your pal Holmes.
God damn you to hell you little maggot ... You claimed the WC never
acknowledged the American Rifleman ad
I PROVED that the most certainly DID acknowledge the AR ad ...and you
even admitted that I had provided positive proof to back up my
statement...
And now you have the total lack of integrity to claim: "You make a
ton of claims but back up NONE of them with any valid proof."
Calling you a maggot is demeaning to maggots.
3) The Lifshultz bill of lading
What did you prove about this??? You are delusional if you think this
> proves LHO ordered a 40" rifle, or just a plain old liar.
>
> > The fact that you have the problem I've outlined below does NOT alter
> > the fact that I presented the PROOF
>
> LOL!!! Walt calls this stuff PROOF, now wonder he is confused as he
> fails to understand what proof is.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On 22 Oct, 15:30, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
Hey Tom you senile, old queer.... The post was directed to Rob....Are
you so confused that you don't even know yer true identity anymore??
A LOT of us Sure know Your "true identity" Wally ! !
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
Your wife's Sucking abilities sometimes "Drains" me Wally.
Plus I address your Lies that you RUN from every chance I get.
robcap...@netscape.com
Here we go again!!! Why did Walt cut out this part: "How does this
prove a
clip was IN the rifle at the time of discovery?"
Why is he ONLY focusing on how the clip departs INSTEAD of whether it
was IN the rifle or not?
Just more distraction by Walt.
> Quote...."You make a ton of claims but back up NONE of them with any
> valid proof. ".... Unquote
Yes, and again I ask how does having the clip fall out instead of
eject prove the clip was IN the rifle when it was discovered? Why do
you keep skipping this part?
> 2) The WC used the ad from the American Rifleman
>
> They did NOT use it, they referenced it, they USED the November
> "Field
> & Stream" ad given to them by your pal Holmes.
>
> God damn you to hell you little maggot ... You claimed the WC never
> acknowledged the American Rifleman ad
I did, but you have added, and keep adding, *USED*, they NEVER used
the ad as it is NOT found in the evidence section of the Exhibits.
> I PROVED that the most certainly DID acknowledge the AR ad ...and you
> even admitted that I had provided positive proof to back up my
> statement...
Again, I ask how does this PROVE LHO ordered a 40" Carcano? This is
how that statement came up. You are NOT offering proof for your
claims, you are playing games.
> And now you have the total lack of integrity to claim: "You make a
> ton of claims but back up NONE of them with any valid proof."
You HAVEN'T PROVED ANYTHING!
> Calling you a maggot is demeaning to maggots.
Whatever, like words from a liar and a WC shill really bother me.
> 3) The Lifshultz bill of lading
>
> What did you prove about this??? You are delusional if you think this
> > proves LHO ordered a 40" rifle, or just a plain old liar.
Well, at least he agrees with this one.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 21, 5:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2e830155-39fd-41a0-bc22-d1bcc12c3...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Oct 20, 9:34=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
>> >> > hysterical.
>>
>> >> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
>> >> ours.....
>>
>> >> Walt:
>>
>> >> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
>> >> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
>> >> troll pretending to be a CTer.
>>
>> >have hurt the cause of CTers!
>>
>> There is no proof you will accept. So the challenge is meaningless.
>
>NO it isn't, show everyone where I have said things that support the
>WC's position like Walt does on a daily basis and you let slide.
You see? Once again, you're in denial mode. I can *EASILY* demonstrate that
you have "hurt the cause of CT'ers", but you refuse to even look at the proof.
So there is no proof that you will accept. The "challenge" is meaningless.
As merely one example - your assertions about ballistics testing is flat wrong
and unscientific - but you can't name a SINGLE citation that supports your
faith. Nor can you name a SINGLE reference that you'd accept as a basis for
deciding whether or not you are wrong.
Not one.
Any honest person would immediately state: let's look it up in any standard text
on forensics or ballistics - but you refuse to even examine such citations.
So no, Rob - there's *NOTHING* you would accept.
And when you refuse to accept any objective outside 'standard' - then by
definition, you're speaking of faith.
And the JFK case doesn't require faith... it only requires the evidence.
>> But to the average person - to have someone who can't parse simple logic,
>> and who makes scientifically indefensible assertions - clearly "hurts" the
>> cause.
>
>This is YOUR opinion and we know your opinion is that ONLY CTers are
>here for the attack by you. When was the last time you had a 3 week
>dialog with the LNers?
You don't differentiate between LNT'ers & trolls... I do.
LNT'ers don't stick around for debates... they generally run away. You may
reference my "debates" with John McAdams, for example.
>I know I have conversed with you on quite a
>few topics that went 3 weeks and NO matter what I put up as cites you
>just IGNORED them and acted like I did not provide any.
You haven't. This is really simple, Rob - when you make an assertion, and I
challenge you to provide a citation - THE CITATION MUST SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION
THAT I'M CHALLENGING, NOT SOME OTHER TOPIC!
So you can duck and run away, Rob - but what you CAN'T do is provide a citation
for your mistaken beliefs about only two possible conclusions from ballistics
testing.
>This is a LNer tactic.
Ducking and running? Not providing citations? Absolutely!
>> Because many people will simply look at some of your assertions and say
>> "what a kook - I need to go look at the other side of the issue..."
>
>Again your opinion,
Kooks will never imagine that honest people can look at them and see a kook.
>but when they read how you and Walt defend the WC
When you have to lie, all you've done is demonstrate that you're a liar, nothing
more.
You will *NEVER* be able to substantiate any such assertion about me "defending"
the WC. Nor will you even try.
>they will surely look at our side, the CT side, and that is a big plus
>for us.
