What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?

[Ben Holmes]

I've often noted that believers will **NEVER** retract a statement,
even when it's proven beyond **ALL** doubt to be a lie.

Dufus recently posted this:

> Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read
> the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did,
> lurkers.

Before proving him a liar, I'd like to see if any other believers
think that Dufus will retract his lie when it's PROVEN to be a lie...

Steve?

Chucky?

Mark?

Chester?

Anyone at all?


Anyone believe stump is honest enough to acknowledge that he lied?

Or conversely, are their any believers knowledgeable enough about the
facts in this case that are willing to point out that Dufus is a liar
prior to *me* citing for it?

Anyone?

[Mark Ulrik]

"What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?"
You tell us. It seems to me that you must be willing to entertain an almost unlimited suspension of disbelief to be able to believe that the evil minions of conspiracy altered the Z film and other silly stuff. There was also your precious "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory, but you ran away from that one instead of admitting your mistake, didn't you?

[Bud]

On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 1:25:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> I've often noted that believers will **NEVER** retract a statement,
> even when it's proven beyond **ALL** doubt to be a lie.

Ironic, isn`t it lurkers? Ben just called Steve a liar for saying that Oswald wasn`t a CIA agent, while citing information that supports that Oswald wasn`t a CIA agent. He recently went into a tizzy because I challenged Don to produce a second transmission about automatic shells, and he never retracted his mistaken position that I should have included transmission about automatic *weapons*. He claimed that no SS agents said that Kennedy interfered with the security they provided, when I cited SS agents who said that he had, did he retract?

> Dufus recently posted this:
>
> > Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read
> > the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did,
> > lurkers.
>
> Before proving him a liar, I'd like to see if any other believers
> think that Dufus will retract his lie when it's PROVEN to be a lie...

<snicker> Ben is setting him up for another epic failure, lurkers. Watch how this plays out.

> Steve?
>
> Chucky?
>
> Mark?
>
> Chester?
>
> Anyone at all?
>
>
> Anyone believe stump is honest enough to acknowledge that he lied?

Does anyone here still believe that Ben can support a single thing he says?

Does anyone doubt that this will amount to bluff and bluster with no substance?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:08:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

>>"What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?"
>
> You tell us

You've just demonstrated it.

It means never admitting a lie...

It means never failing to support your fellow believers.

You've demonstrated both.

Interestingly, you refused to say anything about whether or not
evidence exists that Oswald was reading a newspaper in the Domino room
that morning.

[Bud]

Ben needs to stop with the bluff and bluster and start producing this support that I lied, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 13:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Just watching you dig a deeper hole.

Because you can't get out of this flagrant lie.

[Bud]

More bluff and bluster, lurkers. He can`t put up and he won`t shut up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Calling me a liar again... good!

Later this week, or next week, I'll post the citation that proves you
a liar.

In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
in to give the citation that I already plan to give.

I don't want anyone to whine that they knew it, and would have
provided it if I'd given them time.

So far only Mark has demonstrated himself to also be a liar.

Where are you Chucky?

Where are you Steve?

Where are you, other Steve?

Where are you Mitch?

Where are you Chester?

I want *EVERYONE* to be caught on the horns of this flagrant lie.

[Bud]

Let me steal Ben`s thunder and blow this runt out of the water now, lurkers, so he doesn`t drag it out. I know the cite, we`ve had this discussion. First my recent quote...

"Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"

This goes back to the #8 in the Bugliosi series (it should have been 9)...

"9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."

I`m almost positive the cite Ben is so proud of is from an FBI report that has...

"On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point, technically it is morning.

But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...

"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"

Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...

Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning.

So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite is an outlier, not his usual routine.

And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other mornings.

> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.

I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do now is watch Benny dance.

[Mark Ulrik]

Huh? Are you confusing me with someone who's interested in your inane drivel? I was commenting on the title. "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" Well, you believe in a LOT of really wacky stuff, Ben, so who's better equipped to answer the question than yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:23:20 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

wrote:

>søndag den 13. maj 2018 kl. 21.37.24 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:08:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>"What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?"
>> >
>> > You tell us
>>
>>
>> You've just demonstrated it.
>>
>> It means never admitting a lie...
>>
>> It means never failing to support your fellow believers.
>>
>> You've demonstrated both.
>>
>> Interestingly, you refused to say anything about whether or not
>> evidence exists that Oswald was reading a newspaper in the Domino room
>> that morning.
>
> Huh? Are you confusing me with someone who's interested in your
> inane drivel? I was commenting on the title. "What Does It Mean To Be
> A Believer?" Well, you believe in a LOT of really wacky stuff, Ben, so
> who's better equipped to answer the question than yourself?

You claim you aren't interested in the topic, yet you answer the
thread?

But you *have* helped to define a believer. Someone who is TERRIFIED
of the evidence that contradicts your belief.

And Dufus will be disappointed that you don't support him in his
claim.

[Mark Ulrik]

Do you still have faith in your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory, Ben? You always run away when we bring it up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

Logical fallacy.

But keep running from the question, Mark... it proves my point.

[Bud]

This post is Ben`s claim, lurkers. Ironic that he starts out this thread with...

"I've often noted that believers will **NEVER** retract a statement,
even when it's proven beyond **ALL** doubt to be a lie."

I don`t remember Ben ever retracting a thing he has said, despite being caught lying many times (several times recently). He needs to retract his claim that what I said about the newspaper reading that he posted in this thread was a lie, he needs to retract that Steve was a liar for saying there was no evidence Sturgis was a CIA agent, he needs to retract that I was a liar for asking Don to support a mistaken position he took about automatic shells and he needs to retract his assertion that no SS agents have ever said that Kennedy interfered with their security precautions. And he never had to the character to retract the assertions he made in the infamous Yellow Pants fiasco, even after it was shown beyond all doubt that he was mistaken. He thinks he is Smaug, and if he admits to a chink in his armor someone will put an arrow in it.

You lurkers won`t see Ben retract any of the things I`ve mentioned, but you will be able to note the hypocrisy of Ben when he makes statements like the one I quoted.

[Ben Holmes]

Time is running out for believers to place their bets on whether or
not I can cite for my claim.

Any believer who refuses to publicly state otherwise will be presumed
to have **KNOWN** that I would produce the citation dufus says I can't
produce.

Post now or forever hold your peace...

[Bud]

The usual bluff and bluster with no substance, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 1:25:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> I've often noted that believers will **NEVER** retract a statement,
>> even when it's proven beyond **ALL** doubt to be a lie.
>

> Ironic, isn`t it lurkers? Ben just...

Did absolutely *NOTHING* that is on this topic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:28:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I`m almost positive the cite Ben is so proud of is from an FBI
> report that has...
>
> "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

This is, of course EVIDENCE...

It states that Oswald was reading a newspaper.

It states that it was in the Domino Room.

It states that it was in the morning.

YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
DID.

Which "fact" did this evidence fail to state, liar?

> I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
> would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
> technically it is morning.

The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.

You're lying, stump.

> But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
>
>"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
> domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"

And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.

> Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...

YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.

The citation does *NOT* say anything to preclude reading the paper in
the Domino Room at 11:50.

That *PERFECTLY* fits the morning.

That *PERFECTLY* fits the reading of the newpaper

That *PERFECTLY* fits the Domino room.

> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there
> every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the
> paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
> Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
> didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
> morning.

You're now quoting something that I did *NOT* cite. Indeed, you're now
citing what WE KNOW TO BE A LIE.

And *YOU* know it's a lie too, because you SELECTIVELY chose that
quote.

Here's a more complete version that proves that you're quoting a lie:

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere
between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?

Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that

morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

You were afraid to give *THIS* quote... because it proves that Givens
contradicted the FBI report.

There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
*COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.

You can find it here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

> So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
> was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
> in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
> is an outlier, not his usual routine.

You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?

> And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
> Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
> usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
> mornings.

So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.

Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
well.

>> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
>> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
>
> I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
> now is watch Benny dance.

That is indeed half of the citations ...

And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.

The reading of a newpaper by Oswald in the Domino room in the morning.

YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

And a proven one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:50:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Yep... still true.

> I don`t remember Ben ever retracting a thing he has said,

Actually, I did a few years back when I made a mistaken comment
regarding a bolt action rifle.

> despite being caught lying many times (several times recently). He
> needs to retract his claim that what I said about the newspaper
> reading that he posted in this thread was a lie,

It's not a lie. You did indeed tell a lie. You pretend that I cannot
cite for Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room in the morning
as he usually did.

By the time you read this, I will have posted those cites you've lied
about.

> he needs to retract that Steve was a liar for saying there was no
> evidence Sturgis was a CIA agent,

Sturgis worked for, and was paid by the CIA. That's a dictionary
definition of "agent."

You pretend because he didn't fit an ARTIFICIAL definition by the CIA,
that he didn't work for the CIA.

That's a provable lie.

It's *STILL* a provable lie.

You've not been able to cite otherwise.

> he needs to retract that I was a liar for asking Don to support a
> mistaken position he took about automatic shells

Don's assertion was 100% correct.

It was **YOU** that applied it to something else.

> and he needs to retract his assertion that no SS agents have ever
> said that Kennedy interfered with their security precautions.

Still a true statement. You can't cite **ANY** assertion by a Secret
Service agent that JFK interfered with their security precautions.

> You lurkers won`t see Ben retract any of the things I`ve
> mentioned, but you will be able to note the hypocrisy of Ben when
> he makes statements like the one I quoted.

Why would I want to "retract" the truth?

It will be *FASCINATING* to watch how you spin the fact that I've
produced evidence that Oswald was reading a newpaper in the Domino
room in the morning as he usually did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You now have a single solitary believer who has announced that you're
not lying... and quite a few who imply by their silence that I'm the
one who's going to trash your lie.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben didn`t like his hypocrisy highlighted, lurkers. Notice he didn`t contest one of the instances I provided.

[Bud]

Nobody said it wasn`t, lurkers.

> It states that Oswald was reading a newspaper.

Nobody said it didn`t, lurkers.

> It states that it was in the Domino Room.

Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.

> It states that it was in the morning.

Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.

So now that we have dispensed with all of Ben`s strawmen we can get down to brass tacks.

> YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
> PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
> DID.

And he didn`t, lurkers. His cite doesn`t speak to Oswald`s routine of reading the newspaper when he first came into work *at all*.

> Which "fact" did this evidence fail to state, liar?

Oswald`s normal routine, lurkers. Obviously when I said "like he usually did" I was referring to Oswald`s routine of newspaper reading, which occurred when he first came into work.

> > I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
> > would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
> > technically it is morning.
>
> The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
> was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.
>
> You're lying, stump.

This shows what an idiot Ben is, lurkers. I say that if I saw someone at 10 to 12 I would never say I saw that person in the morning, and he call my assertion a lie, like he knows what I would say better than I do.

> > But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
> >
> >"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
> > domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>
>
> And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.

Ben is lying, lurkers. It doesn`t state in this cite what Oswald`s routine was, lurkers. That can be found in the testimony I produced.

> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
>
> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.

It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.

> The citation does *NOT* say anything to preclude reading the paper in
> the Domino Room at 11:50.

Or on the roof, lurkers.

> That *PERFECTLY* fits the morning.
>
> That *PERFECTLY* fits the reading of the newpaper
>
> That *PERFECTLY* fits the Domino room.

Unfortunately for Ben it doesn`t fit Oswald`s normal routine of reading the paper when he first came into work, lurkers.

And this is not something I am going to keep repeating in the hopes that Ben gets honest enough to acknowledge it. I told you lurkers to watch how this plays out and it has played out exactly how I said it would.

> > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there
> > every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the
> > paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
> > Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
> > didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
> > morning.
>
> You're now quoting something that I did *NOT* cite. Indeed, you're now
> citing what WE KNOW TO BE A LIE.

Now we are going to be treated to the crooked game where evidence isn`t evidence unless a retard accepts it, lurkers.

> And *YOU* know it's a lie too, because you SELECTIVELY chose that
> quote.

> Here's a more complete version that proves that you're quoting a lie:
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere
> between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
> Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
> morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
> the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
> Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
> didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
> morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>
> You were afraid to give *THIS* quote... because it proves that Givens
> contradicted the FBI report.

Ben is going to try to win on a technicality, lurkers. How desperate is this guy?

> There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
> *COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.

Not at all, lurkers. Givens could very well have though of see Oswald at ten of twelve as seeing him at "lunchtime" (as I expect most people would), not in the morning. He might be making a differential that a retard is incapable of.

Clearly Givens was referring to first thing in the morning when Oswald first came to work, not 11:50.

> You can find it here:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?

And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that one bit of information.

>
> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
>
> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?

Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing curtain rods from the Paine`s, that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car, that the sack was large enough to accommodate a broken down rifle, that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long, that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled seeing Oswald come in that morning, that Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor "snack bar", ect, ect.

Now if Ben wants to show he isn`t a hypocrite playing silly games with the deaths of these men he can stipulate to the truth and accuracy of all the information contained in that exhibit, and I will gladly give Ben the apology he so desperately craves. All he has to do is rip up a couple dozen retard trading cards to get it.

> > And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
> > Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
> > usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
> > mornings.
>
> So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
> Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.

Good to see Ben expressing such confidence in Shanklin, lurkers. See, the advantage I have over Ben is I`m not playing silly games, I can give whatever weight to whatever information I want to. So if I want to give Given`s actual words in testimony more weight than this hearsay from a FBI report, I can, and nobody can tell me different, least of all a retard.

> Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
> well.
>
>
> >> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
> >> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
> >
> > I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
> > now is watch Benny dance.
>
> That is indeed half of the citations ...
>
> And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.

Unfortunately for Ben the only thing he ever supports is his own dishonesty, lurkers. He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance.

> The reading of a newpaper by Oswald in the Domino room in the morning.
>
> YOU'RE A LIAR!!!
>
> And a proven one.

Ben proves himself to be both dishonest and hypocritical, lurkers. It is like when he cites an investigation he doesn`t believe or accept to cherry pick "probable conspiracy" he cherry picks hearsay from a source he finds unreliable.

[Ben Holmes]

THE COWARD LIED!!!

Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
that it's not evidence!!!

I predicted this folks!!!



On Thu, 17 May 2018 11:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Yep... *BOTH* cites I gave came from the FBI.

You accept one...

And deny the second.

This PROVES you're a liar.

>> It states that Oswald was reading a newspaper.
>
> Nobody said it didn`t, lurkers.
>
>> It states that it was in the Domino Room.
>
> Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
>
>> It states that it was in the morning.
>
> Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
>
> So now that we have dispensed with all of Ben`s strawmen we can get down to brass tacks.
>
>> YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
>> PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
>> DID.
>
> And he didn`t, lurkers. His cite doesn`t speak to Oswald`s routine
> of reading the newspaper when he first came into work *at all*.

Yes moron, I did. You'll find it below:

>> Which "fact" did this evidence fail to state, liar?
>
> Oswald`s normal routine, lurkers. Obviously when I said "like he
> usually did" I was referring to Oswald`s routine of newspaper reading,
> which occurred when he first came into work.

