Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #7

[Ben Holmes]

> 7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that
> morning. LHO even asked a co-worker (Charles Givens) to send an
> elevator back up to him on the sixth floor shortly before the
> assassination. This fact, of course, doesn't nearly prove Oswald was
> guilty of a crime; but what it does do is place him on the Death Floor
> (alone) a short time (approximately 35 minutes) before Kennedy's
> assassination. This fact, too, is a solid piece of often-overlooked or
> scoffed-at circumstantial evidence.

Once again, David puts something on the table that fails to support
his "sole guilt" thesis. Indeed, he even *ADMITS* that this fails to
show Oswald guilty of anything at all.

SO HOW CAN THIS ITEM SUPPORT THE "SOLE GUILT" OF OSWALD?

David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses **AFTER**
this alleged conversation with Charles Givens. ("Alleged", because it
contradicts his earliest statement and other witnesses)

Which makes this entire "number 7" to be meaningless.

Watch as David Von Pein *ABSOLUTELY REFUSES* to defend this lie of
his. Watch as dufus tries to - but can't.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > 7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that
> > morning. LHO even asked a co-worker (Charles Givens) to send an
> > elevator back up to him on the sixth floor shortly before the
> > assassination. This fact, of course, doesn't nearly prove Oswald was
> > guilty of a crime; but what it does do is place him on the Death Floor
> > (alone) a short time (approximately 35 minutes) before Kennedy's
> > assassination. This fact, too, is a solid piece of often-overlooked or
> > scoffed-at circumstantial evidence.
>
> Once again, David puts something on the table that fails to support
> his "sole guilt" thesis.

Who`s guilt does it show, lurkers? Givens`s?

> Indeed, he even *ADMITS* that this fails to
> show Oswald guilty of anything at all.

Why would anyone expect a single thing to show Oswald`s guilt, lurkers?

> SO HOW CAN THIS ITEM SUPPORT THE "SOLE GUILT" OF OSWALD?

To show that Oswald was guilty of shooting Kennedy from the 6th floor of the TSBD it is helpful to show he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, lurkers. DUH!

> David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses **AFTER**
> this alleged conversation with Charles Givens.

Why does Ben bother to make these empty declarations with me here, lurkers? He couldn`t produce an established chronology of Oswald sightings during this period if his life depended on it.

> ("Alleged", because it
> contradicts his earliest statement and other witnesses)
>
> Which makes this entire "number 7" to be meaningless.

Ben doesn`t understand that each thing in isolation does not establish Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. There are a lot of things Ben doesn`t understand.

If a single item showed Oswald`s guilt there would be no reason to compile a list, lurkers. DUH!

> Watch as David Von Pein *ABSOLUTELY REFUSES* to defend this lie of
> his. Watch as dufus tries to - but can't.

No lying done so no lies that need defending, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > 7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that
>> > morning. LHO even asked a co-worker (Charles Givens) to send an
>> > elevator back up to him on the sixth floor shortly before the
>> > assassination. This fact, of course, doesn't nearly prove Oswald was
>> > guilty of a crime; but what it does do is place him on the Death Floor
>> > (alone) a short time (approximately 35 minutes) before Kennedy's
>> > assassination. This fact, too, is a solid piece of often-overlooked or
>> > scoffed-at circumstantial evidence.
>>
>> Once again, David puts something on the table that fails to support
>> his "sole guilt" thesis.
>
> Who`s guilt does it show, lurkers? Givens`s?

Tut tut tut stump. David admitted that it showed *NO-ONE'S* guilt.

The question is why he thought such an item would help him prove
anyone's "SOLE" guilt.

Indeed, you're so terrified of David's lie that **YOU*** won't deal
with the topic either.

It matters not *ONE WIT* who's "guilt" it shows if it fails to show
someone's **SOLE** guilt.

That, after all, was the lying claim made by David, and continually
supported by you.

Why can't you be honest enough to acknowledge that *NONE* of David's
20 items point to someone's "sole guilt?"

>> Indeed, he even *ADMITS* that this fails to
>> show Oswald guilty of anything at all.
>
> Why would anyone expect a single thing to show Oswald`s guilt, lurkers?

Because the claim was made that these are the items that prove
Oswald's "sole guilt."