Got news for you, kook... the minute you mention a moon hoax, or that the Masons
own the moon, or that the Government was behind a conspiracy to take down the
Twin Towers, you've branded yourself in the eyes of most Americans. And not in
a good way...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 22, 10:01=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3b74f4df-894d-4309-9d70-1f447cd2a...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Gil Jesus says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>ote:
>>
>> >> Just my two cents worth... I've always admired Dennis Praeger and his =
>sta=3D
>> >tement
>> >> that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>>
>at, I'd p=3D
>> >refer an honest
>> >> assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see some=
>one=3D
>> >,
>> >> LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
>>
>> >And I have no problem with that Ben.
>>
>> >I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
>> >whatever by someone who I never insulted.
>>
>> >I have a problem when I say something in private and the person I say
>> >it to goes public with it.
>>
>> >There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
>> >they show it in the way they deal with people.
>>
>> >We don't get enough sh*t from the trolls, now we have to put up with
>> >it from our own side.
>>
>> >Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
>>
>> >That's what he seems to want.
>>
>rms of
>> truth vs untruth. =A0Fact vs fiction. Evidence vs 'Opinion & speculation'=
>.
>>
>> I suspect that you tend to see things in terms of "us" vs. "them" - and w=
>hen a
>> "us vs them" meets someone who is more interested in the actual facts tha=
>n
>> 'brotherhood', you get situations like this - or so my opinion goes...
>>
>t to be
>> dogmatic about their beliefs in this case, I know *my* opinions have chan=
>ged
>> over the years as I better understood the evidence based on posts by you,=
> Walt,
>> Don Willis, and countless others that I'm failing to name right now...
>>
>hree
>> different conclusions possible when ballistically testing a bullet:
>>
>> 1. It matches the test bullet
>> 2. It does not match the test bullet
>> 3. Inconclusive - cannot state whether it matches or not.
>>
> to
>> KNOW that the other person is an idiot. =A0A kook. =A0A liar. =A0Whatever=
> other name
>> you want to put to that person. =A0So although I wasn't paying much atten=
>tion, and
>> don't recall where Walt called you an idiot, I can well understand exactl=
>y *WHY*
>> such situations come up.
>
>FOR THE RECORD: I have said you can have a inconclusive result,
Yep... and you said it was identical to a non-match.
It's not.
>in
>fact, I think I said you can claim anything you want as a "ballistic
>expert", but my point has always been you won't get a conviction in a
>court of law with an inconclusive.
This has *nothing* to do with the court system. As I've repeatedly pointed out.
Rob didn't mention the legal system in that first post - and although he's
constantly tried to drag it in, EVEN ROB CAN'T PROVIDE A LEGAL CITATION FOR HIS
SILLY ASSERTION THAT THERE'S ONLY TWO POSSIBLE RESULTS OF A BALLISTICS TEST.
>It requires a match to do this,
>and I offered Ben the chance to find one case that did have an
>inconclusive result that resulted in a guilty verdict (without NAA or
>another assassination) and he balked.
Neither did I provide any proof that Fire Engines are generally painted red.
It's not germane to the topic.
>This is why NAA was "invented"
Neither is NAA germane to the topic. Rob is wandering...
Not ONE SINGLE CITATION YET!!
>as it allowed the prosecution to claim
>someone was guilty even though their gun, or the gun the DA said was
>used and was in the possession of the defendent, was NOT matched to
>the bullets and or casings at the scene and in the victim. Remember,
>each weapon has a UNIQUE barrel characteristic, so the chance of NOT
>matching a bullet or a casing to it if it was fired from it are
>impossible
Simply untrue. Nay, an outright lie at this point, since Rob has been given
authoritative cites that state otherwise.
>based on this fact (expection being if it was too deformed
>for testing). Ben want so to argue about two fragments found in the
>limo many hours later with NO chain of custody attached to them, why?
>Why is he defending the claims of the WC here?
I'll also argue that JFK is dead. Why are you defending the WC on this point,
Rob?
>This is what I have said all along, but Ben has twisted it into
>something else to suit his needs.
I can QUOTE your exact words, Rob. No need to twist anything, you've stated it
again in this very post. You're a liar, kook!
>He doesn't want to discuss court,
Not germane. You refuse to discuss U-238 vs U-235 as well. Why is that, Rob?
Why do you keep ducking this issue?
>a trick of the LNers by the way, but he fails to grasp this is a murder
>case and a court would have been involved if not for the DPD allowing
>LHO to be gunned down while in their custody.
Can't defend your original statement, can you Rob?
>> Were *you* to claim, as Rob does, that an "inconclusive" result is identi=
>cal to
>> a "does not match" conclusion, I'd call *YOU* an idiot as well. =A0And be=
> rather
>> justified in doing so.
>
>In a court of law it is the same.
No Rob, it is not. Nor can you provide even ONE SINGLE CITATION for that
assertion. You're a liar.
>> Tis my opinion, take it for what it's worth...
>
>It is a shame he has NO opinion for all of Walt's lies, but as we see
>here, he is himself defending the WC's claims so why would he call out
>Walt for doing the same thing?
When you have to lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're
a liar.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 21, 5:35=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 8:12 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>tatement
>> > that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>>
>n honest
>> > assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see someo=
>ne,
>> > LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
>>
>> And I have no problem with that Ben.
>>
>> I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
>> whatever by someone who I never insulted.
>>
>> I have a problem when I say something in private and the person I say
>> it to goes public with it.
>>
>> There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
>> they show it in the way they deal with people.
>>
>> We don't get enough sh*t from the trolls, now we have to put up with
>> it from our own side.
>>
>> Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
>>
>> That's what he seems to want.
>
>Gil, I haven't even checked to see if Ben responded to you yet, but my
>guess is Ben will give you the same spiel about the "truth" being
>paramount if he responds. He and Walt have say there are NO sides as
>they spend all their time attacking CTers.
>
>This is my guess on why they use this mantra so often.
