Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #13

[Ben Holmes]

As I commonly do, I'm going to quote David's entire item, so that
readers can catch the full argument that David is trying to make, then
answer it sentence by sentence. Something that David will never do.

> 13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE
> the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work
> prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The
> day was only half over.
>
> Plus: Oswald's reason for ducking out of work at 12:33 PM is extremely
> weak -- not to menion downright prescient on his part. For HOW, three
> minutes after a shooting that he supposedly knew NOTHING about (what
> with him supposedly being in the lunchroom eating lunch at the time),
> could Oswald have possibly known for a fact that TSBD Superintendent
> Roy Truly (or Oswald's immediate supervisor, Bill Shelley) would
> spring everybody for the day due to the commotion caused by the
> shooting, which is exactly the convenient excuse he gave to police
> after his arrest?
>
> If Oswald was telling the whole truth every step of the way on
> November 22, he would have had NO knowledge that any shots would have
> come from HIS building (the TSBD) to cause Mr. Truly to let everyone
> go due to THAT building being the source of gunfire.
>
> Oswald also, if he's not the liar I know him to be, would not really
> have known much of anything about the President's shooting (certainly
> not from an EYEWITNESS standpoint, since the beloved Oswald was
> supposedly located on the first or second floor of the building eating
> his lunch when the assassination took place), although Mrs. Robert
> Reid DID tell Oswald on his way out of the building that "the
> President has been shot".
>
> Plus: Who would want to LEAVE such an exciting (albeit very sad) scene
> like that right after a Presidential shooting? An average Joe would
> want to stick around and rubber-neck and see what the hell had
> happened. Does Oswald do this? No. He doesn't stay around the exciting
> scene at all. He evidently couldn't care less, because he leaves
> within THREE MINUTES of the shooting.
>
> He doesn't talk to anyone (that we know of), except Pierce Allman or
> Bob MacNeil, when one (or perhaps both) of those newsmen asked Oswald
> where he/(they) could find a telephone.
>
> In short: Oswald's leaving his workplace without a truly valid and
> believable reason to do so at 12:33 is solid circumstantial evidence
> of his guilt. He WANTED to leave, fairly obviously, before he was
> caught.
>
> Addendum:
>
> "The committee [House Select Committee on Assassinations] found that
> while most of the depository employees were outside of the building at
> the time of the assassination and returned inside afterwards, Oswald
> did the reverse; he was inside before the assassination, and afterward
> he went outside. That Oswald left the building within minutes of the
> assassination was significant. Every other depository employee either
> had an alibi for the time of the assassination or returned to the
> building immediately thereafter. Oswald alone neither remained nor had
> an alibi." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 59

First thing to note is that once again, David hasn't even provided
support for his idea that Oswald is guilty, AND **CERTAINLY** HASN'T
SUPPORTED HIS CLAIM OF "SOLE GUILT."

And, as usual, not a single believer will publicly acknowledge this
simple truth.

Not David...

Not stump (aka "dufus")

Not Steve.

Not Mark.

Not *ANY* believer...

Now, on to the refutation in detail:

> 13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE
> the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work
> prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The
> day was only half over.

This claim keeps being modified. It used to be that he was the only
one missing from the "lineup"... and each time critics proved
believers to be lying about the evidence, they simply changed their
claim again.

But *NOT A SINGLE TIME* has any believer acknowledged their previous
lies. They simply move on to the next claim.

So let's examine this claim... David is operating on his ignorance, he
doesn't know of anyone else who was inside the building at 12:30, and
indeed, cannot even credibly place Oswald as being inside the
building, then builds up this edifice of ignorance into 'proof' of
Oswald's "sole guilt."

So let's see what evidence David has... David will be happy to list
*ALL PEOPLE* who were in the building at anytime between 8am and
12:30... and specify WITH CITATION TO EVIDENCE their precise location
at 12:30... right?

I think not.

Once again, David has simply speculated, and pretends that his
speculation is evidence.

Evidence WHICH DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT his basic claim of "sole guilt."