Are you really a moron, stump?

You keep desperately trying to change the topic of "sole guilt" to
merely "guilt."

And I point it out each and every time.

You never seem to learn.

>> SO HOW CAN THIS ITEM SUPPORT THE "SOLE GUILT" OF OSWALD?
>
> To show that Oswald was guilty of shooting Kennedy from the 6th
> floor of the TSBD it is helpful to show he was on the 6th floor of the
> TSBD, lurkers. DUH!

If, by some strange miracle, David were able to *PROVE* that Oswald
fired from the snipers nest on the 6th floor - this **STILL** wouldn't
prove, or even *support* his "sole guilt."

So would you like to be honest, and publicly acknowledge that #7
doesn't support anyone's "sole guilt?" - or would you like to keep
lying in desperate support of David?

>> David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses **AFTER**
>> this alleged conversation with Charles Givens.
>
> Why does Ben bother to make these empty declarations with me here,
> lurkers? He couldn`t produce an established chronology of Oswald
> sightings during this period if his life depended on it.

Nothing "empty" about it. You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly state
that you don't know this to be a fact.

Because if you dared to do so, I'd simply link to the relevant
eyewitnesses... and Given's affidavit.

So you're actually lying.

You *KNOW* I've told nothing but the absolute truth.

And you can't refute it... so you rather desperately try to *imply*
that such is not the case.

>> ("Alleged", because it
>> contradicts his earliest statement and other witnesses)
>>
>> Which makes this entire "number 7" to be meaningless.
>
> Ben doesn`t understand that each thing in isolation does not
> establish Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. There are a lot of things Ben
> doesn`t understand.
>
> If a single item showed Oswald`s guilt there would be no reason to
> compile a list, lurkers. DUH!

If not a *single* item supports the assertion of someone's sole guilt,
then merely adding all the non-evidence together will not start
showing what can't be shown.

It's good to see that dufus publicly acknowledges that none of David's
items proves, OR EVEN SUPPORTS the assertion of anyone's "sole guilt."

But neither does the aggregate.

>> Watch as David Von Pein *ABSOLUTELY REFUSES* to defend this lie of
>> his. Watch as dufus tries to - but can't.
>
> No lying done so no lies that need defending, lurkers.

Yep... I predicted it!

And once again, stump does his best, yet cites no evidence, and is
completely unable to show how David's list supports what David claimed
it did.

And David, the coward... won't show up to defend his lies...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 11:35:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > 7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that
> >> > morning. LHO even asked a co-worker (Charles Givens) to send an
> >> > elevator back up to him on the sixth floor shortly before the
> >> > assassination. This fact, of course, doesn't nearly prove Oswald was
> >> > guilty of a crime; but what it does do is place him on the Death Floor
> >> > (alone) a short time (approximately 35 minutes) before Kennedy's
> >> > assassination. This fact, too, is a solid piece of often-overlooked or
> >> > scoffed-at circumstantial evidence.
> >>
> >> Once again, David puts something on the table that fails to support
> >> his "sole guilt" thesis.
> >
> > Who`s guilt does it show, lurkers? Givens`s?
>
>
> Tut tut tut stump. David admitted that it showed *NO-ONE'S* guilt.

Never trust a conspiracy retard to characterize someone else`s position, lurkers.

> The question is why he thought such an item would help him prove
> anyone's "SOLE" guilt.
>
> Indeed, you're so terrified of David's lie that **YOU*** won't deal
> with the topic either.
>
> It matters not *ONE WIT* who's "guilt" it shows if it fails to show
> someone's **SOLE** guilt.

I`ve explained this several times now, lurkers. Ben is too stupid to understand the explanation. There is no use repeating myself in the hopes that Ben will somehow become smarter.

> That, after all, was the lying claim made by David, and continually
> supported by you.
>
> Why can't you be honest enough to acknowledge that *NONE* of David's
> 20 items point to someone's "sole guilt?"

Why is Ben too stupid to understand what I written numerous times now, lurkers?

> >> Indeed, he even *ADMITS* that this fails to
> >> show Oswald guilty of anything at all.
> >
> > Why would anyone expect a single thing to show Oswald`s guilt, lurkers?
>
>
> Because the claim was made that these are the items that prove
> Oswald's "sole guilt."