>
>IF truth was the real goal of Ben's why would he stand by and allow
>Walt to lie about so many issues that defend the WC's position? The
>excuse of "I have NO interest" is baloney if he is here for the truth
>as he says he is.
Still molesting your mother, I see. Doesn't it embarrass you, Rob? Doesn't it
embarrass your mother?
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <2e830155-39fd-41a0-bc22-d1bcc12c3...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >On Oct 20, 9:34=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
> >> > hysterical.
>
> >> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
> >> ours.....
>
> >> Walt:
>
> >> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
> >> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
> >> troll pretending to be a CTer.
>
> >have hurt the cause of CTers!
>
> There is no proof you will accept. So the challenge is meaningless.
>
> who makes scientifically indefensible assertions - clearly "hurts" the cause.
>
> kook - I need to go look at the other side of the issue..."
Doesn't that sound an awful lot like the sensation people get from
looking at your *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory? You have been running
like a man possessed from any discussion of your failed theory since
March. It probably wouldn't hurt your "cause" if you (finally)
admitted that you were wrong.
> > > It seems that his agenda is:
>
> >> a.) to discredit CTers with his foolishness
>
> >Wrong, I only discredit men who lie constantly about the evidence like
> >Walt. Look at "Wally World" for all of his LIES that benefit the WC's
> >position for proof.
>
> >> and
>
> >> b.) drive a wedge between CTers. The old "divide and conquer"
> >> technique. It seems that he's been at it between yourself and Tom
> >> Rossley and again between yourself and Ben Holmes.
>
> >What??? What is he blabbing on about??? The only two on here who have
> >attacked CTers (real ones too unlike Walt) constantly is Walt and
> >"Anobody But Walt" (ABW). He is mad as we are exposing him for what
> >he is - a WC shill.
>
> >> I've had my suspicions about this clown ever since he arrived on the
> >> scene and the trolls tried to pass him off as me. Of course, he denied
> >> it, but it seemed that he agreed with almost everything I posted, thus
> >> adding fuel to the fire that we were the same person.
>
> >Even this is a LIE, can this guy EVER STOP LYING???? The trolls,
> >a.k.a. Walt's friends, accused me of being Gil, NOT Walt. They KNEW
> >Walt was one of them.
>
> >> That sounded the little "alarm" in me.
>
> >How can something that NEVER happened set off an "alarm" in Walt????
>
> >By the way, don't you like how Dave has SET UP Walt for this
> >repsonse??? Give another assist to Dave.
>
> >> Why would someone deny something, then do everything they could to
> >> imply the opposite ?
>
> >When did I ever deny being you???? Prove this statement (of course we
> >will discover ice in the desert before Walt ever provides proof of
> >anything, but I have to demand it nonetheless) as I never claimed to
> >be you. I was said to be Gil.
>
> >> It also seems to me that with the passage of time, he himself is
> >> becoming less of a target of the meat heads.
>
> >What a loser, he is like a man on his last leg, grasping for straws,
> >anything to stay in the "sheep dip" of being a CTer, but it is too
> >late.
>
> >> These are just a few of my thoughts on the guy and I wanted to share
> >> them with you.
>
> >Thanks to Dave you were able to, and thanks to your lying ways we see
> >further proof of what a liar you are.
>
> >> The man that sent me this E mail probably won't want to admit that he
> >> sent it.......But It's genuine believe me.
>
> >Sure, the "dreaded e-mail" stuff, more accusations WITHOUT proof by
> >Walt. IF the person won't step up and admit he sent it so I can
> >counter it (if any such e-mail really even exists) then he is a liar
> >like you.
>
> >> Oh and BTW ....Thank you for recognizing who is the basher and who is
> >> the recipient ....... That indicates that you do some ability to
> >> reason....
>
> >More wink-wink stuff with Dave his underling. Poor Walt, all he has
> >NOW is his shill friends.-
Walt
> In article <bf14ab1b-76cd-4342-b068-6f1395bc4...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that true Rob?? Are you still doin that?
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> In article <bf14ab1b-76cd-4342-b068-6f1395bc4...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 21, 5:35=3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 21, 8:12 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>s s=3D
>> >tatement
>> >> > that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>>
>r a=3D
>> >n honest
>> >> > assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see so=
>meo=3D
>> >ne,
>> >> > LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
>>
>> >> And I have no problem with that Ben.
>>
>> >> I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
>> >> whatever by someone who I never insulted.
>>
>> >> I have a problem when I say something in private and the person I say
>> >> it to goes public with it.
>>
>> >> There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
>> >> they show it in the way they deal with people.
>>
>> >> We don't get enough sh*t from the trolls, now we have to put up with
>> >> it from our own side.
>>
>> >> Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
>>
>> >> That's what he seems to want.
>>
>> >Gil, I haven't even checked to see if Ben responded to you yet, but my
>> >guess is Ben will give you the same spiel about the "truth" being
>> >they spend all their time attacking CTers.
>>
>> >This is my guess on why they use this mantra so often.
>>
>> >IF truth was the real goal of Ben's why would he stand by and allow
>> >Walt to lie about so many issues that defend the WC's position? The
>> >excuse of "I have NO interest" is baloney if he is here for the truth
>> >as he says he is.
>>
>> Still molesting your mother, I see. Doesn't it embarrass you, Rob?
>> Doesn't it embarrass your mother?
>>
>
Rob is someone that you have to keep whacking upside the head with a two by four
just to get his attention. I've told him repeatedly that I've disagreed with
Walt - and Walt certainly remembers ... I recall Walt that you mentioned some
disagreements that I'd completely forgotten... but I told Rob that each time he
tries this assertion that Walt can't be a target of my posts - I'd say something
equally offensive to him.
And so far, Rob hasn't commented. He knows *BEYOND ALL DOUBT* that I don't hold
Walt up to be a paragon of truth (although, compared to a few of the trolls such
as Bud or DVP, he surely is), yet Rob is willing to *continue* to lie about it.