> Plus: Oswald's reason for ducking out of work at 12:33 PM is extremely
> weak -- not to menion downright prescient on his part. For HOW, three
> minutes after a shooting that he supposedly knew NOTHING about (what
> with him supposedly being in the lunchroom eating lunch at the time),
> could Oswald have possibly known for a fact that TSBD Superintendent
> Roy Truly (or Oswald's immediate supervisor, Bill Shelley) would
> spring everybody for the day due to the commotion caused by the
> shooting, which is exactly the convenient excuse he gave to police
> after his arrest?


Provide for everyone a transcript of what Roy Truly and Bill Shelley
said to *anyone* from 12:30 to 12:33.

But amusingly, you won't. Once again you've turned your speculation
into evidence... and evidence that fails to support your claim.


> If Oswald was telling the whole truth every step of the way on
> November 22, he would have had NO knowledge that any shots would have
> come from HIS building (the TSBD) to cause Mr. Truly to let everyone
> go due to THAT building being the source of gunfire.


The very same person who claims that everyone knew the shots came from
the TSBD is now claiming the "sole ignorance" of Oswald!???

What kind of logic is this?

David won't answer, he can't. Any serious examination of his statement
is only going to lead to laughter...


> Oswald also, if he's not the liar I know him to be

From someone who cannot seem to acknowledge *REAL* liars in this case,
such as Marina... this is truly amusing.

If you cannot publicly acknowledge what both the Warren Commission and
HSCA knew, how can you judge Oswald's truthfulness?

David won't answer, and stump will cry...


>, would not really
> have known much of anything about the President's shooting (certainly
> not from an EYEWITNESS standpoint, since the beloved Oswald was
> supposedly located on the first or second floor of the building eating
> his lunch when the assassination took place), although Mrs. Robert
> Reid DID tell Oswald on his way out of the building that "the
> President has been shot".

Let's get this straight.

Oswald would "not really have known much of anything about the
President's shooting."

But...

He was told abvout the shooting by Mrs. Robert Reid.

Which is it, David?

And how does his ignorance or lack of ignorance have anything to do
with him pulling a trigger?

Can you name a few million other people who had this EXACT SAME LEVEL
OF KNOWLEDGE at 12:33?

Indeed, can *YOU* prove that you weren't just as ignorant or
knowledgeable as millions of other people at 12:33?

For if you cannot document your knowledge at that time, then **YOU**
must have been in on the conspiracy!


> Plus: Who would want to LEAVE such an exciting (albeit very sad) scene
> like that right after a Presidential shooting?


And yet, others did *PRECISELY* this.

So what David has just proven, is a conspiracy. Because everyone that
left Dealey Plaza must have been in on it.

This is snowflake thinking...


> An average Joe would want to stick around and
> rubber-neck and see what the hell had happened.

Or not.

Speculation is just stupid.

Can you document your claim that by remaining in Dealey Plaza you
would gather more details than more intelligent people who simply went
about their business, and turned on a radio?


> Does Oswald do this? No. He doesn't stay around the exciting
> scene at all. He evidently couldn't care less, because he leaves
> within THREE MINUTES of the shooting.

And this alleged "lack" of caring shows that he pulled the trigger.
This, in a town that had people who wouldn't couldn't be bothered to
*spit* in JFK's direction.

Yeah, you make a compelling case, David... just not for the "sole
guilt" of anyone.


> He doesn't talk to anyone (that we know of), except Pierce Allman or
> Bob MacNeil, when one (or perhaps both) of those newsmen asked Oswald
> where he/(they) could find a telephone.

He doesn't talk to anyone.

Then procedes to talk to people.

Yep... another compelling argument!

Did he jaywalk to get to a bus station?

Did he jaywalk to get to the cab?

Inquiring minds want to know... anyone who'd jaywalk would certainly
pull a trigger...


> In short: Oswald's leaving his workplace without a truly valid and
> believable reason to do so at 12:33 is solid circumstantial evidence
> of his guilt.

Yep... let's hang Givens.

Oh, you meant someone *ELSE* whom you claim left without "truly valid
and believable reasons"...

I'll be waiting for your list of those who worked in the building, and
their time of departure along with the reason they gave for leaving.

Not.


> He WANTED to leave, fairly obviously, before he was
> caught.