Collectively they show the guilt of one individual, Lee Harvey Oswald, lurkers.

> Are you really a moron, stump?
>
> You keep desperately trying to change the topic of "sole guilt" to
> merely "guilt."

Individual guilt, lurkers. One individual, solely.

> And I point it out each and every time.
>
> You never seem to learn.
>
>
> >> SO HOW CAN THIS ITEM SUPPORT THE "SOLE GUILT" OF OSWALD?
> >
> > To show that Oswald was guilty of shooting Kennedy from the 6th
> > floor of the TSBD it is helpful to show he was on the 6th floor of the
> > TSBD, lurkers. DUH!
>
> If, by some strange miracle, David were able to *PROVE* that Oswald
> fired from the snipers nest on the 6th floor - this **STILL** wouldn't
> prove, or even *support* his "sole guilt."

Ben Holmes, stump detective, lurkers. Being on the floor is a requirement for shooting from that floor.

> So would you like to be honest, and publicly acknowledge that #7
> doesn't support anyone's "sole guilt?" - or would you like to keep
> lying in desperate support of David?

Lurkers, I opt to continue to make points that Ben is either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to address.

> >> David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses **AFTER**
> >> this alleged conversation with Charles Givens.
> >
> > Why does Ben bother to make these empty declarations with me here,
> > lurkers? He couldn`t produce an established chronology of Oswald
> > sightings during this period if his life depended on it.
>
> Nothing "empty" about it. You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly state
> that you don't know this to be a fact.

Ben will refuse to support that it is a fact, lurkers. It is one of those meaningless declaration he likes to make that don`t amount to anything.

> Because if you dared to do so, I'd simply link to the relevant
> eyewitnesses... and Given's affidavit.

And this information would fail miserably in establishing a chronology of events, lurkers. And I would not be able to get Ben to understand why it fails.

> So you're actually lying.
>
> You *KNOW* I've told nothing but the absolute truth.

Ben is way to stupid to be even looking into this event, lurkers. This is what he said...

"David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses **AFTER** this alleged conversation with Charles Givens."

This is a meaningless declaration, lurkers. He thinks he has this, but on examination he really doesn`t. He doesn`t have witnesses who put their encounter with Oswald either before or after Given`s encounter with Oswald. Ben places these encounters in a sequence, but he can`t begin to *establish* a sequencing in any real way.

> And you can't refute it... so you rather desperately try to *imply*
> that such is not the case.

Ben pretends he has a solid sequencing of events, lurkers. Nothing could matter less. In context, these are unremarkable encounters during the course of a day.

>
> >> ("Alleged", because it
> >> contradicts his earliest statement and other witnesses)
> >>
> >> Which makes this entire "number 7" to be meaningless.
> >
> > Ben doesn`t understand that each thing in isolation does not
> > establish Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. There are a lot of things Ben
> > doesn`t understand.
> >
> > If a single item showed Oswald`s guilt there would be no reason to
> > compile a list, lurkers. DUH!
>
>
> If not a *single* item supports the assertion of someone's sole guilt,
> then merely adding all the non-evidence together will not start
> showing what can't be shown.

Lurkers, how could those blind guys ever figure out they were dealing with an elephant (you know, one felt the tusk, one the leg, one the body, one the ear, ect)?The only way would be by putting all their observations together. Ben would isolate each bit of information and never get to "elephant".

> It's good to see that dufus publicly acknowledges that none of David's
> items proves, OR EVEN SUPPORTS the assertion of anyone's "sole guilt."

Never trust a conspiracy retard to correctly or honestly characterize someone`s position, lurkers.

> But neither does the aggregate.
>
>
> >> Watch as David Von Pein *ABSOLUTELY REFUSES* to defend this lie of
> >> his. Watch as dufus tries to - but can't.
> >
> > No lying done so no lies that need defending, lurkers.
>
> Yep... I predicted it!

It was a circular argument, lurkers. I can do the same thing...

Watch a Ben refuses to admit his retardation. Watch, I predict it and my prediction salways come true.