Which, the second cite quite neatly covers.

>> > I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
>> > would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
>> > technically it is morning.
>>
>> The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
>> was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.
>>
>> You're lying, stump.
>
> This shows what an idiot Ben is, lurkers. I say that if I saw
> someone at 10 to 12 I would never say I saw that person in the
> morning, and he call my assertion a lie, like he knows what I would
> say better than I do.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

I'll bet you wish you'd never said this... BECAUSE **I** ALREADY
DID!!!

And now you're agreeing with me.

>> > But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
>> >
>> >"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
>> > domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>>
>>
>> And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers. It doesn`t state in this cite what Oswald`s
> routine was, lurkers. That can be found in the testimony I produced.

The citation has already been given below:

>> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
>>
>> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.
>
> It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.

Amusingly, stump still can't figure out that either the FBI or Givens
lied.

>> The citation does *NOT* say anything to preclude reading the paper in
>> the Domino Room at 11:50.
>
> Or on the roof, lurkers.
>
>> That *PERFECTLY* fits the morning.
>>
>> That *PERFECTLY* fits the reading of the newpaper
>>
>> That *PERFECTLY* fits the Domino room.
>
> Unfortunately for Ben it doesn`t fit Oswald`s normal routine of reading the paper when he first came into work, lurkers.
>
> And this is not something I am going to keep repeating in the
> hopes that Ben gets honest enough to acknowledge it. I told you
> lurkers to watch how this plays out and it has played out exactly how
> I said it would.

Go ahead and keep repeating it... doesn't bother me in the least.

I've *CITED* for this already. 7:50 am.

>> > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there
>> > every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the
>> > paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> > Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> > didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> > morning.
>>
>> You're now quoting something that I did *NOT* cite. Indeed, you're now
>> citing what WE KNOW TO BE A LIE.
>
> Now we are going to be treated to the crooked game where evidence
> isn`t evidence unless a retard accepts it, lurkers.

This is EXACTLY what you do below.

And no-where do I claim that Givens testimony isn't evidence... it
*IS* evidence that he lied.

>> And *YOU* know it's a lie too, because you SELECTIVELY chose that
>> quote.
>
>> Here's a more complete version that proves that you're quoting a lie:
>>
>> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere
>> between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
>> Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
>> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
>> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
>> morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
>> the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>>
>> You were afraid to give *THIS* quote... because it proves that Givens
>> contradicted the FBI report.
>
> Ben is going to try to win on a technicality, lurkers. How desperate is this guy?

What "technicality?"

You said I couldn't *CITE*.

I did.

You're now trying to whine that you don't *ACCEPT* that cite BECAUSE
IT CONTRADICTS WHAT GIVENS TESTIFIED TO.

>> There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
>> *COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.
>

> Not at all, lurkers. I'm a retard.

>
> Clearly Givens was referring to first thing in the morning when Oswald first came to work, not 11:50.

You mean like 7:50am?

>> You can find it here:
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>
> Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?

Tut tut tut, moron.

It was *EVIDENCE* when you cited the FBI.

Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.

> And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
> he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
> one bit of information.

Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.

You claimed I couldn't cite the evidence.

I just did.

You lied.

>> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
>> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
>> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
>> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
>>
>> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?
>

> Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier ...

No moron.

Read it again:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

>> > And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
>> > Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
>> > usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
>> > mornings.
>>
>> So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
>> Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.
>
> Good to see Ben expressing such confidence in Shanklin, lurkers.

No "weight" need be attached.

The claim was that I couldn't cite.

**YOU** offered an FBI memo as a cite.

**YOU** asserted that it was a citation.

**YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
case.

So throw out **ALL** FBI gathered evidence, and cite for your claim
that LHO shot JFK.

But you won't.

You're lying.

>> Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
>> well.
>>
>>
>> >> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
>> >> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
>> >
>> > I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
>> > now is watch Benny dance.
>>
>> That is indeed half of the citations ...
>>
>> And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.
>
> Unfortunately for Ben the only thing he ever supports is his own
> dishonesty, lurkers. He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag
> Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance.

Tut tut tut, moron.

*NO-ONE* was speaking of what could be proven... only whether or not I
could cite.

I cited.

You lied.

>> The reading of a newpaper by Oswald in the Domino room in the morning.
>>
>> YOU'RE A LIAR!!!
>>
>> And a proven one.
>
> Ben proves himself to be both dishonest and hypocritical, lurkers.
> It is like when he cites an investigation he doesn`t believe or accept
> to cherry pick "probable conspiracy" he cherry picks hearsay from a
>source he finds unreliable.

You cited an FBI memo that you thought was an evidential citation.

Now that one has been provided that proves you a liar, you're
tapdancing away.

WHAT A DISHONEST BIT OF SCUM YOU ARE!


(Of course, I predicted it.)

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> THE COWARD LIED!!!
>
> Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
> that it's not evidence!!!

Will Ben accept that the Shanklin exhibit is evidence that Oswald carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the assassination, lurkers?

One didn`t conflict directly with the information the witness testified to, lurkers.

> And deny the second.
>
> This PROVES you're a liar.

Retards see weighing information correctly as some form of dishonesty, lurkers.

Retard figuring, lurkers.

The technicality of 11:50 being technically morning, lurkers.

> You said I couldn't *CITE*.
>
> I did.
>
> You're now trying to whine that you don't *ACCEPT* that cite BECAUSE
> IT CONTRADICTS WHAT GIVENS TESTIFIED TO.

The hearsay is outweighed by what Givens actually said, lurkers.

>
>
>
> >> There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
> >> *COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.
> >
> > Not at all, lurkers. I'm a retard.
> >
> > Clearly Givens was referring to first thing in the morning when Oswald first came to work, not 11:50.
>
>
> You mean like 7:50am?

Let Ben quote Givens saying he saw Oswald at that time of the day on the assassination, lurkers. I can quote him saying the exact opposite.

> >> You can find it here:
> >>
> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
> >
> > Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?
>
> Tut tut tut, moron.
>
> It was *EVIDENCE* when you cited the FBI.

It wasn`t *my* cite, it was the cite I knew Ben was going to produce in support of his idea, lurkers.

> Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.

Ben lies, lurkers, it isn`t "suddenly" hearsay. That would be like saying Ben is suddenly being retarded.

> > And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
> > he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
> > one bit of information.
>
> Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.

Is Ben saying false information is evidence, lurkers? Unreliable information is?

> You claimed I couldn't cite the evidence.
>
> I just did.
>
> You lied.
>
>
> >> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
> >> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
> >> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
> >> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
> >>
> >> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?
> >
> > Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier ...
>
> No moron.

Then let Ben tell us how it *shows* that Oswald read newspaper in the Domino Room at 7:50 on the day of the assassination, but it *doesn`t show* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing curtain rods from the Paine`s, and it *doesn`t show* that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car, and that it *doesn`t show* that the sack was large enough to accommodate a broken down rifle, and that it *doesn`t show* that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long, and that it *doesn`t show* that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled seeing Oswald come in that morning, and that it *doesn`t show* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor "snack bar".

> Read it again:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

Apparently this source can only *show* the things Ben decides to accept, lurkers.

And the coward completely removed this, lurkers...

"Now if Ben wants to show he isn`t a hypocrite playing silly games with the deaths of these men he can stipulate to the truth and accuracy of all the information contained in that exhibit, and I will gladly give Ben the apology he so desperately craves. All he has to do is rip up a couple dozen retard trading cards to get it."

What does Ben have to say to this, lurkers?

> >> > And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
> >> > Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
> >> > usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
> >> > mornings.
> >>
> >> So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
> >> Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.
> >
> > Good to see Ben expressing such confidence in Shanklin, lurkers.
>
> No "weight" need be attached.

Ben was using Shanklin in support of an idea, lurkers. Why would he use it in support of an idea if he had no confidence in its veracity?

> The claim was that I couldn't cite.

Not what I said, lurkers.

> **YOU** offered an FBI memo as a cite.

I offered it as the support I expected Ben to use in support of the idea he alluded to, lurkers. I didn`t use it in support of my position, I said it was irrelevant to my position.

> **YOU** asserted that it was a citation.

No, I didn`t, lurkers.

> **YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
> case.

No, I didn`t, lurkers.

> So throw out **ALL** FBI gathered evidence, and cite for your claim
> that LHO shot JFK.
>
> But you won't.
>
> You're lying.
>
>
> >> Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
> >> well.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
> >> >> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
> >> >
> >> > I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
> >> > now is watch Benny dance.
> >>
> >> That is indeed half of the citations ...
> >>
> >> And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.
> >
> > Unfortunately for Ben the only thing he ever supports is his own
> > dishonesty, lurkers. He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag
> > Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance.
>
>
> Tut tut tut, moron.

Ben always "tut-tuts" when he runs from a point, lurkers.

> *NO-ONE* was speaking of what could be proven...

Did I say "proven", lurkers. I said...

"He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance."

Would Ben call this an untrue statement?

> only whether or not I
> could cite.
>
> I cited.
>
> You lied.
>
>
> >> The reading of a newpaper by Oswald in the Domino room in the morning.
> >>
> >> YOU'RE A LIAR!!!
> >>
> >> And a proven one.
> >
> > Ben proves himself to be both dishonest and hypocritical, lurkers.
> > It is like when he cites an investigation he doesn`t believe or accept
> > to cherry pick "probable conspiracy" he cherry picks hearsay from a
> >source he finds unreliable.
>
>
> You cited an FBI memo that you thought was an evidential citation.

I produced what Ben had produced in the past when we had this discussion, lurkers. I didn`t produce it in support of my position, I said that it had no impact on my position.

> Now that one has been provided that proves you a liar, you're
> tapdancing away.
>
> WHAT A DISHONEST BIT OF SCUM YOU ARE!

This discussion has been very useful in exposing Ben as a hypocrite, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> THE COWARD LIED!!!
>>
>> Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
>> that it's not evidence!!!
>
> Will Ben accept that the Shanklin exhibit is evidence that Oswald
> carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
> assassination, lurkers?

Of course!

But, you see, I know what "evidence" is... and you're willing to lie
about it.



>> I predicted this folks!!!


And, as usual, I was right on the money!

Yes moron, it did.

You're lying again.

**YOU** believe that it showed Oswald reading a newspaper at 11:50.
Something that Givens TESTIFIED TO that he'd **NOT** seen that day.

So this is another *OBVIOUS* lie on your part.

You're a liar, stump.



Nor does a "conflict" with other evidence mean that the evidence is no
longer "evidence."

>> And deny the second.
>>
>> This PROVES you're a liar.
>

> I'm a Retard, lurkers.


Also a liar. A *PROVABLE* liar.

>> >> It states that Oswald was reading a newspaper.
>> >
>> > Nobody said it didn`t, lurkers.
>> >
>> >> It states that it was in the Domino Room.
>> >
>> > Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
>> >
>> >> It states that it was in the morning.
>> >
>> > Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
>> >
>> > So now that we have dispensed with all of Ben`s strawmen we can get down to brass tacks.
>> >
>> >> YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
>> >> PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
>> >> DID.
>> >
>> > And he didn`t, lurkers. His cite doesn`t speak to Oswald`s routine
>> > of reading the newspaper when he first came into work *at all*.
>>
>> Yes moron, I did. You'll find it below:
>>
>> >> Which "fact" did this evidence fail to state, liar?
>> >
>> > Oswald`s normal routine, lurkers. Obviously when I said "like he
>> > usually did" I was referring to Oswald`s routine of newspaper reading,
>> > which occurred when he first came into work.
>>
>> Which, the second cite quite neatly covers.

And yet, dufus can't publicly admit that fact.

Indeed, he's REPEATEDLY refused to state whether or not that FBI memo
is "evidence." (Although he's implied that it's not - since Givens
"contradicted" it in his testimony.)

>> >> > I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
>> >> > would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
>> >> > technically it is morning.
>> >>
>> >> The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
>> >> was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying, stump.
>> >
>> > This shows what an idiot Ben is, lurkers. I say that if I saw
>> > someone at 10 to 12 I would never say I saw that person in the
>> > morning, and he call my assertion a lie, like he knows what I would
>> > say better than I do.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>
>> I'll bet you wish you'd never said this... BECAUSE **I** ALREADY
>> DID!!!
>>
>> And now you're agreeing with me.

Dead silence... dufus is slapping himself.

>> >> > But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
>> >> >
>> >> >"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
>> >> > domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.
>> >
>> > Ben is lying, lurkers. It doesn`t state in this cite what Oswald`s
>> > routine was, lurkers. That can be found in the testimony I produced.
>>
>> The citation has already been given below:

And no apology for stump's lie that I was "lying."

Or his repeated lies... the newest one being that the first citation
didn't conflict with Given's testimony.

Stump just LOVES to lie!

>> >> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
>> >>
>> >> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.
>> >
>> > It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.
>>
>>
>> Amusingly, stump still can't figure out that either the FBI or Givens
>> lied.
>

> I'm a Retard, lurkers.


Not an answer, stump.

>> >> The citation does *NOT* say anything to preclude reading the paper in
>> >> the Domino Room at 11:50.
>> >
>> > Or on the roof, lurkers.
>> >
>> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the morning.
>> >>
>> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the reading of the newpaper
>> >>
>> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the Domino room.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately for Ben it doesn`t fit Oswald`s normal routine of reading the paper when he first came into work, lurkers.
>> >
>> > And this is not something I am going to keep repeating in the
>> > hopes that Ben gets honest enough to acknowledge it. I told you
>> > lurkers to watch how this plays out and it has played out exactly how
>> > I said it would.
>>
>> Go ahead and keep repeating it... doesn't bother me in the least.
>>
>> I've *CITED* for this already. 7:50 am.

What amusing silence...

Stump can't even *lie* to deny it... he knows I've done what he
claimed I couldn't do.

>> >> > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there
>> >> > every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the
>> >> > paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> >> > Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> >> > didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> >> > morning.
>> >>
>> >> You're now quoting something that I did *NOT* cite. Indeed, you're now
>> >> citing what WE KNOW TO BE A LIE.
>> >
>> > Now we are going to be treated to the crooked game where evidence
>> > isn`t evidence unless a retard accepts it, lurkers.
>>
>> This is EXACTLY what you do below.
>>
>> And no-where do I claim that Givens testimony isn't evidence... it
>> *IS* evidence that he lied.

Stump can't think of anything to say...

>> >> And *YOU* know it's a lie too, because you SELECTIVELY chose that
>> >> quote.
>> >
>> >> Here's a more complete version that proves that you're quoting a lie:
>> >>
>> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere
>> >> between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
>> >> Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
>> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
>> >> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
>> >> morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
>> >> the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> >> Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> >> didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> >> morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>> >>
>> >> You were afraid to give *THIS* quote... because it proves that Givens
>> >> contradicted the FBI report.
>> >
>> > Ben is going to try to win on a technicality, lurkers. How desperate is this guy?
>>
>> What "technicality?"
>
> The technicality of 11:50 being technically morning, lurkers.

No moron, the "technicality of 7:50am being morning."

Liar, aren't you?