So I'll continue to post disparaging comments about his Freudian fantasies with
his mother. One good truth deserves another, right?
Walt
> In article <1d5a97dc-111f-4131-adc5-01cb7d60f...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Ben, I'm fairly certain that Rob is a plant.... His goal is to destroy
my credibility. I'm sure you've noticed that one of his primary aims
is to get you to attack me. I believe I'm his primary target, but
he'd also like to get you too. I can see rhat he's fairly intelligent
and on that basis I have a real problem believing that he has NO
reasoning ability at all. A person can't be as intelligent as Rob
seems to be and totally devoid of any ability to reason. He's an agent
for someone.
>
> And so far, Rob hasn't commented. He knows *BEYOND ALL DOUBT* that I don't hold
> Walt up to be a paragon of truth (although, compared to a few of the trolls such
> as Bud or DVP, he surely is), yet Rob is willing to *continue* to lie about it.
>
> So I'll continue to post disparaging comments about his Freudian fantasies with
> his mother. One good truth deserves another, right?- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 22 Oct, 16:36, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Oct 21, 5:35=3D3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 21, 8:12 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
> hi=3D
>> >s s=3D3D
>> >> >tatement
>> >> >> > that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>>
>efe=3D
>> >r a=3D3D
>> >> >n honest
>> >> >> > assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see=
> so=3D
>> >meo=3D3D
>> >> >ne,
>> >> >> > LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
>>
>> >> >> And I have no problem with that Ben.
>>
>> >> >> I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
>> >> >> whatever by someone who I never insulted.
>>
>ay
>> >> >> it to goes public with it.
>>
>> >> >> There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
>> >> >> they show it in the way they deal with people.
>>
>h
>> >> >> it from our own side.
>>
>> >> >> Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
>>
>> >> >> That's what he seems to want.
>>
>y
>> >> >guess is Ben will give you the same spiel about the "truth" being
>s as
>> >> >they spend all their time attacking CTers.
>>
>> >> >This is my guess on why they use this mantra so often.
>>
>> >> >IF truth was the real goal of Ben's why would he stand by and allow
>> >> >Walt to lie about so many issues that defend the WC's position? The
>> >> >excuse of "I have NO interest" is baloney if he is here for the truth
>> >> >as he says he is.
>>
>> >> Still molesting your mother, I see. Doesn't it embarrass you, Rob?
>> >> Doesn't it embarrass your mother?
>>
>>
>> Rob is someone that you have to keep whacking upside the head with a two =
>by four
>> just to get his attention. =A0I've told him repeatedly that I've disagree=
>d with
>> Walt - and Walt certainly remembers ... I recall Walt that you mentioned =
>some
>> disagreements that I'd completely forgotten... but I told Rob that each t=
>ime he
>> tries this assertion that Walt can't be a target of my posts - I'd say so=
>mething
>> equally offensive to him.
>
>Ben, I'm fairly certain that Rob is a plant.... His goal is to destroy
>my credibility. I'm sure you've noticed that one of his primary aims
>is to get you to attack me. I believe I'm his primary target, but
>he'd also like to get you too. I can see rhat he's fairly intelligent
>and on that basis I have a real problem believing that he has NO
>reasoning ability at all. A person can't be as intelligent as Rob
>seems to be and totally devoid of any ability to reason. He's an agent
>for someone.
I'll have to disagree. His posts indicate a basic inability to reason... so I
think that he's simply trying to bite off more than he can chew.
And as such, comes off as a liar.
>> And so far, Rob hasn't commented. =A0He knows *BEYOND ALL DOUBT* that I d=
>on't hold
>> Walt up to be a paragon of truth (although, compared to a few of the trol=
>ls such
>> as Bud or DVP, he surely is), yet Rob is willing to *continue* to lie abo=
>ut it.
>>
>> So I'll continue to post disparaging comments about his Freudian fantasie=
>s with
>> his mother. =A0One good truth deserves another, right?- Hide quoted text =
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <22579efc-4957-4b11-9538-ce32cdd2e...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 21, 5:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <2e830155-39fd-41a0-bc22-d1bcc12c3...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Oct 20, 9:34=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
> >> >> > hysterical.
>
> >> >> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
> >> >> ours.....
>
> >> >> Walt:
>
> >> >> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
> >> >> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
> >> >> troll pretending to be a CTer.
>
> >> >Your OPINION is NOT worth much as you are a WC shill!!! =A0Prove where I
> >> >have hurt the cause of CTers!
>
> >> There is no proof you will accept. So the challenge is meaningless.
>
> >NO it isn't, show everyone where I have said things that support the
> >WC's position like Walt does on a daily basis and you let slide.
>
> You see? Once again, you're in denial mode. I can *EASILY* demonstrate that
> you have "hurt the cause of CT'ers", but you refuse to even look at the proof.
List it. You are the ONE defending the WC's claims in regards to
ballistics, NOT me. This isn't even an area of INTEREST for Ben, but
because it is me, instead of Walt, ABW (Anybody But Walt) is in the
attack mode.
This is why there are so few CTers here, between Walt and Ben they
have left. When will Ben take on LNers like this???
> So there is no proof that you will accept. The "challenge" is meaningless.
NO it isn't, you're a liar. Tom has listed the majority of claims
Walt has made (there are even more) that he has failed to prove and
hurt the CT cause, you could do the same if you could. I have NEVER
defended the WC's point or view or claims, but you and Walt sure have.
> As merely one example - your assertions about ballistics testing is flat wrong
> and unscientific - but you can't name a SINGLE citation that supports your
> faith. Nor can you name a SINGLE reference that you'd accept as a basis for
> deciding whether or not you are wrong.
>
> Not one.