> And once again, stump does his best, yet cites no evidence, and is
> completely unable to show how David's list supports what David claimed
> it did.
>
> And David, the coward... won't show up to defend his lies...

What needed defending, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 11:35:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:19:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:56:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > 7.) Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that
>> >> > morning. LHO even asked a co-worker (Charles Givens) to send an
>> >> > elevator back up to him on the sixth floor shortly before the
>> >> > assassination. This fact, of course, doesn't nearly prove Oswald was
>> >> > guilty of a crime; but what it does do is place him on the Death Floor
>> >> > (alone) a short time (approximately 35 minutes) before Kennedy's
>> >> > assassination. This fact, too, is a solid piece of often-overlooked or
>> >> > scoffed-at circumstantial evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Once again, David puts something on the table that fails to support
>> >> his "sole guilt" thesis.
>> >
>> > Who`s guilt does it show, lurkers? Givens`s?
>>
>> Tut tut tut stump. David admitted that it showed *NO-ONE'S* guilt.
>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.


Can you make a logical argument without describing yourself?

>> The question is why he thought such an item would help him prove
>> anyone's "SOLE" guilt.
>>
>> Indeed, you're so terrified of David's lie that **YOU*** won't deal
>> with the topic either.
>>
>> It matters not *ONE WIT* who's "guilt" it shows if it fails to show
>> someone's **SOLE** guilt.
>
> I`ve explained this several times now, lurkers.

And you'll have to keep RIGHT ON explaining it.

0 + 0 + 0.... doesn't equal one.

> Ben is too stupid to understand the explanation.

Quite clearly, *YOU* are the only one "smart enough" to get something
out of nothing.

> There is no use repeating myself in the hopes that Ben will somehow
> become smarter.

This is merely the excuse you use to stop looking stupid when you try
to eplain.

>> That, after all, was the lying claim made by David, and continually
>> supported by you.
>>
>> Why can't you be honest enough to acknowledge that *NONE* of David's
>> 20 items point to someone's "sole guilt?"
>
> Why is Ben too stupid to understand what I written numerous times
> now, lurkers?

Because you can't prove something with nothing.

>> >> Indeed, he even *ADMITS* that this fails to
>> >> show Oswald guilty of anything at all.
>> >
>> > Why would anyone expect a single thing to show Oswald`s guilt, lurkers?
>>
>> Because the claim was made that these are the items that prove
>> Oswald's "sole guilt."
>
> Collectively they show the guilt of one individual, Lee Harvey
> Oswald, lurkers.

Many of the items had *NOTHING* to do with shooting JFK. And **NONE**
of them demonstrated... or even *supported* the idea that Oswald was
the only shooter.

>> Are you really a moron, stump?
>>
>> You keep desperately trying to change the topic of "sole guilt" to
>> merely "guilt."
>
> Individual guilt, lurkers. One individual, solely.

Then by all means, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS
**NOT** MERELY ONE SHOOTER?

What evidence have you or David compiled to contradict the evidence
for a Grassy Knoll shooter?

LIST IT!!!

Or run again... as you do...

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

>> And I point it out each and every time.
>>
>> You never seem to learn.
>>
>> >> SO HOW CAN THIS ITEM SUPPORT THE "SOLE GUILT" OF OSWALD?
>> >
>> > To show that Oswald was guilty of shooting Kennedy from the 6th
>> > floor of the TSBD it is helpful to show he was on the 6th floor of the
>> > TSBD, lurkers. DUH!
>>
>> If, by some strange miracle, David were able to *PROVE* that Oswald
>> fired from the snipers nest on the 6th floor - this **STILL** wouldn't
>> prove, or even *support* his "sole guilt."
>
> Ben Holmes, stump detective, lurkers. Being on the floor is a
> requirement for shooting from that floor.

You clearly didn't bother to try to understand what I said.

For the sake of argument, **I'LL ASSERT THAT OSWALD SHOT JFK** - now
where's David's evidence that there were no other shooters, or no-one
who conspired with Oswald in the planning & execution of this murder?

You may continue to run now...

>> So would you like to be honest, and publicly acknowledge that #7
>> doesn't support anyone's "sole guilt?" - or would you like to keep
>> lying in desperate support of David?
>
> Lurkers, I opt to continue to make points that Ben is either too
> stupid to understand or too dishonest to address.