>> You said I couldn't *CITE*.
>>
>> I did.
>>
>> You're now trying to whine that you don't *ACCEPT* that cite BECAUSE
>> IT CONTRADICTS WHAT GIVENS TESTIFIED TO.
>
> The hearsay is outweighed by what Givens actually said, lurkers.

Tut tut tut, dufus.

You asked for EVIDENCE.

I cited it. (Amusingly, you keep running every time I ask you if that
cite is considered "evidence.")

You're desperately claiming now that evidence is no longer evidence if
an eyewitness denies it.

So WE NOW HAVE IRONCLAD PROOF THAT OSWALD OWNED NO RIFLE.

He said so.

And using *YOUR* logic that a witness statement over-rides all other
evidence, you've lost.

>> >> There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
>> >> *COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.
>> >
>> > Not at all, lurkers. I'm a retard.
>> >
>> > Clearly Givens was referring to first thing in the morning when Oswald first came to work, not 11:50.
>>
>> You mean like 7:50am?
>
> Let Ben quote Givens saying he saw Oswald at that time of the day
> on the assassination, lurkers. I can quote him saying the exact
> opposite.

Logical fallacy of changing the goalposts.

You asked for a cite of EVIDENCE... I provided it.

Now you're whining that it has to be evidence you approve of.


Or that it has to come only from Given's testimony.


You're simply a scumbag... aren't you stump?

>> >> You can find it here:
>> >>
>> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>> >
>> > Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?
>>
>> Tut tut tut, moron.
>>
>> It was *EVIDENCE* when you cited the FBI.
>
> It wasn`t *my* cite, it was the cite I knew Ben was going to
> produce in support of his idea, lurkers.

You had no complaint when *YOU* cited it. It was indeed *YOUR* cite.
(Although I'd cited it first in the **ORIGINAL** thread, dufus ran
from it, and didn't realize I'd given it.)

>> Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.
>
> Ben lies, lurkers, it isn`t "suddenly" hearsay.

Then simply cite where you stated that your citation was hearsay, and
wouldn't be considered "evidence."

This cite of yours must come from *BEFORE* I proved you a liar by
citing the evidence.


> That would be like saying I'm suddenly being retarded.


No comment...

>> > And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
>> > he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
>> > one bit of information.
>>
>> Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.
>
> Is Ben saying false information is evidence, lurkers? Unreliable information is?

Of course.

ARE YOU A MORON???

You're desperate to claim that only "true" and "reliable" evidence is
evidence.

Who made you God?

Who suddenly made you capable of determining ultimate truth?

WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "TRUE" AND WHAT IS
"FALSE?"

WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "RELIABLE" AND WHAT IS
UNRELIABLE?"

And, while I'm posing questions you'll run from... how about *CITING*
an authoritative source that denies as "evidence" anything found to be
"false" or "unreliable."

You'll run, of course...

>> You claimed I couldn't cite the evidence.
>>
>> I just did.
>>
>> You lied.

And now refuse to retract your lie, or admit you've lied.

You're even refusing to acknowledge the cite as "evidence" in this
case. Why is that, stump?

>> >> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
>> >> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
>> >> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
>> >> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
>> >>
>> >> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?
>> >
>> > Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier ...
>>
>> No moron.
>
> Then let Ben tell us how it *shows* that Oswald read newspaper in
> the Domino Room at 7:50 on the day of the assassination,

Here it is again, anyone can click on the link and read it for
themselves:

"OSWALD WAS READING PAPER IN TEH FIRST FLOOR DOMINO ROOM SEVEN FIFTY
AM NOV. TWENTYTWO LAST WHEN GIVENS CAME TO WORK."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

Dufus is clearly too stupid to bother clicking on links to check them
out before whining...

This is indeed the "evidence" dufus whined that I couldn't supply.

Dufus lied.

> but it *doesn`t show* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing
> curtain rods from the Paine`s

If I asked you to cite for your claim that Oswald told Frazier that he
was bringing curtain rods... could you do it?

>and it *doesn`t show* that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car

If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

> and that it *doesn`t show* that the sack was large enough to
> accommodate a broken down rifle,

If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

> and that it *doesn`t show* that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the
> package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long

If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

> and that it *doesn`t show* that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled
> seeing Oswald come in that morning

If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

> and that it *doesn`t show* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second
> floor "snack bar".

If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

If you answer "yes" to **ANY** of those questions, then you're a
provable liar... because I *also* cited.

If you answer "no" to all of the questions... then you have no case at
all.


What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?

>> Read it again:
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>
> Apparently this source can only *show* the things Ben decides to accept, lurkers.

There you go again, changing the goalposts.

What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?

> And the coward completely removed this, lurkers...

<ad hominem snipped again...>

> What does Ben have to say to this, lurkers?

It's simply an ad hominem attack not related to the cite I gave.

>> >> > And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
>> >> > Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
>> >> > usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
>> >> > mornings.
>> >>
>> >> So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
>> >> Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.
>> >
>> > Good to see Ben expressing such confidence in Shanklin, lurkers.
>>
>> No "weight" need be attached.
>
> Ben was using Shanklin in support of an idea, lurkers. Why would
> he use it in support of an idea if he had no confidence in its
> veracity?

Is it evidence?

Does this cite say what you thought couldn't be stated by evidence?

(If you answer "yes" to those two questions - then you're a provable
liar... if you answer "no" to either one, then you have no case at
all. If you run like you're going to run, you're a coward as you've
already proven time and time again.)

>> The claim was that I couldn't cite.
>
> Not what I said, lurkers.

You're lying again, dufus.

Here it is again:

"Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the
paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"

"HE CAN'T PRODUCE EVIDENCE"...

I not only produced it, I even cited where anyone else can find it.

>> **YOU** offered an FBI memo as a cite.
>
> I offered it as the support I expected Ben to use in support of
> the idea he alluded to, lurkers. I didn`t use it in support of my
> position, I said it was irrelevant to my position.

You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about that cite as not being legitimate
evidence in this case.

Indeed, YOU RELIED ON IT AS REFUTING THE IDEA THAT OSWALD HAD BEEN
READING A NEWSPAPER AT HIS **CUSTOMARY** TIME.

Now you're denying that it's evidence.

Which means, by an extension of YOUR EXACT LOGIC, that Oswald is
innocent.

>> **YOU** asserted that it was a citation.
>
> No, I didn`t, lurkers.

Let's go look:

*********************************************
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He hasn`t stated that he is going to
> > provide the cite that I referenced.
>
>
> You're lying again, Dufus.
>
> I've *ALREADY* stated that I plan to provide it soon.

Ben should learn to read for comprehension, lurkers. He hasn`t said
that the cite he is going to provide is the same cite that *I* have
already provided.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/snoGO7hVQrk/kw_6OEiICQAJ
*********************************************


Lied, didn't you stump?

You ABSOLUTELY DID call your cite a cite.

So why is *YOUR* cite a cite, and mine isn't?

And why did you lie about not having referred to it as a cite?

>> **YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
>> case.
>
> No, I didn`t, lurkers.

Yes stupid, you did. In *THIS VERY POST* you denigrated an FBI cite as
mere "hearsay"

For if it were "evidence" - you lied about my inability to provide it.

Why the constant non-stop lying, dufus?

Can't you make your case without telling blatant & provable lies?

>> So throw out **ALL** FBI gathered evidence, and cite for your claim
>> that LHO shot JFK.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>> You're lying.

I predicted it.

>> >> Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
>> >> >> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
>> >> > now is watch Benny dance.
>> >>
>> >> That is indeed half of the citations ...
>> >>
>> >> And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately for Ben the only thing he ever supports is his own
>> > dishonesty, lurkers. He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag
>> > Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance.
>>
>> Tut tut tut, moron.
>
> Ben always "tut-tuts" when he runs from a point, lurkers.

No, it merely highlights when I'm about to spank you for lying.

>> *NO-ONE* was speaking of what could be proven...
>
> Did I say "proven", lurkers. I said...
>
> "He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance."
>
> Would Ben call this an untrue statement?

Absolutely!

YOU'RE *BLATANTLY* LYING.

I *do* consider it evidence.

>> only whether or not I
>> could cite.
>>
>> I cited.
>>
>> You lied.

And ran...

>> >> The reading of a newpaper by Oswald in the Domino room in the morning.
>> >>
>> >> YOU'RE A LIAR!!!
>> >>
>> >> And a proven one.
>> >
>> > Ben proves himself to be both dishonest and hypocritical, lurkers.
>> > It is like when he cites an investigation he doesn`t believe or accept
>> > to cherry pick "probable conspiracy" he cherry picks hearsay from a
>> >source he finds unreliable.
>>
>>
>> You cited an FBI memo that you thought was an evidential citation.
>
> I produced what Ben had produced in the past when we had this
> discussion, lurkers. I didn`t produce it in support of my position, I
> said that it had no impact on my position.


You cited an FBI memo that you thought was an evidential citation.

You *CALLED* it a cite - then in this post, you LIED about that fact.

That's simply another of the many lies you keep telling.

Why so many lies, dufus?

Do you simply not care for the truth?

Is your life that empty?

>> Now that one has been provided that proves you a liar, you're
>> tapdancing away.
>>
>> WHAT A DISHONEST BIT OF SCUM YOU ARE!
>
> This discussion has been very useful in exposing Ben as a
> hypocrite, lurkers.

Empty claim.

What this "discussion" has been useful for, is highlighting the
REPEATED lying that dufus keeps engaging in.

He lied about his cite not being contradicted by Givens.

He lied about not referring to it as a "cite."

You continually lie about my position on evidence.

You **STILL** refuse to acknowledge that my second cite is actual
evidence in this case.

You're a liar, stump.

>> (Of course, I predicted it.)
>>
>>
>> >> >> I don't want anyone to whine that they knew it, and would have
>> >> >> provided it if I'd given them time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So far only Mark has demonstrated himself to also be a liar.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where are you Chucky?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where are you Steve?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where are you, other Steve?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where are you Mitch?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where are you Chester?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I want *EVERYONE* to be caught on the horns of this flagrant lie.

Looks like only Mark and Chucky were nailed... everyone else were
probably leary that I could do what I said I could do. (Always a safe
prediction)

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 09:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:58:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 1:25:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> I've often noted that believers will **NEVER** retract a statement,
>> >> even when it's proven beyond **ALL** doubt to be a lie.
>> >
>> > Ironic, isn`t it lurkers? Ben just...
>>
>> Did absolutely *NOTHING* that is on this topic.
>
> <snicker>

Dufus will refuse to retract his lie, and apologize for it, he even
refuses to state in ADVANCE that he would.

Watch my prediction come true.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> THE COWARD LIED!!!
> >>
> >> Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
> >> that it's not evidence!!!
> >
> > Will Ben accept that the Shanklin exhibit is evidence that Oswald
> > carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
> > assassination, lurkers?
>
>
> Of course!

So far so good, lurkers. Will Ben accept that it *shows* Oswald carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the assassination, lurkers?

I didn`t conflict with what we were discussing, lurkers, the early morning paper reading.

> You're lying again.
>
> **YOU** believe that it showed Oswald reading a newspaper at 11:50.
> Something that Givens TESTIFIED TO that he'd **NOT** seen that day.

I didn`t compare everything Givens said to that FBI report, lurkers. I didn`t see that report as relevant to what we were discussing.

> So this is another *OBVIOUS* lie on your part.
>
> You're a liar, stump.
>
>
>
> Nor does a "conflict" with other evidence mean that the evidence is no
> longer "evidence."

That is why I recently amended what I had said.

>
> >> And deny the second.
> >>
> >> This PROVES you're a liar.
> >
> > I'm a Retard, lurkers.
>
>
> Also a liar. A *PROVABLE* liar.

Ben is a provable retard, lurkers.

>
> >> >> It states that Oswald was reading a newspaper.
> >> >
> >> > Nobody said it didn`t, lurkers.
> >> >
> >> >> It states that it was in the Domino Room.
> >> >
> >> > Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
> >> >
> >> >> It states that it was in the morning.
> >> >
> >> > Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
> >> >
> >> > So now that we have dispensed with all of Ben`s strawmen we can get down to brass tacks.
> >> >
> >> >> YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
> >> >> PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
> >> >> DID.
> >> >
> >> > And he didn`t, lurkers. His cite doesn`t speak to Oswald`s routine
> >> > of reading the newspaper when he first came into work *at all*.
> >>
> >> Yes moron, I did. You'll find it below:
> >>
> >> >> Which "fact" did this evidence fail to state, liar?
> >> >
> >> > Oswald`s normal routine, lurkers. Obviously when I said "like he
> >> > usually did" I was referring to Oswald`s routine of newspaper reading,
> >> > which occurred when he first came into work.
> >>
> >> Which, the second cite quite neatly covers.
>
>
> And yet, dufus can't publicly admit that fact.
>
> Indeed, he's REPEATEDLY refused to state whether or not that FBI memo
> is "evidence." (Although he's implied that it's not - since Givens
> "contradicted" it in his testimony.)

I never implied that at all, lurkers, that is just Ben`s overactive retard imagination at work. I recognized it as evidence the second I saw it. I also recognized Ben`s hypocrisy the moment he provided it. I was waiting for a few side issues to play out, knowing Ben would try to drown everything else out with cries of "I win!"

>
> >> >> > I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
> >> >> > would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
> >> >> > technically it is morning.
> >> >>
> >> >> The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
> >> >> was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're lying, stump.
> >> >
> >> > This shows what an idiot Ben is, lurkers. I say that if I saw
> >> > someone at 10 to 12 I would never say I saw that person in the
> >> > morning, and he call my assertion a lie, like he knows what I would
> >> > say better than I do.
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >>
> >> I'll bet you wish you'd never said this... BECAUSE **I** ALREADY
> >> DID!!!
> >>
> >> And now you're agreeing with me.
>
>
> Dead silence... dufus is slapping himself.
>
>
>
> >> >> > But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
> >> >> > domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.
> >> >
> >> > Ben is lying, lurkers. It doesn`t state in this cite what Oswald`s
> >> > routine was, lurkers. That can be found in the testimony I produced.
> >>
> >> The citation has already been given below:
>
>
> And no apology for stump's lie that I was "lying."

What I replied to that Ben said was untrue, lurkers. Therefore I owe him no apology.

> Or his repeated lies... the newest one being that the first citation
> didn't conflict with Given's testimony.

Not in regards to the point of contention, lurkers.

> Stump just LOVES to lie!
>
>
>
> >> >> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
> >> >>
> >> >> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.
> >> >
> >> > It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> Amusingly, stump still can't figure out that either the FBI or Givens
> >> lied.
> >
> > I'm a Retard, lurkers.
>
>
> Not an answer, stump.

Alright, I`ll just point out that Ben used the false dilemma fallacy, lurkers.

Ben asked me what I meant and I told him, lurkers.

Pointing out that Ben can`t quote giving the 7:50am time is not moving the goalposts, lurkers.