Sure did liar, I guess Ben thinks the fact that each barrel has a
UNIQUE barrel characteristic (meaning it will leave a UNIQUE mark on
the bullet and casing to the exclusion of all others) is NOT
important. He referenced ballistic "fingerprinting" (using this
UNIQUE characteristic to ID a particular weapon) and NOW he is
ignoring it.
I am NOT worried though because Bud thinks he is right.
> Any honest person would immediately state: let's look it up in any standard text
> on forensics or ballistics - but you refuse to even examine such citations.
You point is does NOT prove the weapon in question was the murder
weaopn, and this is a murder case so what are you arguing again? Why
are you DEFENDING the lame tactics of the WC again?
> So no, Rob - there's *NOTHING* you would accept.
Ben, you could easily lay out all the times I supported or defended
the WC like you and Walt, but you CAN'T because I have never done so.
You weak attempt to blame me for what I will accept is noted for what
it is - a diversion. For if I had ever done so (supported or
defended the WC) Ben would have NO problem listing it.
> And when you refuse to accept any objective outside 'standard' - then by
> definition, you're speaking of faith.
Ben keeps MISSING the part of me saying you can claim something is
INCONCLUSIVE but it WON'T prove the weapon was used, this is the SAME
result as a NON-match. I.E. NO FIRM PROOF EITHER WAY. Is he missing
it, or just lying again to keep the heat of his WC shill pal Walt?
> And the JFK case doesn't require faith... it only requires the evidence.
Yes, and the WC had NONE for the rifle, bullets and fragments that
linked LHO to the murder. You are a liar if you say they did. Why is
Ben so concerned with keeping the POSSIBILITY of LHO being the shooter
open????
> >> But to the average person - to have someone who can't parse simple logic,
> >> and who makes scientifically indefensible assertions - clearly "hurts" the
> >> cause.
>
> >This is YOUR opinion and we know your opinion is that ONLY CTers are
> >here for the attack by you. When was the last time you had a 3 week
> >dialog with the LNers?
>
> You don't differentiate between LNT'ers & trolls... I do.
So this is saying I'm a troll, prove it then. Show where I am
defending and supporting the WC cause like you and Walt are.
This is why I was dissappointed in what Gil said about me the most. I
respect him and was sorry to hear say I may be a troll. I have NEVER
supported, defended or made a claim that supports the WC's take on
things, so I am at a lost for why he thought I was a troll when you
and Walt are as obvious as the nose on his face in my book.
> LNT'ers don't stick around for debates... they generally run away. You may
> reference my "debates" with John McAdams, for example.
This is NOT true either, as Bud is relentless, as is DVP for most of
the time, they say nothing that makes any sense, but they "stick"
around. You are lying again.
> >I know I have conversed with you on quite a
> >few topics that went 3 weeks and NO matter what I put up as cites you
> >just IGNORED them and acted like I did not provide any.
>
> You haven't. This is really simple, Rob - when you make an assertion, and I
> challenge you to provide a citation - THE CITATION MUST SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION
> THAT I'M CHALLENGING, NOT SOME OTHER TOPIC!
So you decide what are good cites and what are NOT??? Thanks for
admitting it is a waste of time talking with you. You are a troll
under your "OWN" definition for this alone. I have not put up cites
that were on a different topic than the one we are discussing, you are
the one that does that by IGNORING the topic of the thread constantly.
> So you can duck and run away, Rob - but what you CAN'T do is provide a citation
> for your mistaken beliefs about only two possible conclusions from ballistics
> testing.
I have NEVER run from you Ben, in fact, I would say I have wasted more
time with you than anyone else here. Most CTers are smarter than me,
they ignore you.
> >This is a LNer tactic.
>
> Ducking and running? Not providing citations? Absolutely!
I like how Ben seperates this comment from the action I said he did
and then uses it against me. If this isn't a LNer tactic I don't know
what is.
> >> Because many people will simply look at some of your assertions and say
> >> "what a kook - I need to go look at the other side of the issue..."
>
> >Again your opinion,
>
> Kooks will never imagine that honest people can look at them and see a kook.
You see a kook because you are really a LNer. I always wondered why
Ben stuck to the basic questions of the WC's lies (like any 3rd grader
didn't know the whole thing was a lie to begin with) instead of really
searching for the whole truth of what happened, but like Walt, the
LNers in "sheep-dip" stick to things that don't really show who was
responsible for the conspiracy.
Ben is a man who claims to believe in a conspiracy in the cases of
Lincoln, JFK and RFK (that I have seen him say) but he finds the issue
of conspiracy being possible at Pearl Harbor, the moon landing or 9/11
to name just a few as being out of the question. Let's see they lied
to us in those assassinations (MLK too), they buried the truth about
his beloved Bush's role in the overthrow of FDR to make us a Fascist
country, the attempted assassination on Jackson, the assassination of
McKinley (it seems he was recovering until his "doctor" dug deep for
the bullet and caused a major wound to form which became infected -
this was the REAL cause of death), Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal
(Bushes involved), the S&L scandal (Bushes involved), the "Maine"
episode, and the "Gulf of Tonkin" episode to just name some. Ah, what
the heck, Ben is right, they have NEVER lied to us except for those
three times.
> >but when they read how you and Walt defend the WC
>
> When you have to lie, all you've done is demonstrate that you're a liar, nothing
> more.
Yes, you and Walt have DEMONSTRATED this quite well - thanks!
> You will *NEVER* be able to substantiate any such assertion about me "defending"
> the WC. Nor will you even try.
You are doing it right now, you are arguing over ballistic claims made
by the WC and then you offer cites from organizations that were
involved in the coverup for the WC (i.e. FBI). Nice try and ducking
this one, but it WON'T work.
> >they will surely look at our side, the CT side, and that is a big plus
> >for us.