So the answer is no... you simply *aren't* honest enough to
acknowledge an obvious fact.

>> >> David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses **AFTER**
>> >> this alleged conversation with Charles Givens.
>> >
>> > Why does Ben bother to make these empty declarations with me here,
>> > lurkers? He couldn`t produce an established chronology of Oswald
>> > sightings during this period if his life depended on it.
>>
>> Nothing "empty" about it. You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly state
>> that you don't know this to be a fact.
>
> Ben will refuse to support that it is a fact, lurkers. It is one
> of those meaningless declaration he likes to make that don`t amount to
> anything.

Don't need to.

You know I'm right... hence your ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to publicly state

that you don't know this to be a fact.

You're simply a coward, aren't you?

>> Because if you dared to do so, I'd simply link to the relevant
>> eyewitnesses... and Given's affidavit.
>
> And this information would fail miserably in establishing a
> chronology of events, lurkers. And I would not be able to get Ben to
> understand why it fails.

This information would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that what I
stated was based on evidence, and not the speculation or belief that
you rely on.

But you already know this, don't you?

>> So you're actually lying.
>>
>> You *KNOW* I've told nothing but the absolute truth.
>
> Ben is way to stupid to be even looking into this event, lurkers.
> This is what he said...

Ad hominem is an admission on your part that you can't refute what I
stated.

> "David also fails to note that Oswald was seen by witnesses
> **AFTER** this alleged conversation with Charles Givens."

Yep... absolutely true, and well documented.

> This is a meaningless declaration, lurkers. He thinks he has this,
> but on examination he really doesn`t. He doesn`t have witnesses who
> put their encounter with Oswald either before or after Given`s
> encounter with Oswald. Ben places these encounters in a sequence, but
> he can`t begin to *establish* a sequencing in any real way.

dufus can't figure out which came earlier, 11:50 or 12:15.

>> And you can't refute it... so you rather desperately try to *imply*
>> that such is not the case.
>
> Ben pretends he has a solid sequencing of events, lurkers. Nothing
> could matter less. In context, these are unremarkable encounters
> during the course of a day.

stump can't tell time.

>> >> ("Alleged", because it
>> >> contradicts his earliest statement and other witnesses)
>> >>
>> >> Which makes this entire "number 7" to be meaningless.
>> >
>> > Ben doesn`t understand that each thing in isolation does not
>> > establish Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. There are a lot of things Ben
>> > doesn`t understand.
>> >
>> > If a single item showed Oswald`s guilt there would be no reason to
>> > compile a list, lurkers. DUH!
>>
>>
>> If not a *single* item supports the assertion of someone's sole guilt,
>> then merely adding all the non-evidence together will not start
>> showing what can't be shown.
>
> Lurkers, how could those blind guys ever figure out they were
> dealing with an elephant (you know, one felt the tusk, one the leg,
> one the body, one the ear, ect)?The only way would be by putting all
> their observations together. Ben would isolate each bit of information
> and never get to "elephant".

They were *ALL* feeling parts of an elephant.

Which item of David's relates AT ALL to the number of conspirators?

>> It's good to see that dufus publicly acknowledges that none of David's
>> items proves, OR EVEN SUPPORTS the assertion of anyone's "sole guilt."
>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.


No-one cares.

>> But neither does the aggregate.
>>
>>
>> >> Watch as David Von Pein *ABSOLUTELY REFUSES* to defend this lie of
>> >> his. Watch as dufus tries to - but can't.
>> >
>> > No lying done so no lies that need defending, lurkers.
>>
>> Yep... I predicted it!
>
> It was a circular argument, lurkers. I can do the same thing...

My predictions are easy to make, any intelligent knowledgeable person
can equally predict the cowardice of believers...


> Watch as I refuse to admit my retardation. Watch, I predict it and

> my prediction salways come true.

I've often noted the grammar & spelling errors of believers when they
get excited.

>> And once again, stump does his best, yet cites no evidence, and is
>> completely unable to show how David's list supports what David claimed
>> it did.
>>
>> And David, the coward... won't show up to defend his lies...
>
> What needed defending, lurkers?

If you haven't figured it out by now, you never will.