>
> You asked for a cite of EVIDENCE... I provided it.
>
> Now you're whining that it has to be evidence you approve of.
>
>
> Or that it has to come only from Given's testimony.
>
>
> You're simply a scumbag... aren't you stump?
>
>
>
> >> >> You can find it here:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
> >> >
> >> > Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?
> >>
> >> Tut tut tut, moron.
> >>
> >> It was *EVIDENCE* when you cited the FBI.
> >
> > It wasn`t *my* cite, it was the cite I knew Ben was going to
> > produce in support of his idea, lurkers.
>
>
> You had no complaint when *YOU* cited it. It was indeed *YOUR* cite.
> (Although I'd cited it first in the **ORIGINAL** thread, dufus ran
> from it, and didn't realize I'd given it.)
>
>
>
> >> Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.
> >
> > Ben lies, lurkers, it isn`t "suddenly" hearsay.
>
>
> Then simply cite where you stated that your citation was hearsay, and
> wouldn't be considered "evidence."

As explained, it wasn`t my citation, lurkers. As explained, it wasn`t "suddenly" hearsay.

>
> This cite of yours must come from *BEFORE* I proved you a liar by
> citing the evidence.
>
>
> > That would be like saying I'm suddenly being retarded.
>
>
> No comment...
>
>
> >> > And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
> >> > he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
> >> > one bit of information.
> >>
> >> Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.
> >
> > Is Ben saying false information is evidence, lurkers? Unreliable information is?
>
>
> Of course.

So there was evidence that a white van was used in the Beltway Sniper case, lurkers? Even though it turned out there was no connection?

> ARE YOU A MORON???
>
> You're desperate to claim that only "true" and "reliable" evidence is
> evidence.

How can untrue information lead to the truth, lurkers?

> Who made you God?
>
> Who suddenly made you capable of determining ultimate truth?
>
> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "TRUE" AND WHAT IS
> "FALSE?"
>
> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "RELIABLE" AND WHAT IS
> UNRELIABLE?"

Who is Ben to say what evidence is "credible", lurkers. This is what Ben said that I labeled a lie...

"Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."

Who is Ben to determine what "credible" evidence is, is he God?

> And, while I'm posing questions you'll run from... how about *CITING*
> an authoritative source that denies as "evidence" anything found to be
> "false" or "unreliable."

Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let Ben show a source that says false information can be evidence, lurkers.

A duck walks along the banks of Lock Ness. It leaves prints in the mud, and these prints erode in a way that makes them appear larger. Someone comes along and says "Look, evidence of Nessie!" Does this person really have evidence of Nessie?

> You'll run, of course...
>
>
> >> You claimed I couldn't cite the evidence.
> >>
> >> I just did.
> >>
> >> You lied.
>
>
> And now refuse to retract your lie, or admit you've lied.
>
> You're even refusing to acknowledge the cite as "evidence" in this
> case. Why is that, stump?
>
>
> >> >> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
> >> >> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
> >> >> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
> >> >> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?
> >> >
> >> > Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier ...
> >>
> >> No moron.
> >
> > Then let Ben tell us how it *shows* that Oswald read newspaper in
> > the Domino Room at 7:50 on the day of the assassination,
>
> Here it is again, anyone can click on the link and read it for
> themselves:
>
> "OSWALD WAS READING PAPER IN TEH FIRST FLOOR DOMINO ROOM SEVEN FIFTY
> AM NOV. TWENTYTWO LAST WHEN GIVENS CAME TO WORK."
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

How does this *show* that Oswald was in the domono room reading a paper, lurkers?

> Dufus is clearly too stupid to bother clicking on links to check them
> out before whining...
>
> This is indeed the "evidence" dufus whined that I couldn't supply.
>
> Dufus lied.

Ben claims this document *shows* that Oswald read the newspaper in the domino room in the morning on the day of the assassination. Would Ben say it *shows* that Oswald carried a bag three feet by six inches that day, lurkers?

> > but it *doesn`t show* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing
> > curtain rods from the Paine`s
>
> If I asked you to cite for your claim that Oswald told Frazier that he
> was bringing curtain rods... could you do it?

Non responsive to the point, lurkers. Ben says that Shanklin has the ability to *show* the things covered in it. So Ben must now accept that it is *shown* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing curtain rods.

> >and it *doesn`t show* that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car
>
> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Ben must now accept that Shanklin *shows* that Oswald put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car, lurkers.

> > and that it *doesn`t show* that the sack was large enough to
> > accommodate a broken down rifle,
>
> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Ben must now accept that Shanklin *shows* that the sack Oswald was seen carrying was large enough to hold the disassembled rifle, lurkers.

> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the
> > package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long
>
> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Ben must now accept that the Shanklin *shows* that Oswald carried a bag three feet long by six inches the day of the assassination, lurkers.

> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled
> > seeing Oswald come in that morning
>
> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Ben must now accept that Shanklin shows that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled seeing Oswald come in that morning.

>
> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second
> > floor "snack bar".
>
> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Ben must now accept that Shanklin *shows* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor "snack bar".

With all these things *shown* Ben must also accept that the case against Oswald is pretty strong, lurkers.

> If you answer "yes" to **ANY** of those questions, then you're a
> provable liar... because I *also* cited.
>
> If you answer "no" to all of the questions... then you have no case at
> all.
>
>
> What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?

Ben thinks he can`t be held accountable for the words he uses, lurkers.

>
> >> Read it again:
> >>
> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
> >
> > Apparently this source can only *show* the things Ben decides to accept, lurkers.
>
>
> There you go again, changing the goalposts.

Ben claimed the Shanklin had the ability to *show* things, lurkers. Would he say everything covered in it was *shown"?

> What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?

Ben used the word "show", lurkers. He lied when he said that what he produced showed that Oswald read the paper in the Domino room on the morning of the assassination, lurkers.

>
> > And the coward completely removed this, lurkers...
>
> <ad hominem snipped again...>
>
> > What does Ben have to say to this, lurkers?
>
>
> It's simply an ad hominem attack not related to the cite I gave.

<snicker> Ben rules his hypocrisy off topic, lurkers.

It wasn`t my cite, lurkers. I provided the cite that Ben had given in a previous discussion. The only thing I cited in support of my position was Given`s testimony.

> And why did you lie about not having referred to it as a cite?
>
>
> >> **YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
> >> case.
> >
> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>
>
> Yes stupid, you did.

No, I didn`t, lurkers.

> In *THIS VERY POST* you denigrated an FBI cite as
> mere "hearsay"

How is it degrading to accurately label hearsay as hearsay, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 17:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> THE COWARD LIED!!!
>> >>
>> >> Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
>> >> that it's not evidence!!!
>> >
>> > Will Ben accept that the Shanklin exhibit is evidence that Oswald
>> > carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
>> > assassination, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> Of course!
>
> So far so good, lurkers. Will Ben accept that it *shows* Oswald
> carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
> assassination, lurkers?

No.

Why would I?

What stupid pill did you take that makes you even *imagine* me doing
something you refuse to do?

>> But, you see, I know what "evidence" is... and you're willing to lie
>> about it.
>>
>>
>> >> I predicted this folks!!!
>>
>>
>> And, as usual, I was right on the money!

Dufus had nothing to say.

Yes moron, it did.

*BOTH* FBI memos state that Oswald was seen reading a newspaper.

Givens denies it.

That makes you a *STUPID* liar.

>> You're lying again.
>>
>> **YOU** believe that it showed Oswald reading a newspaper at 11:50.
>> Something that Givens TESTIFIED TO that he'd **NOT** seen that day.
>
> I didn`t compare everything Givens said to that FBI report,
> lurkers. I didn`t see that report as relevant to what we were
> discussing.

You asserted that one of the FBI cites "didn't conflict directly with

the information the witness testified to"

You're a liar.

Givens *CLEARLY* testified that he didn't see Oswald reading a
newspaper that day.

How much longer are you going to keep lying?

>> So this is another *OBVIOUS* lie on your part.
>>
>> You're a liar, stump.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nor does a "conflict" with other evidence mean that the evidence is no
>> longer "evidence."
>
> That is why I recently amended what I had said.

Yet you *STILL* refuse to state publicly that *BOTH* FBI cites are
"evidence."

And you refuse to acknowledge THAT YOU LIED, and I've not seen any
apologies for your lies either.

>> >> And deny the second.
>> >>
>> >> This PROVES you're a liar.
>> >
>> > I'm a Retard, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Also a liar. A *PROVABLE* liar.
>

> I am a provable retard, lurkers.


Maybe so, but more importantly, you're a provable LIAR.

>> >> >> It states that Oswald was reading a newspaper.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nobody said it didn`t, lurkers.
>> >> >
>> >> >> It states that it was in the Domino Room.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
>> >> >
>> >> >> It states that it was in the morning.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nobody said it doesn`t, lurkers.
>> >> >
>> >> > So now that we have dispensed with all of Ben`s strawmen we can get down to brass tacks.
>> >> >
>> >> >> YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
>> >> >> PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
>> >> >> DID.
>> >> >
>> >> > And he didn`t, lurkers. His cite doesn`t speak to Oswald`s routine
>> >> > of reading the newspaper when he first came into work *at all*.
>> >>
>> >> Yes moron, I did. You'll find it below:
>> >>
>> >> >> Which "fact" did this evidence fail to state, liar?
>> >> >
>> >> > Oswald`s normal routine, lurkers. Obviously when I said "like he
>> >> > usually did" I was referring to Oswald`s routine of newspaper reading,
>> >> > which occurred when he first came into work.
>> >>
>> >> Which, the second cite quite neatly covers.
>>
>>
>> And yet, dufus can't publicly admit that fact.
>>
>> Indeed, he's REPEATEDLY refused to state whether or not that FBI memo
>> is "evidence." (Although he's implied that it's not - since Givens
>> "contradicted" it in his testimony.)
>
> I never implied that at all, lurkers,

You're lying again, dufus.

The **PROOF* of that is that you *STILL* refuse to publicly
acknowledge that the second FBI cite is "evidence."

> I recognized it as evidence the second I saw it.

We're getting closer now.

You called me a liar, and stated that I could not provide the
evidence.

You now acknowledge that I provided evidence.

YET YOU STILL REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIE YOU TOLD.

And I've yet to hear any apology from you for your lying.

>> >> >> > I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
>> >> >> > would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
>> >> >> > technically it is morning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
>> >> >> was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're lying, stump.
>> >> >
>> >> > This shows what an idiot Ben is, lurkers. I say that if I saw
>> >> > someone at 10 to 12 I would never say I saw that person in the
>> >> > morning, and he call my assertion a lie, like he knows what I would
>> >> > say better than I do.
>> >>
>> >> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet you wish you'd never said this... BECAUSE **I** ALREADY
>> >> DID!!!
>> >>
>> >> And now you're agreeing with me.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence... dufus is slapping himself.

Dufus is *STILL embarrassed for accidently agreeing with me...

>> >> >> > But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
>> >> >> > domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben is lying, lurkers. It doesn`t state in this cite what Oswald`s
>> >> > routine was, lurkers. That can be found in the testimony I produced.
>> >>
>> >> The citation has already been given below:
>>
>>
>> And no apology for stump's lie that I was "lying."
>
> What I replied to that Ben said was untrue, lurkers. Therefore I owe him no apology.

And yet, I provided the evidence you claimed I could not provide.

You're a liar and a despicable coward.

>> Or his repeated lies... the newest one being that the first citation
>> didn't conflict with Given's testimony.
>
> Not in regards to the point of contention, lurkers.

The "point of contention" is whether or not Oswald was seen reading a
newspaper on the morning of 11/22/63.

You're a STUPID liar!

>> Stump just LOVES to lie!
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, stump still can't figure out that either the FBI or Givens
>> >> lied.
>> >
>> > I'm a Retard, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Not an answer, stump.
>
> Alright, I`ll just point out that Ben used the false dilemma fallacy, lurkers.

And I'll just point out that stump will *NEVER* offer another credible
explanation. One that the average *honest* person would be willing to
accept.

Run stump, RUN!!!

>> >> >> The citation does *NOT* say anything to preclude reading the paper in
>> >> >> the Domino Room at 11:50.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or on the roof, lurkers.
>> >> >
>> >> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the morning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the reading of the newpaper
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the Domino room.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately for Ben it doesn`t fit Oswald`s normal routine of reading the paper when he first came into work, lurkers.
>> >> >
>> >> > And this is not something I am going to keep repeating in the
>> >> > hopes that Ben gets honest enough to acknowledge it. I told you
>> >> > lurkers to watch how this plays out and it has played out exactly how
>> >> > I said it would.
>> >>
>> >> Go ahead and keep repeating it... doesn't bother me in the least.
>> >>
>> >> I've *CITED* for this already. 7:50 am.
>>
>>
>> What amusing silence...
>>
>> Stump can't even *lie* to deny it... he knows I've done what he
>> claimed I couldn't do.

Still silent... stump can't think up any new lies.

>> >> >> > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there
>> >> >> > every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the
>> >> >> > paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> >> >> > Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> >> >> > didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> >> >> > morning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're now quoting something that I did *NOT* cite. Indeed, you're now
>> >> >> citing what WE KNOW TO BE A LIE.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now we are going to be treated to the crooked game where evidence
>> >> > isn`t evidence unless a retard accepts it, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> This is EXACTLY what you do below.
>> >>
>> >> And no-where do I claim that Givens testimony isn't evidence... it
>> >> *IS* evidence that he lied.
>>
>> Stump can't think of anything to say...

Stump had nothing to say...

>> >> >> And *YOU* know it's a lie too, because you SELECTIVELY chose that
>> >> >> quote.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Here's a more complete version that proves that you're quoting a lie:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere
>> >> >> between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
>> >> >> Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
>> >> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
>> >> >> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
>> >> >> morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
>> >> >> the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> >> >> Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> >> >> didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> >> >> morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You were afraid to give *THIS* quote... because it proves that Givens
>> >> >> contradicted the FBI report.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben is going to try to win on a technicality, lurkers. How desperate is this guy?
>> >>
>> >> What "technicality?"
>> >
>> > The technicality of 11:50 being technically morning, lurkers.
>>
>> No moron, the "technicality of 7:50am being morning."
>
> Ben asked me what I meant and I told him, lurkers.

And lied while doing so.

You can't even *justify* this lie. Unless you were too stupid to read
my second cite. (Which I strongly suspect is true.)

>> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> >> You said I couldn't *CITE*.
>> >>
>> >> I did.
>> >>
>> >> You're now trying to whine that you don't *ACCEPT* that cite BECAUSE
>> >> IT CONTRADICTS WHAT GIVENS TESTIFIED TO.
>> >
>> > The hearsay is outweighed by what Givens actually said, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Tut tut tut, dufus.
>>
>> You asked for EVIDENCE.
>>
>> I cited it. (Amusingly, you keep running every time I ask you if that
>> cite is considered "evidence.")
>>
>> You're desperately claiming now that evidence is no longer evidence if
>> an eyewitness denies it.
>>
>> So WE NOW HAVE IRONCLAD PROOF THAT OSWALD OWNED NO RIFLE.
>>
>> He said so.
>>
>> And using *YOUR* logic that a witness statement over-rides all other
>> evidence, you've lost.

And dufus had nothing to say...