>
> Got news for you, kook... the minute you mention a moon hoax, or that the Masons
> own the moon, or that the Government was behind a conspiracy to take down the
> Twin Towers, you've branded yourself in the eyes of most Americans. And not in
> a good way...
Really??? I guess Ben is as delusional about polls in those cases as
he claims the "LNers" are about JFK polls. More Americans have
questions about both of those than don't.
Since when is asking questions a "Kooky" thing to do??? Oh that is
right, when you DEFEND the government lies you are a "kook" for asking
questions that don't support their lies. Thanks for showing your true
colors Ben.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <bf14ab1b-76cd-4342-b068-6f1395bc4...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are sick one Ben, I will pray for your soul nonetheless. God
Bless you! I think the Marines did damage to another one. I see the
suicide rate is astronomical for our poor men and women coming back
from the front.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> >Is that true Rob?? Are you still doin that?
>
> Rob is someone that you have to keep whacking upside the head with a two by four
> just to get his attention. I've told him repeatedly that I've disagreed with
> Walt - and Walt certainly remembers ... I recall Walt that you mentioned some
> disagreements that I'd completely forgotten... but I told Rob that each time he
> tries this assertion that Walt can't be a target of my posts - I'd say something
> equally offensive to him.
You are sick person Ben and if you think this is what you have to do
to discuss something with me or anyone else I pity you. I have had it
with you, I will not talk with someone like you.
You are a sad individual.
robcap...@netscape.com
The sad part Walt doesn't want to admit is HE destroyed is OWN
credibility.
Walt
wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you because you're a stupid bastard, but
I don't think my ceibility is destroyed. I'm I've got absolute and
total faith that anybody reading these posts will know who is credible
and who is a nut.
tomnln
Wally wrote;
It may come as a surprise to you because you're a stupid bastard, but
I don't think my ceibility is destroyed. I'm I've got absolute and
total faith that anybody reading these posts will know who is credible
and who is a nut.
I write;
We SURE Hope So ! ! !
Here are some of Wally's Lyin Stupid Bastard "claims">>>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 22, 5:26=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <22579efc-4957-4b11-9538-ce32cdd2e...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 21, 5:07=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <2e830155-39fd-41a0-bc22-d1bcc12c3...@g61g2000hsf.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Oct 20, 9:34=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Oct, 17:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Watching a mega-kook like Walt bash another mega-kook like Rob is
>> >> >> > hysterical.
>>
>> >> >> Pssst Pea Brain.... not everybody is so sure that Robcap is one of
>> >> >> ours.....
>>
>> >> >> Walt:
>>
>> >> >> This is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm
>> >> >> beginning to believe that this Robcap character is just another LN
>> >> >> troll pretending to be a CTer.
>>
>ere I
>> >> >have hurt the cause of CTers!
>>
>> >> There is no proof you will accept. So the challenge is meaningless.
>>
>> >NO it isn't, show everyone where I have said things that support the
>> >WC's position like Walt does on a daily basis and you let slide.
>>
>> You see? Once again, you're in denial mode. I can *EASILY* demonstrate that
>> you have "hurt the cause of CT'ers", but you refuse to even look at the
>> proof.
>
>List it.
Given below in the post you were responding to.
>You are the ONE defending the WC's claims in regards to
>ballistics, NOT me.
Tell us Rob, why do you defend the WC's claim that JFK was shot dead?
>This isn't even an area of INTEREST for Ben,
Glad that you're an expert on my interests. For surely, I've demonstrated my
expertise in yours... such as your Freudian interest in your mother.
>but because it is me, instead of Walt, ABW (Anybody But Walt) is in the
>attack mode.
>
>This is why there are so few CTers here, between Walt and Ben they
>have left. When will Ben take on LNers like this???
Still speaking about your mother, I see. Doesn't it embarrass her?
>> So there is no proof that you will accept. The "challenge" is meaningless.
>
>NO it isn't, you're a liar.
Then it would be a simple matter to list any evidence that you *WOULD* accept.
Yet you can't.
>Tom has listed the majority of claims
>Walt has made (there are even more) that he has failed to prove and
>hurt the CT cause, you could do the same if you could. I have NEVER
>defended the WC's point or view or claims,
Of course you have. Unless you're willing to step up to the plate and deny the
WC's theory that JFK was shot to death - then yes indeed, you ARE defending a
point of view held by the WC.
>but you and Walt sure have.
>
>
>> As merely one example - your assertions about ballistics testing is flat
>> wrong and unscientific - but you can't name a SINGLE citation that
>> supports your faith. Nor can you name a SINGLE reference that you'd accept
>> as a basis for deciding whether or not you are wrong.
>>
>> Not one.
>
>Sure did liar,
Nope... you didn't. Nor will you ever do so.
>I guess Ben thinks the fact that each barrel has a
>UNIQUE barrel characteristic (meaning it will leave a UNIQUE mark on
>the bullet
As every reasonably complete forensics manual will tell you, that's simply not
true.
But Rob can't provide a SINGLE citation for this belief of his.
>and casing to the exclusion of all others) is NOT
>important. He referenced ballistic "fingerprinting" (using this
>UNIQUE characteristic to ID a particular weapon) and NOW he is
>ignoring it.
Strangely enough, you argued that I didn't know what I was talking about when I
proposed that analogy... now you've taken it to heart... but dead silence if
anyone looks for an admission from you that I *was* correct.
>I am NOT worried though because Bud thinks he is right.
Probably 99.9% of America agrees with the WC when they asserted that JFK was
shot dead.
>> Any honest person would immediately state: let's look it up in any
>> standard text on forensics or ballistics - but you refuse to even
>> examine such citations.
>
>You point is does NOT prove the weapon in question was the murder
>weaopn,
Of course not. Nor does it prove that most Fire Engines are painted red.
What it *DOES* prove is that your assertion was flat wrong.