>> >> >> There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
>> >> >> *COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not at all, lurkers. I'm a retard.
>> >> >
>> >> > Clearly Givens was referring to first thing in the morning when Oswald first came to work, not 11:50.
>> >>
>> >> You mean like 7:50am?
>> >
>> > Let Ben quote Givens saying he saw Oswald at that time of the day
>> > on the assassination, lurkers. I can quote him saying the exact
>> > opposite.
>>
>> Logical fallacy of changing the goalposts.
>
> Pointing out that Ben can`t quote giving the 7:50am time is not
> moving the goalposts, lurkers.

Yes moron, it is.

YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
DID.

Nothing was said about what *Givens* said...

>> You asked for a cite of EVIDENCE... I provided it.
>>
>> Now you're whining that it has to be evidence you approve of.
>>
>>
>> Or that it has to come only from Given's testimony.
>>
>>
>> You're simply a scumbag... aren't you stump?

No answer...

>> >> >> You can find it here:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>> >> >
>> >> > Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?
>> >>
>> >> Tut tut tut, moron.
>> >>
>> >> It was *EVIDENCE* when you cited the FBI.
>> >
>> > It wasn`t *my* cite, it was the cite I knew Ben was going to
>> > produce in support of his idea, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> You had no complaint when *YOU* cited it. It was indeed *YOUR* cite.
>> (Although I'd cited it first in the **ORIGINAL** thread, dufus ran
>> from it, and didn't realize I'd given it.)

Dufus has *yet* to admit that he ran from it in the *REAL* "original"
thread.

>> >> Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.
>> >
>> > Ben lies, lurkers, it isn`t "suddenly" hearsay.
>>
>> Then simply cite where you stated that your citation was hearsay, and
>> wouldn't be considered "evidence."
>
> As explained, it wasn`t my citation, lurkers. As explained, it wasn`t "suddenly" hearsay.

You don't know *which* way to turn, do you?

Cite a statement from you on the FBI memo stating that it was
"hearsay" prior to the date you learned that you'd lied.



But you won't. You can't. You're lying again.

>> This cite of yours must come from *BEFORE* I proved you a liar by
>> citing the evidence.

No response...

>> > That would be like saying I'm suddenly being retarded.
>>
>>
>> No comment...
>>
>>
>> >> > And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
>> >> > he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
>> >> > one bit of information.
>> >>
>> >> Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.
>> >
>> > Is Ben saying false information is evidence, lurkers? Unreliable information is?
>>
>> Of course.
>
> So there was evidence that a white van was used in the Beltway
> Sniper case, lurkers? Even though it turned out there was no
> connection?

No debate necessary. Simply cite for *YOUR* claim that false
information is not "evidence." Or "unreliable" information isn't
"evidence."

But you won't... you're lying again.

>> ARE YOU A MORON???
>>
>> You're desperate to claim that only "true" and "reliable" evidence is
>> evidence.
>
> How can untrue information lead to the truth, lurkers?

Cite for your claim, or simply demonstrate your dishonesty again.

>> Who made you God?
>>
>> Who suddenly made you capable of determining ultimate truth?
>>
>> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "TRUE" AND WHAT IS
>> "FALSE?"
>>
>> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "RELIABLE" AND WHAT IS
>> UNRELIABLE?"
>
> Who is Ben to say what evidence is "credible", lurkers. This is what Ben said that I labeled a lie...

It's good to see dufus denying that the FBI is credible. This will
come back to haunt him.

> "Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."
>
> Who is Ben to determine what "credible" evidence is, is he God?

Good of you to admit publicly that you don't believe FBI information
is "credible."

There goes your ENTIRE case.

>> And, while I'm posing questions you'll run from... how about *CITING*
>> an authoritative source that denies as "evidence" anything found to be
>> "false" or "unreliable."
>
> Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let Ben show a source that says
> false information can be evidence, lurkers.

It's not "shifting the burden" to have you cite for *YOUR* claim.
You're the one making the unsupported claim.

>> You'll run, of course...
>>
>>
>> >> You claimed I couldn't cite the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> I just did.
>> >>
>> >> You lied.
>>
>>
>> And now refuse to retract your lie, or admit you've lied.
>>
>> You're even refusing to acknowledge the cite as "evidence" in this
>> case. Why is that, stump?

Now that you've acknowledged that it's "evidence" - you clearly lied
when you said I couldn't provide it.

And you're too gutless to admit it and retract your lie.

>> >> >> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
>> >> >> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
>> >> >> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
>> >> >> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?
>> >> >
>> >> > Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier ...
>> >>
>> >> No moron.
>> >
>> > Then let Ben tell us how it *shows* that Oswald read newspaper in
>> > the Domino Room at 7:50 on the day of the assassination,
>>
>> Here it is again, anyone can click on the link and read it for
>> themselves:
>>
>> "OSWALD WAS READING PAPER IN TEH FIRST FLOOR DOMINO ROOM SEVEN FIFTY
>> AM NOV. TWENTYTWO LAST WHEN GIVENS CAME TO WORK."
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>
> How does this *show* that Oswald was in the domono room reading a paper, lurkers?

Doesn't need to.

You simply stated that I could not provide the EVIDENCE.

You yourself admit that it's evidence.

Liar, aren't you stump?

>> Dufus is clearly too stupid to bother clicking on links to check them
>> out before whining...
>>
>> This is indeed the "evidence" dufus whined that I couldn't supply.
>>
>> Dufus lied.
>

> Ben claims ...


Tut tut tut, stump.

QUOTE me...

Because almost every time you pretend to say what I'm "claiming," it
turns out to be a lie.

>> > but it *doesn`t show* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing
>> > curtain rods from the Paine`s
>>
>> If I asked you to cite for your claim that Oswald told Frazier that he
>> was bringing curtain rods... could you do it?
>

> Non responsive to the point...

Dufus was afraid to answer.

He saw where it was leading.

>> >and it *doesn`t show* that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car
>>
>> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Still no answer.

>> > and that it *doesn`t show* that the sack was large enough to
>> > accommodate a broken down rifle,
>>
>> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Dufus apparently cannot...

>> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the
>> > package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long
>>
>> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Dufus is TERRIFIED of answering!

>> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled
>> > seeing Oswald come in that morning
>>
>> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

The cowardice is beginning to STINK.

>> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second
>> > floor "snack bar".
>>
>> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?

Dufus simply refused to answer.

And that fact tells the tale.

His belief can't stand the light of day.

>> If you answer "yes" to **ANY** of those questions, then you're a
>> provable liar... because I *also* cited.
>>
>> If you answer "no" to all of the questions... then you have no case at
>> all.

And if you refuse to answer any of them, you're a provable coward...

>> What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?
>
> Ben thinks he can`t be held accountable for the words he uses, lurkers.

Dufus thinks he can't be held accountable for the words he uses.


He's wrong.

>> >> Read it again:
>> >>
>> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>> >
>> > Apparently this source can only *show* the things Ben decides to accept, lurkers.
>>
>> There you go again, changing the goalposts.

What did you claim I couldn't do?

>> What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?
>
> Ben used the word "show", lurkers. He lied when he said that what
> he produced showed that Oswald read the paper in the Domino room on
> the morning of the assassination, lurkers.

My cite does indeed show what I stated it would.

Just as **YOU** thought the cite you gave showed Oswald reading a
newspaper at 11:50.

Liar, aren't you?

>> > And the coward completely removed this, lurkers...
>>
>> <ad hominem snipped again...>
>>
>> > What does Ben have to say to this, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> It's simply an ad hominem attack not related to the cite I gave.
>
> <snicker> Ben rules his hypocrisy off topic, lurkers.

Nope, I merely feel no particular need to respond to nonsense.

>> >> >> > And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
>> >> >> > Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
>> >> >> > usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
>> >> >> > mornings.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
>> >> >> Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good to see Ben expressing such confidence in Shanklin, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> No "weight" need be attached.
>> >
>> > Ben was using Shanklin in support of an idea, lurkers. Why would
>> > he use it in support of an idea if he had no confidence in its
>> > veracity?
>>
>> Is it evidence?
>>
>> Does this cite say what you thought couldn't be stated by evidence?
>>
>> (If you answer "yes" to those two questions - then you're a provable
>> liar... if you answer "no" to either one, then you have no case at
>> all. If you run like you're going to run, you're a coward as you've
>> already proven time and time again.)

Yep... coward.

>> >> The claim was that I couldn't cite.
>> >
>> > Not what I said, lurkers.
>>
>> You're lying again, dufus.
>>
>> Here it is again:
>>
>> "Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the
>> paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>>
>>
>> "HE CAN'T PRODUCE EVIDENCE"...
>>
>> I not only produced it, I even cited where anyone else can find it.

Anyone notice that dufus had no response to me proving yet another lie
on his part?

>> >> **YOU** offered an FBI memo as a cite.
>> >
>> > I offered it as the support I expected Ben to use in support of
>> > the idea he alluded to, lurkers. I didn`t use it in support of my
>> > position, I said it was irrelevant to my position.
>>
>> You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about that cite as not being legitimate
>> evidence in this case.
>>
>> Indeed, YOU RELIED ON IT AS REFUTING THE IDEA THAT OSWALD HAD BEEN
>> READING A NEWSPAPER AT HIS **CUSTOMARY** TIME.
>>
>> Now you're denying that it's evidence.
>>
>> Which means, by an extension of YOUR EXACT LOGIC, that Oswald is
>> innocent.

And this is going to come back to haunt dufus.

>> >> **YOU** asserted that it was a citation.
>> >
>> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Let's go look:
>>
>> *********************************************
>> > > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He hasn`t stated that he is going to
>> > > provide the cite that I referenced.
>> >
>> >
>> > You're lying again, Dufus.
>> >
>> > I've *ALREADY* stated that I plan to provide it soon.
>>
>> Ben should learn to read for comprehension, lurkers. He hasn`t said
>> that the cite he is going to provide is the same cite that *I* have
>> already provided.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/snoGO7hVQrk/kw_6OEiICQAJ
>> *********************************************
>>
>>
>> Lied, didn't you stump?
>>
>> You ABSOLUTELY DID call your cite a cite.
>>
>> So why is *YOUR* cite a cite, and mine isn't?
>

> It wasn`t my cite...

TUT TUT TUT MORON.

DID YOU **CALL** IT A "CITE?"

You lied, didn't you?

>> And why did you lie about not having referred to it as a cite?
>>
>>
>> >> **YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
>> >> case.
>> >
>> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Yes stupid, you did.
>
> No, I didn`t, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

>> In *THIS VERY POST* you denigrated an FBI cite as
>> mere "hearsay"
>
> How is it degrading to accurately label hearsay as hearsay, lurkers?

Fairly degrading when you over-ride a credible FBI report by the
testimony of a known liar.

>> For if it were "evidence" - you lied about my inability to provide it.
>>
>> Why the constant non-stop lying, dufus?
>>
>> Can't you make your case without telling blatant & provable lies?

No answer...

>> >> So throw out **ALL** FBI gathered evidence, and cite for your claim
>> >> that LHO shot JFK.
>> >>
>> >> But you won't.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying.
>>
>>
>> I predicted it.

And I was right.

>> >> >> Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
>> >> >> well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
>> >> >> >> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
>> >> >> > now is watch Benny dance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is indeed half of the citations ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately for Ben the only thing he ever supports is his own
>> >> > dishonesty, lurkers. He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag
>> >> > Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance.
>> >>
>> >> Tut tut tut, moron.
>> >
>> > Ben always "tut-tuts" when he runs from a point, lurkers.
>>
>> No, it merely highlights when I'm about to spank you for lying.

I correct you each time, and you don't seem capable of learning.

>> >> *NO-ONE* was speaking of what could be proven...
>> >
>> > Did I say "proven", lurkers. I said...
>> >
>> > "He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance."
>> >
>> > Would Ben call this an untrue statement?
>>
>> Absolutely!
>>
>> YOU'RE *BLATANTLY* LYING.
>>
>> I *do* consider it evidence.

And dufus shut up... ROTFLMAO!!!

>> >> only whether or not I
>> >> could cite.
>> >>
>> >> I cited.
>> >>
>> >> You lied.
>>
>>
>> And ran...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> The reading of a newpaper by Oswald in the Domino room in the morning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> YOU'RE A LIAR!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And a proven one.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben proves himself to be both dishonest and hypocritical, lurkers.
>> >> > It is like when he cites an investigation he doesn`t believe or accept
>> >> > to cherry pick "probable conspiracy" he cherry picks hearsay from a
>> >> >source he finds unreliable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You cited an FBI memo that you thought was an evidential citation.
>> >
>> > I produced what Ben had produced in the past when we had this
>> > discussion, lurkers. I didn`t produce it in support of my position, I
>> > said that it had no impact on my position.
>>
>>
>> You cited an FBI memo that you thought was an evidential citation.
>>
>> You *CALLED* it a cite - then in this post, you LIED about that fact.
>>
>> That's simply another of the many lies you keep telling.
>>
>> Why so many lies, dufus?
>>
>> Do you simply not care for the truth?
>>
>> Is your life that empty?

No answer, but I suspect lurkers can draw their own conclusions.

>> >> Now that one has been provided that proves you a liar, you're
>> >> tapdancing away.
>> >>
>> >> WHAT A DISHONEST BIT OF SCUM YOU ARE!
>> >
>> > This discussion has been very useful in exposing Ben as a
>> > hypocrite, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Empty claim.
>>
>> What this "discussion" has been useful for, is highlighting the
>> REPEATED lying that dufus keeps engaging in.
>>
>> He lied about his cite not being contradicted by Givens.
>>
>> He lied about not referring to it as a "cite."
>>
>> You continually lie about my position on evidence.
>>
>> You **STILL** refuse to acknowledge that my second cite is actual
>> evidence in this case.
>>
>> You're a liar, stump.

And stump was completely unable to refute any of those lies.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:37:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 17:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> THE COWARD LIED!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
> >> >> that it's not evidence!!!
> >> >
> >> > Will Ben accept that the Shanklin exhibit is evidence that Oswald
> >> > carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
> >> > assassination, lurkers?
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course!
> >
> > So far so good, lurkers. Will Ben accept that it *shows* Oswald
> > carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
> > assassination, lurkers?
>
>
> No.
>
> Why would I?

It would stop Ben from being exposed as a liar and hypocrite for one, lurkers.

Ben said this about what he quoted from Shanklin about Oswald reading the paper in the morning...

"You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?"

Notice the wording, lurkers, Ben claims it *shows* that Oswald read the paper that morning in the domino room.

And Ben also said this...

"So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle."

So either the Shanklin teletype can *show* things or it can`t. I asked Ben straight out if he would accept that Shanklin could *show* that Oswald carried a three feet by six inch bag the day of the assassination, and he replied...

"No."

"Why would I?"

So how does Shanklin have the ability to *show* that Oswald read the apper but not that he carried the bag?

> What stupid pill did you take that makes you even *imagine* me doing
> something you refuse to do?

I`m merely holding Ben accountable for the words he used, lurkers.