>and this is a murder case so what are you arguing again? Why
>are you DEFENDING the lame tactics of the WC again?
>
>
>> So no, Rob - there's *NOTHING* you would accept.
>
>Ben, you could easily lay out all the times I supported or defended
>the WC like you and Walt, but you CAN'T because I have never done so.
Of course you have.
You *DO* believe that JFK was shot to death, just as the WC asserted.
>You weak attempt to blame me for what I will accept is noted for what
>it is - a diversion. For if I had ever done so (supported or
>defended the WC) Ben would have NO problem listing it.
Just did. I can list other agreements you have with the WC, given any interest
in the topic.
>> And when you refuse to accept any objective outside 'standard' - then by
>> definition, you're speaking of faith.
>
>Ben keeps MISSING the part of me saying you can claim something is
>INCONCLUSIVE but it WON'T prove the weapon was used, this is the SAME
>result as a NON-match.
Wasn't your original claim - and I have no interest in topic changing.
>I.E. NO FIRM PROOF EITHER WAY.
Actually, you've asserted that an "inconclusive" result is identical to a
"negative" result.
Have you decided to change your mind?
>Is he missing
>it, or just lying again to keep the heat of his WC shill pal Walt?
Your mother shouldn't be subjected to your Freudian fantasies, Rob.
>> And the JFK case doesn't require faith... it only requires the evidence.
>
>Yes, and the WC had NONE for the rifle, bullets and fragments that
>linked LHO to the murder.
Partially untrue. Lies aren't needed, Rob - only the truth is.
>You are a liar if you say they did.
Then you should have no problems citing the evidence for your assertion, right?
>Why is Ben so concerned with keeping the POSSIBILITY of LHO being the shooter
>open????
He wasn't. That *IS* what the evidence shows. Why are you so concerned with
lying all the time, Rob?
>> >> But to the average person - to have someone who can't parse simple
>> >> logic, and who makes scientifically indefensible assertions - clearly
>> >> "hurts" the cause.
>>
>> >This is YOUR opinion and we know your opinion is that ONLY CTers are
>> >here for the attack by you. =A0When was the last time you had a 3 week
>> >dialog with the LNers?
>>
>> You don't differentiate between LNT'ers & trolls... I do.
>
>So this is saying I'm a troll, prove it then.
Another excellent example of your inability to parse logic.
>Show where I am
>defending and supporting the WC cause like you and Walt are.
>
>This is why I was dissappointed in what Gil said about me the most. I
>respect him and was sorry to hear say I may be a troll. I have NEVER
>supported, defended or made a claim that supports the WC's take on
>things,
Of course you have. You defend their statement that JFK was shot to death. Why
do you do that, Rob?
>so I am at a lost for why he thought I was a troll when you
>and Walt are as obvious as the nose on his face in my book.
>
>
>> LNT'ers don't stick around for debates... they generally run away. You may
>> reference my "debates" with John McAdams, for example.
>
>This is NOT true either,
And yet, I just provided the citation that proves it. That you aren't willing
to look at it means nothing to me.
>as Bud is relentless, as is DVP for most of
>the time, they say nothing that makes any sense, but they "stick"
>around. You are lying again.
Both Bud & DVP are trolls. Whether *you* believe so or not.
>> >I know I have conversed with you on quite a
>> >few topics that went 3 weeks and NO matter what I put up as cites you
>> >just IGNORED them and acted like I did not provide any.
>>
>> You haven't. This is really simple, Rob - when you make an assertion, and I
>> challenge you to provide a citation - THE CITATION MUST SUPPORT YOUR
>> ASSERTION THAT I'M CHALLENGING, NOT SOME OTHER TOPIC!
>
>So you decide what are good cites and what are NOT???
Of course I do. As does any reader. Citing the Kodokan doesn't do a pipefitter
any good at all when he's trying to build to code.
>Thanks for
>admitting it is a waste of time talking with you. You are a troll
>under your "OWN" definition for this alone.
Quote it.
(But you won't...)
>I have not put up cites
>that were on a different topic than the one we are discussing,
Of course you did. Why bother to lie about it, Rob? You put up a legal
citation, despite my CONSTANT reminder to you that this wasn't the original
topic. Did you forget so soon?
>you are
>the one that does that by IGNORING the topic of the thread constantly.
And yet, strangely enough, I keep bringing you back to it time after time.
Not ONE SINGLE CITATION to illustrate your position that there are only two
possible conclusions in a ballistics examination.
Or that "inconclusive" is identical to a negative result.
>> So you can duck and run away, Rob - but what you CAN'T do is provide a
>> citation for your mistaken beliefs about only two possible conclusions
>> from ballistics testing.
>
>I have NEVER run from you Ben, in fact, I would say I have wasted more
>time with you than anyone else here. Most CTers are smarter than me,
>they ignore you.
And yet, still not ONE SINGLE CITATION ... and you admitted that you refused to
read the three that I provided.
>> >This is a LNer tactic.
>>
>> Ducking and running? Not providing citations? Absolutely!
>
>I like how Ben seperates this comment from the action I said he did
>and then uses it against me. If this isn't a LNer tactic I don't know
>what is.
Still ducking and running, Rob? Where's the citation? You keep insisting that
you've already provided one - yet you can't quote it.
>> >> Because many people will simply look at some of your assertions and sa=
>y
>> >> "what a kook - I need to go look at the other side of the issue..."
>>
>> >Again your opinion,
>>
>> Kooks will never imagine that honest people can look at them and see a
>> kook.
>
>You see a kook because you are really a LNer. I always wondered why
>Ben stuck to the basic questions of the WC's lies (like any 3rd grader
>didn't know the whole thing was a lie to begin with) instead of really
>searching for the whole truth of what happened, but like Walt, the
>LNers in "sheep-dip" stick to things that don't really show who was
>responsible for the conspiracy.