>
>
> >> But, you see, I know what "evidence" is... and you're willing to lie
> >> about it.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I predicted this folks!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> And, as usual, I was right on the money!
>
>
> Dufus had nothing to say.

Covered elsewhere, lurkers. Many of these things are repetitive, they don`t need to be addressed over and over.

One wasn`t the first thing in the morning, which was the point of contention, lurkers.

> Givens denies it.
>
> That makes you a *STUPID* liar.

Ben is just this desperate to try an portray this argument as just being about reading the newspaper, lurkers.

>
> >> You're lying again.
> >>
> >> **YOU** believe that it showed Oswald reading a newspaper at 11:50.
> >> Something that Givens TESTIFIED TO that he'd **NOT** seen that day.
> >
> > I didn`t compare everything Givens said to that FBI report,
> > lurkers. I didn`t see that report as relevant to what we were
> > discussing.
>
> You asserted that one of the FBI cites "didn't conflict directly with
> the information the witness testified to"
>
> You're a liar.
>
> Givens *CLEARLY* testified that he didn't see Oswald reading a
> newspaper that day.

See above, lurkers.

> How much longer are you going to keep lying?
>
>
> >> So this is another *OBVIOUS* lie on your part.
> >>
> >> You're a liar, stump.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor does a "conflict" with other evidence mean that the evidence is no
> >> longer "evidence."
> >
> > That is why I recently amended what I had said.
>
>
> Yet you *STILL* refuse to state publicly that *BOTH* FBI cites are
> "evidence."

If it will make Ben happy, I will, lurkers. They are both evidence. They are both hearsay. They are both typed. Only one pertains to the discussion we were having about newspaper reading being done first thing in the morning.

> And you refuse to acknowledge THAT YOU LIED, and I've not seen any
> apologies for your lies either.

I`ll make a deal, lurkers, if Ben stops lying I`ll stop calling him a liar.

And so he was, lurkers.

>and stated that I could not provide the
> evidence.

That prediction didn`t come through, lurkers.

> You now acknowledge that I provided evidence.
>
> YET YOU STILL REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIE YOU TOLD.
>
> And I've yet to hear any apology from you for your lying.

If what I replied to was true I would have no problem apologizing, lurkers. Alas, it was not.

What I called a lie appeared before I made that prediction, lurkers.

> You're a liar and a despicable coward.
>
>
>
>
> >> Or his repeated lies... the newest one being that the first citation
> >> didn't conflict with Given's testimony.
> >
> > Not in regards to the point of contention, lurkers.
>
>
> The "point of contention" is whether or not Oswald was seen reading a
> newspaper on the morning of 11/22/63.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. Remember I stipulated "like he usually did"? The FBI report with the 11:50 time can`t apply to that.

> You're a STUPID liar!
>
>
>
> >> Stump just LOVES to lie!
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Amusingly, stump still can't figure out that either the FBI or Givens
> >> >> lied.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a Retard, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not an answer, stump.
> >
> > Alright, I`ll just point out that Ben used the false dilemma fallacy, lurkers.
>
>
> And I'll just point out that stump will *NEVER* offer another credible
> explanation.

And now the inevitable shifting of the burden, lurkers.

And Ben lies when he says I didn`t offer a credible explanation. Chinese Whispers.

> One that the average *honest* person would be willing to
> accept.

Most people have seen demonstrations of Chinese Whispers. This is the main reason hearsay is generally not allowed in court.

Strawman argument, lurkers.

Ben ran from most of the points I made in that discussion, lurkers.

>
> >> >> Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.
> >> >
> >> > Ben lies, lurkers, it isn`t "suddenly" hearsay.
> >>
> >> Then simply cite where you stated that your citation was hearsay, and
> >> wouldn't be considered "evidence."
> >
> > As explained, it wasn`t my citation, lurkers. As explained, it wasn`t "suddenly" hearsay.
>
>
> You don't know *which* way to turn, do you?

I have to unspin all the spin Ben is desperately trying to put on these things, lurkers.

> Cite a statement from you on the FBI memo stating that it was
> "hearsay" prior to the date you learned that you'd lied.

Ben is begging the question with that phrasing, lurkers.

On 1-29-17 I said...

"Is Ben trying to trump what Givens actually said with hearsay?"

Hardly a new position.

>
>
> But you won't. You can't. You're lying again.
>
>
>
> >> This cite of yours must come from *BEFORE* I proved you a liar by
> >> citing the evidence.
>
>
> No response...
>
>
>
> >> > That would be like saying I'm suddenly being retarded.
> >>
> >>
> >> No comment...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
> >> >> > he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
> >> >> > one bit of information.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.
> >> >
> >> > Is Ben saying false information is evidence, lurkers? Unreliable information is?
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> > So there was evidence that a white van was used in the Beltway
> > Sniper case, lurkers? Even though it turned out there was no
> > connection?
>
>
> No debate necessary.

Or possible, lurkers. My arguments were ironclad. Fleeing was Ben`s only option.

> Simply cite for *YOUR* claim that false
> information is not "evidence." Or "unreliable" information isn't
> "evidence."

Evidence is used to arrive at the truth, lurkers. Let Ben explain how false information can help that be achieved.

> But you won't... you're lying again.
>
>
> >> ARE YOU A MORON???
> >>
> >> You're desperate to claim that only "true" and "reliable" evidence is
> >> evidence.
> >
> > How can untrue information lead to the truth, lurkers?
>
>
> Cite for your claim, or simply demonstrate your dishonesty again.

Let Ben cite for his contention that untrue information can lead to the truth, lurkers.

>
>
> >> Who made you God?
> >>
> >> Who suddenly made you capable of determining ultimate truth?
> >>
> >> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "TRUE" AND WHAT IS
> >> "FALSE?"
> >>
> >> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "RELIABLE" AND WHAT IS
> >> UNRELIABLE?"
> >
> > Who is Ben to say what evidence is "credible", lurkers. This is what Ben said that I labeled a lie...
>
>
> It's good to see dufus denying that the FBI is credible.

It is good to see Ben hasn`t stopped lying, lurkers. Notice whenever a dishonest person states your position they always misrepresent it?

No matter how many times I state my position Ben will continue to try to make it something else. I weigh information. Whether something is credible or incredible depends on the information itself, the source, the context, ect.

> This will
> come back to haunt him.

Ben intends to continue to misrepresent my position, lurkers.

>
> > "Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."
> >
> > Who is Ben to determine what "credible" evidence is, is he God?
>
>
>
> Good of you to admit publicly that you don't believe FBI information
> is "credible."

Notice Ben was forced to hide behind his strawman to avoid addressing the argument made, lurkers. He set himself of as the person to determine what is credible, the same crooked game he always plays.

> There goes your ENTIRE case.
>
>
> >> And, while I'm posing questions you'll run from... how about *CITING*
> >> an authoritative source that denies as "evidence" anything found to be
> >> "false" or "unreliable."
> >
> > Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let Ben show a source that says
> > false information can be evidence, lurkers.
>
>
> It's not "shifting the burden" to have you cite for *YOUR* claim.
> You're the one making the unsupported claim.

Here is a definition of evidence, lurkers...

"1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Ben`s contention is either that there is no such thing as true and untrue information, or that somehow untrue information can lead to the truth. Like my example of the white van in the Beltway Sniper case shows, the untrue information led to a lot of wasted effort and man power, nothing positive came from the false information.

This what I wrote that Ben was so afraid of that he had to remove it, lurkers. Lurkers *know* it is true by the very fact that Ben removed it, and he forced me to go back and retrieve the information is was so afraid of that he had to remove it. He desperately want *me* to start using the dishonest and childish tactics he employs because he knows the discussions will break down and he won`t be showed up any more.

This is what I wrote that he removed...

"Ben claims this document *shows* that Oswald read the newspaper in the domino room in the morning on the day of the assassination. Would Ben say it *shows* that Oswald carried a bag three feet by six inches that day, lurkers?"

> QUOTE me...

""So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle."

""You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?"

Ben is clearly representing that Shanklin can *show* things, but being a hypocrite it can only show the things he accepts.

> Because almost every time you pretend to say what I'm "claiming," it
> turns out to be a lie.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

>
>

> >> > but it *doesn`t show* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing
> >> > curtain rods from the Paine`s
> >>
> >> If I asked you to cite for your claim that Oswald told Frazier that he
> >> was bringing curtain rods... could you do it?
> >
> > Non responsive to the point...
>
> Dufus was afraid to answer.
>
> He saw where it was leading.
>
>
> >> >and it *doesn`t show* that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car
> >>
> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>
> Still no answer.

This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers. First he talks over the point I made to avoid addressing it. Then he removed the content which showed he was talking over my point without addressing it. This scumbag wants to claim some kind of moral high ground using scumbag tactics because he can`t argue honestly.

> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that the sack was large enough to
> >> > accommodate a broken down rifle,
> >>
> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>
>
> Dufus apparently cannot...

This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers. First he talks over the point I made to avoid addressing it. Then he removed the content which showed he was talking over my point without addressing it. This scumbag wants to claim some kind of moral high ground using scumbag tactics because he can`t argue honestly.

>
> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the
> >> > package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long
> >>
> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>
> Dufus is TERRIFIED of answering!

This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers. First he talks over the point I made to avoid addressing it. Then he removed the content which showed he was talking over my point without addressing it. This scumbag wants to claim some kind of moral high ground using scumbag tactics because he can`t argue honestly.

> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled
> >> > seeing Oswald come in that morning
> >>
> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>
>
> The cowardice is beginning to STINK.

I didn`t remove any of the things Ben wrote, lurkers. Yet he is constantly removing things I write. I think lurkers will agree that this conduct establishes him as the coward.

>
> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second
> >> > floor "snack bar".
> >>
> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>
>
> Dufus simply refused to answer.

This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers. First he talks over the point I made to avoid addressing it. Then he removed the content which showed he was talking over my point without addressing it. This scumbag wants to claim some kind of moral high ground using scumbag tactics because he can`t argue honestly.

The hypocrisy he has shown here is well established, lurkers.

<snicker> Ben is threatening to misrepresent me, lurkers. Thats all he ever does.

>
>
> >> >> **YOU** asserted that it was a citation.
> >> >
> >> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's go look:
> >>
> >> *********************************************
> >> > > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He hasn`t stated that he is going to
> >> > > provide the cite that I referenced.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You're lying again, Dufus.
> >> >
> >> > I've *ALREADY* stated that I plan to provide it soon.
> >>
> >> Ben should learn to read for comprehension, lurkers. He hasn`t said
> >> that the cite he is going to provide is the same cite that *I* have
> >> already provided.
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/snoGO7hVQrk/kw_6OEiICQAJ
> >> *********************************************
> >>
> >>
> >> Lied, didn't you stump?
> >>
> >> You ABSOLUTELY DID call your cite a cite.
> >>
> >> So why is *YOUR* cite a cite, and mine isn't?
> >
> > It wasn`t my cite...
>
> TUT TUT TUT MORON.
>
> DID YOU **CALL** IT A "CITE?"

Did I call it *my* cite, lurkers?

> You lied, didn't you?
>
>
>
> >> And why did you lie about not having referred to it as a cite?
> >>
> >>
> >> >> **YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
> >> >> case.
> >> >
> >> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes stupid, you did.
> >
> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, stump.
>
>
>
> >> In *THIS VERY POST* you denigrated an FBI cite as
> >> mere "hearsay"
> >
> > How is it degrading to accurately label hearsay as hearsay, lurkers?
>
>
> Fairly degrading when you over-ride a credible FBI report by the
> testimony of a known liar.

Conspiracy kooks have to call the witnesses liars, what they relate doesn`t support their faith.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:37:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 17:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> THE COWARD LIED!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dufus claimed I couldn't cite, **I DID CITE** and now he's whining
>> >> >> that it's not evidence!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Will Ben accept that the Shanklin exhibit is evidence that Oswald
>> >> > carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
>> >> > assassination, lurkers?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course!
>> >
>> > So far so good, lurkers. Will Ben accept that it *shows* Oswald
>> > carried a package three feet by six inches the morning of the
>> > assassination, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Why would I?
>
> It would stop Ben from being exposed as a liar and hypocrite for
> one, lurkers.

If *I'm* a "hypcrite* for judging the evidence based on corroborating
evidence, then you are too.

Moreso, in fact... because you often disregard contradicting evidence.

> Ben said this about what he quoted from Shanklin about Oswald reading the paper in the morning...
>
> "You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?"
>
> Notice the wording, lurkers, Ben claims it *shows* that Oswald
> read the paper that morning in the domino room.

That *IS* what it says.

What did you *think* it showed? (you won't answer, of course)

> And Ben also said this...
>
> "So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in
> the Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle."

I see that you're selectively quoting again, removing the context.

Let's put it back in context:

***************************************************************

>> And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
>> Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
>> usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
>> mornings.
>
> "So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in
> the Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle."

***************************************************************

You made the claim that because he was **NOT** reading in the domino
room at his normal time was due to the "fact" that he was bringing his
rifle, and needed to hide it.

Contrary to that, if the evidence shows that he *WAS* reading in the
domino room, then he *DIDN'T* have a rifle.

So you lost that one.

> So either the Shanklin teletype can *show* things or it can`t. I
> asked Ben straight out if he would accept that Shanklin could *show*
> that Oswald carried a three feet by six inch bag the day of the
> assassination, and he replied...
>
> "No."
>
> "Why would I?"
>
> So how does Shanklin have the ability to *show* that Oswald read
> the apper but not that he carried the bag?

Because one is corroborated, and one is not.

Tell everyone dufus, do *YOU* judge the evidence?

>> What stupid pill did you take that makes you even *imagine* me doing
>> something you refuse to do?
>
> I`m merely holding Ben accountable for the words he used, lurkers.

Indeed I am.

What does it mean to say that I cannot provide evidence?

And once again, you've EVADED the question... what makes you even
IMAGINE me doing something you refuse to do?

>> >> But, you see, I know what "evidence" is... and you're willing to lie
>> >> about it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> I predicted this folks!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And, as usual, I was right on the money!
>>
>>
>> Dufus had nothing to say.
>
> Covered elsewhere, lurkers. Many of these things are repetitive,
> they don`t need to be addressed over and over.

You're lying again, stump.

Notice that dufus is too cowardly and too dishonest to admit that the
FBI cites *BOTH* state that Oswald was reading a newspaper in the
domino room in the morning.

And Givens *DENIED* that.


GIVENS DENIED THAT... YET YOU CLAIM TO SEE NO CONFLICT!!!

You're not just a liar, you're a STUPID liar.

>> Givens denies it.
>>
>> That makes you a *STUPID* liar.
>
> Ben is just this desperate to try an portray this argument as just
> being about reading the newspaper, lurkers.

You keep lying, I keep pointing it out.

The FBI's citations given QUITE OBVIOUSLY conflict with Givens'
testimony... and in more than just this one issue as well.

>> >> You're lying again.
>> >>
>> >> **YOU** believe that it showed Oswald reading a newspaper at 11:50.
>> >> Something that Givens TESTIFIED TO that he'd **NOT** seen that day.
>> >
>> > I didn`t compare everything Givens said to that FBI report,
>> > lurkers. I didn`t see that report as relevant to what we were
>> > discussing.
>>
>> You asserted that one of the FBI cites "didn't conflict directly with
>> the information the witness testified to"
>>
>> You're a liar.
>>
>> Givens *CLEARLY* testified that he didn't see Oswald reading a
>> newspaper that day.
>
> See above, lurkers.

You have *nothing* to say... you're simply lying.

And it's a *STUPID* lie, because it's so flagrantly obvious.

You're turning yourself into a real scumbag of a moron when you can't
even admit that the FBI's citations and Givens' testimony conflict.

>> How much longer are you going to keep lying?

My suspicion is that dufus doesn't even understand the difference
between a lie and the truth.

>> >> So this is another *OBVIOUS* lie on your part.
>> >>
>> >> You're a liar, stump.
>> >>
>> >> Nor does a "conflict" with other evidence mean that the evidence is no
>> >> longer "evidence."
>> >
>> > That is why I recently amended what I had said.
>>
>>
>> Yet you *STILL* refuse to state publicly that *BOTH* FBI cites are
>> "evidence."
>
> If it will make Ben happy, I will, lurkers. They are both
> evidence. They are both hearsay. They are both typed. Only one
> pertains to the discussion we were having about newspaper reading
> being done first thing in the morning.

Regardless of your claims about relevancy, I cited what you asserted
that I could not, and labeled me a liar for.

But it's clear... *YOU LIED*

>> And you refuse to acknowledge THAT YOU LIED, and I've not seen any
>> apologies for your lies either.
>
> I`ll make a deal, lurkers, if Ben stops lying I`ll stop calling him a liar.

Can't make a deal with a dishonest coward.

All you can do is point it out.


Repeatedly.

What I stated I cited for...

And since you've decided that eyewitness statements are more credible
than hearsay, you've lost.

Oswald said he shot no-one.

>>and stated that I could not provide the
>> evidence.
>
> That prediction didn`t come through, lurkers.

You're lying again, dufus.

It wasn't until I PROVED you a liar that you started calling it a
"prediction."

There's *NOTHING* in the statement even implying that it was a
prediction.

You got caught in a provable lie.

It's just that simple.

>> You now acknowledge that I provided evidence.
>>
>> YET YOU STILL REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIE YOU TOLD.
>>
>> And I've yet to hear any apology from you for your lying.
>
> If what I replied to was true I would have no problem apologizing,
> lurkers. Alas, it was not.

Prove it.

But you can't. You can *ONLY* rely on someone known to be willing to
lie.

Perhaps you just feel more comfortable with another liar.

>> >> >> >> > I don`t think if I ever say anyone at ten minutes to twelve I
>> >> >> >> > would say I saw them in the morning, but thats a small point,
>> >> >> >> > technically it is morning.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The citation says "IN THE MORNING"... then goes on to PROVE that it
>> >> >> >> was morning by a time reference that precedes 12 noon.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're lying, stump.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This shows what an idiot Ben is, lurkers. I say that if I saw
>> >> >> > someone at 10 to 12 I would never say I saw that person in the
>> >> >> > morning, and he call my assertion a lie, like he knows what I would
>> >> >> > say better than I do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll bet you wish you'd never said this... BECAUSE **I** ALREADY
>> >> >> DID!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And now you're agreeing with me.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dead silence... dufus is slapping himself.
>>
>>
>> Dufus is *STILL embarrassed for accidently agreeing with me...

Still complete silence.

>> >> >> >> > But the real problem for Ben is the cite doesn`t impact what I said. I said...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the paper in the
>> >> >> >> > domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And yet, this is PRECISELY what the citation states.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ben is lying, lurkers. It doesn`t state in this cite what Oswald`s
>> >> >> > routine was, lurkers. That can be found in the testimony I produced.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The citation has already been given below:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And no apology for stump's lie that I was "lying."
>> >
>> > What I replied to that Ben said was untrue, lurkers. Therefore I owe him no apology.
>>
>>
>> And yet, I provided the evidence you claimed I could not provide.
>
> What I called a lie appeared before I made that prediction, lurkers.

There was no "prediction"... you're lying again, stump.

You don't "amend" a prediction... it either comes true or it doesn't.


The very fact that you claim to have "amended" your statement proves
that *YOU* know it wasn't a prediction.

This is what happens when you lie... the lies just keep piling on top
of each other, until they come crashing all down. I learned that when
I was still in elementary school.

>> You're a liar and a despicable coward.

Still true.

>> >> Or his repeated lies... the newest one being that the first citation
>> >> didn't conflict with Given's testimony.
>> >
>> > Not in regards to the point of contention, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> The "point of contention" is whether or not Oswald was seen reading a
>> newspaper on the morning of 11/22/63.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers. Remember I stipulated "like he usually
> did"? The FBI report with the 11:50 time can`t apply to that.

Dufus loves to lie. He just HATES the fact that I cited for a 7:50am
time.

Hates it so much, that given the opportunity, he keeps harping on the
11:50 time instead.

Which simply goes to show that stump *KNOWS* he's lying...

>> You're a STUPID liar!
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Stump just LOVES to lie!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> > Oswald`s usual routine was not to read the paper in the Domino Room at ten of twelve. Givens testified...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> YOU"RE LYING AGAIN, STUMP.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It is true, Givens did testify, lurkers. Ben loves to lie.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amusingly, stump still can't figure out that either the FBI or Givens
>> >> >> lied.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm a Retard, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not an answer, stump.
>> >
>> > Alright, I`ll just point out that Ben used the false dilemma fallacy, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> And I'll just point out that stump will *NEVER* offer another credible
>> explanation.
>
> And now the inevitable shifting of the burden, lurkers.

It's *your* burden. **YOU** mad the claim that it was a false
dilemma... *YOU* have to support your claim.

> And Ben lies when he says I didn`t offer a credible explanation.

That's not what I said, moron.


> Chinese Whispers.


What did Givens say to the *TWO* agents that they managed to twist
into the opposite?

I asked for something *credible*, not stupid.

>> One that the average *honest* person would be willing to
>> accept.
>
> Most people have seen demonstrations of Chinese Whispers. This is
> the main reason hearsay is generally not allowed in court.

And *NO-ONE* has seen it done the way you're claiming.

>> Run stump, RUN!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> The citation does *NOT* say anything to preclude reading the paper in
>> >> >> >> the Domino Room at 11:50.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Or on the roof, lurkers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the morning.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the reading of the newpaper
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That *PERFECTLY* fits the Domino room.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Unfortunately for Ben it doesn`t fit Oswald`s normal routine of reading the paper when he first came into work, lurkers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And this is not something I am going to keep repeating in the
>> >> >> > hopes that Ben gets honest enough to acknowledge it. I told you
>> >> >> > lurkers to watch how this plays out and it has played out exactly how
>> >> >> > I said it would.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Go ahead and keep repeating it... doesn't bother me in the least.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've *CITED* for this already. 7:50 am.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What amusing silence...
>> >>
>> >> Stump can't even *lie* to deny it... he knows I've done what he
>> >> claimed I couldn't do.
>>
>>
>> Still silent... stump can't think up any new lies.

Stump is TERRIFIED of acknowledging the 7:50 time publicly.

>> >> >> >> > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there
>> >> >> >> > every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the
>> >> >> >> > paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> >> >> >> > Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> >> >> >> > didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> >> >> >> > morning.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're now quoting something that I did *NOT* cite. Indeed, you're now
>> >> >> >> citing what WE KNOW TO BE A LIE.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now we are going to be treated to the crooked game where evidence
>> >> >> > isn`t evidence unless a retard accepts it, lurkers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is EXACTLY what you do below.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And no-where do I claim that Givens testimony isn't evidence... it
>> >> >> *IS* evidence that he lied.
>> >>
>> >> Stump can't think of anything to say...
>>
>> Stump had nothing to say...

Another "prediction" of stump's that failed to materialize.

>> >> >> >> And *YOU* know it's a lie too, because you SELECTIVELY chose that
>> >> >> >> quote.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Here's a more complete version that proves that you're quoting a lie:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere
>> >> >> >> between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
>> >> >> >> Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
>> >> >> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
>> >> >> >> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
>> >> >> >> morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
>> >> >> >> the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>> >> >> >> Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>> >> >> >> didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>> >> >> >> morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You were afraid to give *THIS* quote... because it proves that Givens
>> >> >> >> contradicted the FBI report.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ben is going to try to win on a technicality, lurkers. How desperate is this guy?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What "technicality?"
>> >> >
>> >> > The technicality of 11:50 being technically morning, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> No moron, the "technicality of 7:50am being morning."
>> >
>> > Ben asked me what I meant and I told him, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> And lied while doing so.
>>
>> You can't even *justify* this lie. Unless you were too stupid to read
>> my second cite. (Which I strongly suspect is true.)

Notice that stump didn't deny it?

>> >> Liar, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> You said I couldn't *CITE*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're now trying to whine that you don't *ACCEPT* that cite BECAUSE
>> >> >> IT CONTRADICTS WHAT GIVENS TESTIFIED TO.
>> >> >
>> >> > The hearsay is outweighed by what Givens actually said, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tut tut tut, dufus.
>> >>
>> >> You asked for EVIDENCE.
>> >>
>> >> I cited it. (Amusingly, you keep running every time I ask you if that
>> >> cite is considered "evidence.")
>> >>
>> >> You're desperately claiming now that evidence is no longer evidence if
>> >> an eyewitness denies it.
>> >>
>> >> So WE NOW HAVE IRONCLAD PROOF THAT OSWALD OWNED NO RIFLE.
>> >>
>> >> He said so.
>> >>
>> >> And using *YOUR* logic that a witness statement over-rides all other
>> >> evidence, you've lost.
>>
>> And dufus had nothing to say...
>
> Strawman argument, lurkers.

No moron, it's not.

And you'll be seeing it again and again... until you acknowledge that
what you ACTUALLY SAID isn't true.

>> >> >> >> There *IS* a way to reconcile this... unfortunately for you, it
>> >> >> >> *COMPLETELY* demolishes your lie.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not at all, lurkers. I'm a retard.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Clearly Givens was referring to first thing in the morning when Oswald first came to work, not 11:50.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mean like 7:50am?
>> >> >
>> >> > Let Ben quote Givens saying he saw Oswald at that time of the day
>> >> > on the assassination, lurkers. I can quote him saying the exact
>> >> > opposite.
>> >>
>> >> Logical fallacy of changing the goalposts.
>> >
>> > Pointing out that Ben can`t quote giving the 7:50am time is not
>> > moving the goalposts, lurkers.
>>
>> Yes moron, it is.
>>
>> YOU CLAIMED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD READ THE
>> PAPER IN THE DOMINO ROOM IN THE MORNING [11/22/63] LIKE HE USUALLY
>> DID.
>>
>> Nothing was said about what *Givens* said...

Dufus is too busy running to acknowledge this fact.

>> >> You asked for a cite of EVIDENCE... I provided it.
>> >>
>> >> Now you're whining that it has to be evidence you approve of.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Or that it has to come only from Given's testimony.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're simply a scumbag... aren't you stump?
>>
>>
>> No answer...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> You can find it here:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why would hearsay trump what Givens himself actually said, lurkers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tut tut tut, moron.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It was *EVIDENCE* when you cited the FBI.
>> >> >
>> >> > It wasn`t *my* cite, it was the cite I knew Ben was going to
>> >> > produce in support of his idea, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You had no complaint when *YOU* cited it. It was indeed *YOUR* cite.
>> >> (Although I'd cited it first in the **ORIGINAL** thread, dufus ran
>> >> from it, and didn't realize I'd given it.)
>>
>>
>> Dufus has *yet* to admit that he ran from it in the *REAL* "original"
>> thread.
>
> Ben ran from most of the points I made in that discussion, lurkers.

You're lying again, dufus. YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote
anything that I "ran" from. In fact, you've even lied about *what* was
the original thread.

You'll refuse to quote because you ABSOLUTELY **KNOW** that there's
nothing I can't give credible answers to.

Something you can't do.

>> >> >> Now it's suddenly "hearsay" when it proves you a liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben lies, lurkers, it isn`t "suddenly" hearsay.
>> >>
>> >> Then simply cite where you stated that your citation was hearsay, and
>> >> wouldn't be considered "evidence."
>> >
>> > As explained, it wasn`t my citation, lurkers. As explained, it wasn`t "suddenly" hearsay.
>>
>>
>> You don't know *which* way to turn, do you?
>
> I have to unspin all the spin Ben is desperately trying to put on these things, lurkers.

There's no "spin."

You claimed I couldn't cite.

I promptly did.

You ran REPEATEDLY from that thread.

So I posted it again.

Then gave a second cite that stunned you.

So much so that I forced you to "amend" your statement.

Yet you still refuse to retract your original lie, or acknowledge
it...

Or offer any apology for the near CONSTANT lying that you're doing.

>> Cite a statement from you on the FBI memo stating that it was
>> "hearsay" prior to the date you learned that you'd lied.
>
> Ben is begging the question with that phrasing, lurkers.

So you acknowledge that you **CANNOT**, prior to my citing of it, show
that you ever thought it not authoritative evidence.

That fact tells the tale...

> On 1-29-17 I said...
>
> "Is Ben trying to trump what Givens actually said with hearsay?"
>
> Hardly a new position.

You're lying again, dufus.

>> But you won't. You can't. You're lying again.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> This cite of yours must come from *BEFORE* I proved you a liar by
>> >> citing the evidence.
>>
>>
>> No response...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > That would be like saying I'm suddenly being retarded.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No comment...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> > And Ben opens himself up to all kind of charges of hypocrisy once
>> >> >> > he represents this document as reliable in order to cherry pick that
>> >> >> > one bit of information.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Whether it's true or false was *NEVER* your claim.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is Ben saying false information is evidence, lurkers? Unreliable information is?
>> >>
>> >> Of course.
>> >
>> > So there was evidence that a white van was used in the Beltway
>> > Sniper case, lurkers? Even though it turned out there was no
>> > connection?
>>
>>
>> No debate necessary.
>
> Or possible, lurkers. My arguments were ironclad. Fleeing was
> Ben`s only option.

Which is why you simply lied.

>> Simply cite for *YOUR* claim that false
>> information is not "evidence." Or "unreliable" information isn't
>> "evidence."
>
> Evidence is used to arrive at the truth, lurkers. Let Ben explain
> how false information can help that be achieved.

Nope... this is *YOUR* claim. *YOU* support it. I'm merely going to
sit back and laugh at you.

>> But you won't... you're lying again.
>>
>>
>> >> ARE YOU A MORON???
>> >>
>> >> You're desperate to claim that only "true" and "reliable" evidence is
>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> > How can untrue information lead to the truth, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> Cite for your claim, or simply demonstrate your dishonesty again.
>
> Let Ben cite for his contention that untrue information can lead
> to the truth, lurkers.

Trying to shift the burden again.

YOUR claim... YOUR burden.