Sadly, until you understand what I've stated about the assassination, you can't
pinpoint the people responsible.
>Ben is a man who claims to believe in a conspiracy in the cases of
>Lincoln, JFK and RFK (that I have seen him say) but he finds the issue
>of conspiracy being possible at Pearl Harbor, the moon landing or 9/11
>to name just a few as being out of the question
Yep... I also don't believe in the flat Earth theory. Or the hollow Earth
theory.
Indeed, I'm in the majority of Americans...
>Let's see they lied
>to us in those assassinations (MLK too), they buried the truth about
>his beloved Bush's role in the overthrow of FDR to make us a Fascist
>country,
Can you provide a definition of Facisism? (No peeking at Wikipedia now... just
give us what you know right now) - and show how Bush led us in that direction?
>the attempted assassination on Jackson, the assassination of
>McKinley (it seems he was recovering until his "doctor" dug deep for
>the bullet and caused a major wound to form which became infected -
>this was the REAL cause of death), Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal
>(Bushes involved), the S&L scandal (Bushes involved), the "Maine"
>episode, and the "Gulf of Tonkin" episode to just name some. Ah, what
>the heck, Ben is right, they have NEVER lied to us except for those
>three times.
I can show you a picture that was published nationally, showing JFK in a
wheelchair in France, AFTER 11/22/63. The government lied to you even more than
you suspect. No reason to support the false assertions of the WC.
>> >but when they read how you and Walt defend the WC
>>
>> When you have to lie, all you've done is demonstrate that you're a liar, =
>nothing
>> more.
>
>Yes, you and Walt have DEMONSTRATED this quite well - thanks!
>
>
>> You will *NEVER* be able to substantiate any such assertion about me "def=
>ending"
>> the WC. =A0Nor will you even try.
>
>You are doing it right now, you are arguing over ballistic claims made
>by the WC and then you offer cites from organizations that were
>involved in the coverup for the WC (i.e. FBI). Nice try and ducking
>this one, but it WON'T work.
Sadly, you don't seem to realize the stupidity you've just stuck your foot into.
>> >they will surely look at our side, the CT side, and that is a big plus
>> >for us.
>>
>> Got news for you, kook... the minute you mention a moon hoax, or that
>> the Masons own the moon, or that the Government was behind a conspiracy
>> to take down the Twin Towers, you've branded yourself in the eyes of most
>> Americans. And not in a good way...
>
>Really???
Yep.
>I guess Ben is as delusional about polls in those cases as
>he claims the "LNers" are about JFK polls. More Americans have
>questions about both of those than don't.
>
>Since when is asking questions a "Kooky" thing to do??? Oh that is
>right, when you DEFEND the government lies you are a "kook" for asking
>questions that don't support their lies. Thanks for showing your true
>colors Ben.
And yet, still not ONE SINGLE CITATION for Rob's wacky assertions.
Don't hold your breath anyone... For just like Tony and his assertion that Dr.
Humes burned anything at all on Saturday morning - Rob will run away forever
from supporting his own words.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 22, 5:36=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <bf14ab1b-76cd-4342-b068-6f1395bc4...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 21, 5:35=3DA0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 21, 8:12 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>s s=3D
>> >tatement
>> >> > that he prefers "clarity over agreement".
>>
>r a=3D
>> >n honest
>> >> > assessment of the evidence, rather than keeping silent when I see so=
>meo=3D
>> >ne,
>> >> > LNT'er *OR* CT'er - abuse or lie about that evidence.-
>>
>> >> And I have no problem with that Ben.
>>
>> >> I have a problem when I'm referred to as an idiot, an ignoramous or
>> >> whatever by someone who I never insulted.
>>
>> >> I have a problem when I say something in private and the person I say
>> >> it to goes public with it.
>>
>> >> There are those here who think they're better than anyone else and
>> >> they show it in the way they deal with people.
>>
>> >> We don't get enough sh*t from the trolls, now we have to put up with
>> >> it from our own side.
>>
>> >> Maybe we should just all leave Walt here with the trolls.
>>
>> >> That's what he seems to want.
>>
>> >Gil, I haven't even checked to see if Ben responded to you yet, but my
>> >guess is Ben will give you the same spiel about the "truth" being
>> >they spend all their time attacking CTers.
>>
>> >This is my guess on why they use this mantra so often.
>>
>> >IF truth was the real goal of Ben's why would he stand by and allow
>> >excuse of "I have NO interest" is baloney if he is here for the truth
>> >as he says he is.
>>
>> Still molesting your mother, I see. Doesn't it embarrass you, Rob?
>> Doesn't it embarrass your mother?
>
>Bless you! I think the Marines did damage to another one. I see the
>suicide rate is astronomical for our poor men and women coming back
>from the front.
You just don't learn, do you Rob?
Why not read your Bible and see what it says about those who lie...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 22, 9:39=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >Is that true Rob?? =A0 Are you still doin that?
>>
>> Rob is someone that you have to keep whacking upside the head with a two =
>by four
>> just to get his attention. =A0I've told him repeatedly that I've disagree=
>d with
>> Walt - and Walt certainly remembers ... I recall Walt that you mentioned =
>some
>> disagreements that I'd completely forgotten... but I told Rob that each t=
>ime he
>> tries this assertion that Walt can't be a target of my posts - I'd say so=
>mething
>> equally offensive to him.
>
>You are sick person Ben and if you think this is what you have to do
>to discuss something with me or anyone else I pity you. I have had it
>with you, I will not talk with someone like you.
>
>You are a sad individual.
I warned you time and time again not to lie, Rob. I warned you that you
wouldn't like what would come up if you continued to do so...
But you just won't learn, will you?
You know BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Walt has no special protections from
my posts disagreeing with people - yet you continue to assert otherwise.
You *CONTINUE* to lie despite knowing the truth.