>> >> Who made you God?
>> >>
>> >> Who suddenly made you capable of determining ultimate truth?
>> >>
>> >> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "TRUE" AND WHAT IS
>> >> "FALSE?"
>> >>
>> >> WHO MADE YOU CAPABLE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS "RELIABLE" AND WHAT IS
>> >> UNRELIABLE?"
>> >
>> > Who is Ben to say what evidence is "credible", lurkers. This is what Ben said that I labeled a lie...
>>
>> It's good to see dufus denying that the FBI is credible.
>
> It is good to see Ben hasn`t stopped lying, lurkers. Notice
> whenever a dishonest person states your position they always
> misrepresent it?

Who lied?

You assert that Givens is more credible than the FBI citations.

THAT'S A FACT.

So where's the lie???

> No matter how many times I state my position Ben will continue to
> try to make it something else. I weigh information. Whether something
> is credible or incredible depends on the information itself, the
> source, the context, ect.

This isn't true when it comes to witness statements vs hearsay. You've
quite specifically stated:

"How can information gotten directly from the person *not* be the most
credible information?"

You keep lying, and I keep pointing 'em out.

>> This will
>> come back to haunt him.
>
> Ben intends to continue to misrepresent my position, lurkers.

I intend on QUOTING YOUR EXACT WORDS.

And no, that's not a "prediction."

You lied again, stump.

>> > "Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."
>> >
>> > Who is Ben to determine what "credible" evidence is, is he God?
>>
>> Good of you to admit publicly that you don't believe FBI information
>> is "credible."
>
> Notice Ben was forced to hide behind his strawman to avoid
> addressing the argument made, lurkers. He set himself of as the person
> to determine what is credible, the same crooked game he always plays.

You say it, I merely show it's application more universally.

>> There goes your ENTIRE case.
>>
>>
>> >> And, while I'm posing questions you'll run from... how about *CITING*
>> >> an authoritative source that denies as "evidence" anything found to be
>> >> "false" or "unreliable."
>> >
>> > Shifting the burden, lurkers. Let Ben show a source that says
>> > false information can be evidence, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> It's not "shifting the burden" to have you cite for *YOUR* claim.
>> You're the one making the unsupported claim.
>
> Here is a definition of evidence, lurkers...
>
> "1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
>
> Ben`s contention is either that there is no such thing as true and
> untrue information, or that somehow untrue information can lead to the
> truth.

Molesting the neighborhood dogs again.

Why is it so easy for me to quote you, and so impossible for you to
quote me?

You're simply lying... and quite clearly you're lying because you
can't actually debate what I *REALLY* say.

> Like my example of the white van in the Beltway Sniper case
> shows, the untrue information led to a lot of wasted effort and man
> power, nothing positive came from the false information.
>
>> >> You'll run, of course...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> You claimed I couldn't cite the evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I just did.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You lied.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And now refuse to retract your lie, or admit you've lied.
>> >>
>> >> You're even refusing to acknowledge the cite as "evidence" in this
>> >> case. Why is that, stump?
>>
>>
>> Now that you've acknowledged that it's "evidence" - you clearly lied
>> when you said I couldn't provide it.
>>
>> And you're too gutless to admit it and retract your lie.

Still true.

>> >> >> >> > So even if he did read the paper at ten of twelve that day, this
>> >> >> >> > was still out of his usual routine of reading the paper when he came
>> >> >> >> > in. Note I wrote "...in the morning like he usually did." Ben`s cite
>> >> >> >> > is an outlier, not his usual routine.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You mean like the cite from Shanklin shows?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Then the cite shows that Oswald told Frazier ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No moron.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then let Ben tell us how it *shows* that Oswald read newspaper in
>> >> > the Domino Room at 7:50 on the day of the assassination,
>> >>
>> >> Here it is again, anyone can click on the link and read it for
>> >> themselves:
>> >>
>> >> "OSWALD WAS READING PAPER IN TEH FIRST FLOOR DOMINO ROOM SEVEN FIFTY
>> >> AM NOV. TWENTYTWO LAST WHEN GIVENS CAME TO WORK."
>> >>
>> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>> >
>> > How does this *show* that Oswald was in the domono room reading a paper, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> Doesn't need to.
>>
>> You simply stated that I could not provide the EVIDENCE.
>>
>> You yourself admit that it's evidence.
>>
>> Liar, aren't you stump?

Amusingly, stumps attempt to move the goalposts failed, and he had
nothing to say.

>> >> Dufus is clearly too stupid to bother clicking on links to check them
>> >> out before whining...
>> >>
>> >> This is indeed the "evidence" dufus whined that I couldn't supply.
>> >>
>> >> Dufus lied.
>> >
>> > Ben claims ...
>>
>> Tut tut tut, stump.

Ad hominem & non-relevant material snipped.

The **ONLY** issue is whether or not I could "produce" the evidence.

>> Because almost every time you pretend to say what I'm "claiming," it
>> turns out to be a lie.
>

> I love to lie, lurkers.

>
>> >> > but it *doesn`t show* that Oswald told Frazier that he was bringing
>> >> > curtain rods from the Paine`s
>> >>
>> >> If I asked you to cite for your claim that Oswald told Frazier that he
>> >> was bringing curtain rods... could you do it?
>> >
>> > Non responsive to the point...
>>
>> Dufus was afraid to answer.
>>
>> He saw where it was leading.
>>
>>
>> >> >and it *doesn`t show* that he put a large paper sack into Frazier`s car
>> >>
>> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>>
>> Still no answer.
>
> This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers.

Yep... they run away.

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that you could provide the citation.

The fact that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to answer the question shows that
*YOU* know you're lying.

>> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that the sack was large enough to
>> >> > accommodate a broken down rifle,
>> >>
>> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>>
>>
>> Dufus apparently cannot...
>
> This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers.

Yep, they run away from the proof that they're lying.

As you're repeatedly doing.

>> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Linnie Mae Randle estimated the
>> >> > package she saw Oswald was carrying was about three feet long
>> >>
>> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>>
>> Dufus is TERRIFIED of answering!
>
> This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers.

Yep... they continously run from answering simple questions that prove
them liars.

>> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Dougherty only "vaguely" recalled
>> >> > seeing Oswald come in that morning
>> >>
>> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>>
>>
>> The cowardice is beginning to STINK.
>
> I didn`t remove any of the things Ben wrote, lurkers.

You simply refuse to answer.

>> >> > and that it *doesn`t show* that Baker confronted Oswald on the second
>> >> > floor "snack bar".
>> >>
>> >> If I asked you to cite for this, could you do it?
>>
>>
>> Dufus simply refused to answer.
>
> This is how intellectual cowards argue, lurkers.

Yep... they refuse to answer.

>> And that fact tells the tale.
>>
>> His belief can't stand the light of day.

Indeed true.

>> >> If you answer "yes" to **ANY** of those questions, then you're a
>> >> provable liar... because I *also* cited.
>> >>
>> >> If you answer "no" to all of the questions... then you have no case at
>> >> all.
>>
>>
>> And if you refuse to answer any of them, you're a provable coward...

Provable coward it is...

>> >> What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?
>> >
>> > Ben thinks he can`t be held accountable for the words he uses, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Dufus thinks he can't be held accountable for the words he uses.
>>
>>
>> He's wrong.

And *provably* so...

>> >> >> Read it again:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently this source can only *show* the things Ben decides to accept, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> There you go again, changing the goalposts.
>>
>>
>> What did you claim I couldn't do?

Dufus refuses to answer... what a *COWARD* he is!

>> >> What did *YOU* ask me to cite for?
>> >
>> > Ben used the word "show", lurkers. He lied when he said that what
>> > he produced showed that Oswald read the paper in the Domino room on
>> > the morning of the assassination, lurkers.
>>
>> My cite does indeed show what I stated it would.
>>
>> Just as **YOU** thought the cite you gave showed Oswald reading a
>> newspaper at 11:50.
>>
>> Liar, aren't you?

Dufus had no response...

These are simple and provable facts, and he has no explanation for
them.

>> >> > And the coward completely removed this, lurkers...
>> >>
>> >> <ad hominem snipped again...>
>> >>
>> >> > What does Ben have to say to this, lurkers?
>> >>
>> >> It's simply an ad hominem attack not related to the cite I gave.
>> >
>> > <snicker> Ben rules his hypocrisy off topic, lurkers.
>>
>> Nope, I merely feel no particular need to respond to nonsense.
>
> The hypocrisy he has shown here is well established, lurkers.

Said the hypocrite who refuses to state his ability to cite for the
claims he makes...

Being called a "hypocrite" by a provable hypocrite is truly mind
boggling!

>> >> >> >> > And of course the idea is that Oswald didn`t read the paper in the
>> >> >> >> > Domino Room that morning like he usually did because he didn`t
>> >> >> >> > usually bring a rifle to work with him that needed hiding other
>> >> >> >> > mornings.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So Shanklin, in showing that Oswald *WAS* reading the newpaper in the
>> >> >> >> Domino Room at 7:50, means that he DID NOT have a rifle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Good to see Ben expressing such confidence in Shanklin, lurkers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No "weight" need be attached.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben was using Shanklin in support of an idea, lurkers. Why would
>> >> > he use it in support of an idea if he had no confidence in its
>> >> > veracity?
>> >>
>> >> Is it evidence?
>> >>
>> >> Does this cite say what you thought couldn't be stated by evidence?
>> >>
>> >> (If you answer "yes" to those two questions - then you're a provable
>> >> liar... if you answer "no" to either one, then you have no case at
>> >> all. If you run like you're going to run, you're a coward as you've
>> >> already proven time and time again.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep... coward.

And dufus doesn't even have a defense.

>> >> >> The claim was that I couldn't cite.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not what I said, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, dufus.
>> >>
>> >> Here it is again:
>> >>
>> >> "Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read the
>> >> paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >>
>> >> "HE CAN'T PRODUCE EVIDENCE"...
>> >>
>> >> I not only produced it, I even cited where anyone else can find it.
>>
>>
>> Anyone notice that dufus had no response to me proving yet another lie
>> on his part?

Dufus has no-where to turn. He's been PROVEN a liar.

>> >> >> **YOU** offered an FBI memo as a cite.
>> >> >
>> >> > I offered it as the support I expected Ben to use in support of
>> >> > the idea he alluded to, lurkers. I didn`t use it in support of my
>> >> > position, I said it was irrelevant to my position.
>> >>
>> >> You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about that cite as not being legitimate
>> >> evidence in this case.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, YOU RELIED ON IT AS REFUTING THE IDEA THAT OSWALD HAD BEEN
>> >> READING A NEWSPAPER AT HIS **CUSTOMARY** TIME.
>> >>
>> >> Now you're denying that it's evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Which means, by an extension of YOUR EXACT LOGIC, that Oswald is
>> >> innocent.
>>
>> And this is going to come back to haunt dufus.
>
> <snicker> Ben is threatening to misrepresent me, lurkers. Thats all he ever does.

You're lying again, dufus.

I intend to simply *QUOTE* you.

>> >> >> **YOU** asserted that it was a citation.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Let's go look:
>> >>
>> >> *********************************************
>> >> > > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He hasn`t stated that he is going to
>> >> > > provide the cite that I referenced.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You're lying again, Dufus.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've *ALREADY* stated that I plan to provide it soon.
>> >>
>> >> Ben should learn to read for comprehension, lurkers. He hasn`t said
>> >> that the cite he is going to provide is the same cite that *I* have
>> >> already provided.
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/snoGO7hVQrk/kw_6OEiICQAJ
>> >> *********************************************
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lied, didn't you stump?
>> >>
>> >> You ABSOLUTELY DID call your cite a cite.
>> >>
>> >> So why is *YOUR* cite a cite, and mine isn't?
>> >
>> > It wasn`t my cite...
>>
>> TUT TUT TUT MORON.
>>
>> DID YOU **CALL** IT A "CITE?"
>
> Did I call it *my* cite, lurkers?

You stated that *YOU* had provided it.

And you stated that it was a cite.

So why are you denying your own words now, dufus?

>> You lied, didn't you?

Yep.

>> >> And why did you lie about not having referred to it as a cite?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> **YOU** suddenly deny that the FBI is a legitimate citation in this
>> >> >> case.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Yes stupid, you did.
>> >
>> > No, I didn`t, lurkers.
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.

It's amusing that dufus has to repeatedly deny his own words.

"Why would hearsay (The FBI cites given) trump what Givens himself
actually said, lurkers?"

You called it a "cite"... *YOU* provided it, (even referring to it as
the "cite that *I* have already provided." - and then you demolished
any authenticity of that cite by complaining that it was hearsay in
contradiction to what Givens testified to (even as you were denying
that there was any conflict between the FBI cites and Givens'
testimony!!)

You just don't know which way to turn with your lies...

>> >> In *THIS VERY POST* you denigrated an FBI cite as
>> >> mere "hearsay"
>> >
>> > How is it degrading to accurately label hearsay as hearsay, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> Fairly degrading when you over-ride a credible FBI report by the
>> testimony of a known liar.
>
> Conspiracy kooks have to call the witnesses liars, what they relate doesn`t support their faith.

"I didn't kill anybody. . . . I haven't shot anybody. . . . I didn't
shoot anyone. . . . I never killed anybody."

Dufus has to call the witnesses liars, what they relate doesn't

support their faith.


>> >> For if it were "evidence" - you lied about my inability to provide it.
>> >>
>> >> Why the constant non-stop lying, dufus?
>> >>
>> >> Can't you make your case without telling blatant & provable lies?
>>
>>
>> No answer...

Clearly, dufus is afraid to answer this.

>> >> >> So throw out **ALL** FBI gathered evidence, and cite for your claim
>> >> >> that LHO shot JFK.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you won't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're lying.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I predicted it.
>>
>>
>> And I was right.

You see, *MY* predictions generally come true... **YOUR** outright
lies -turn into- "predictions"...

>> >> >> >> Not only got caught in a lie, but got caught by your own logic as
>> >> >> >> well.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> In the meantime, I'll give believers a chance to be honest, and jump
>> >> >> >> >> in to give the citation that I already plan to give.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I think it is the one I gave, lurkers. The only thing left to do
>> >> >> >> > now is watch Benny dance.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That is indeed half of the citations ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And they show EVERYTHING you claimed I couldn't support.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Unfortunately for Ben the only thing he ever supports is his own
>> >> >> > dishonesty, lurkers. He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag
>> >> >> > Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tut tut tut, moron.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben always "tut-tuts" when he runs from a point, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> No, it merely highlights when I'm about to spank you for lying.
>>
>> I correct you each time, and you don't seem capable of learning.

Indeed, dufus *STILL* refuses to admit that he lied.

>> >> >> *NO-ONE* was speaking of what could be proven...
>> >> >
>> >> > Did I say "proven", lurkers. I said...
>> >> >
>> >> > "He would reject Shanklin as evidence that the bag Oswald carried was three foot long, for instance."
>> >> >
>> >> > Would Ben call this an untrue statement?
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely!
>> >>
>> >> YOU'RE *BLATANTLY* LYING.
>> >>
>> >> I *do* consider it evidence.
>>
>> And dufus shut up... ROTFLMAO!!!

Another dufus predictiion gone wrong...