Oh, very convincing... people *prefer* to stick around at work when
there's going to be no more work...

Yep, you've convinced me, David.

(I'll refrain from stating just *what* you convinced me of...)


> Addendum:
>
> "The committee [House Select Committee on Assassinations] found that


there was a "probable" conspiracy.

Yep. We already know this. What would be far more interesting is if
you could explain why the HSCA medical panel lied about the medical
testimony - then slapped a classification on that testimony so no-one
could document their lying...


> while most of the depository employees were outside of the building at
> the time of the assassination and returned inside afterwards, Oswald
> did the reverse; he was inside before the assassination, and afterward
> he went outside. That Oswald left the building within minutes of the
> assassination was significant. Every other depository employee either
> had an alibi for the time of the assassination or returned to the
> building immediately thereafter. Oswald alone neither remained nor had
> an alibi." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 59

Then you'll have no trouble listing all these people, and documenting
where they were at ... say, 12:30, right?

As stump would say.... "empty claim."

[Bud]

Ben is a stump, lurkers. Certainly Oswald being the only person in the building at the time of the shooting to flee the murder scene is incriminating, and incriminates no one else but Oswald.

> And, as usual, not a single believer will publicly acknowledge this
> simple truth.

Ben as shown himself too stupid to grasp the concept that these issues point *solely* to Oswald`s guilt and nobody else`s, lurkers.

> Not David...
>
> Not stump (aka "dufus")
>
> Not Steve.
>
> Not Mark.
>
> Not *ANY* believer...
>
> Now, on to the refutation in detail:
>
> > 13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE
> > the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work
> > prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The
> > day was only half over.
>
> This claim keeps being modified. It used to be that he was the only
> one missing from the "lineup"... and each time critics proved
> believers to be lying about the evidence, they simply changed their
> claim again.

Ben is starting out poorly, with a strawman that refutes nothing, lurkers.

> But *NOT A SINGLE TIME* has any believer acknowledged their previous
> lies. They simply move on to the next claim.

The claim is that an informal headcount by Oswald`s coworkers showed he was missing, lurkers. The authorities were then informed of his absence.

> So let's examine this claim... David is operating on his ignorance, he
> doesn't know of anyone else who was inside the building at 12:30, and
> indeed, cannot even credibly place Oswald as being inside the
> building,

Lurkers, Oswald himself said he was...

https://youtu.be/sbR6vHXD1j0

See 0:26 on. This just shows the desperation of these retards to even contest this. They have no interest in the truth and are merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> then builds up this edifice of ignorance into 'proof' of
> Oswald's "sole guilt."

> So let's see what evidence David has... David will be happy to list
> *ALL PEOPLE* who were in the building at anytime between 8am and
> 12:30... and specify WITH CITATION TO EVIDENCE their precise location
> at 12:30... right?

Of course for Ben to actually refute DVP`s claim he would need the name of someone who was in the building during the shooting and left soon after, lurkers. Did you see Ben produce such a name?

> I think not.
>
> Once again, David has simply speculated, and pretends that his
> speculation is evidence.
>
> Evidence WHICH DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT his basic claim of "sole guilt."

Didn`t Ben claim he was going to refute this, lurkers. All he is doing is criticizing DVP`s abilities to make reasonable deductions. You watch, when this is done it will be just as likely that Oswald fled the crime scene after committing this murder than before Ben did this "refutation".

> > Plus: Oswald's reason for ducking out of work at 12:33 PM is extremely
> > weak -- not to menion downright prescient on his part. For HOW, three
> > minutes after a shooting that he supposedly knew NOTHING about (what
> > with him supposedly being in the lunchroom eating lunch at the time),
> > could Oswald have possibly known for a fact that TSBD Superintendent
> > Roy Truly (or Oswald's immediate supervisor, Bill Shelley) would
> > spring everybody for the day due to the commotion caused by the
> > shooting, which is exactly the convenient excuse he gave to police
> > after his arrest?
>
>
> Provide for everyone a transcript of what Roy Truly and Bill Shelley
> said to *anyone* from 12:30 to 12:33.

Disputing isn`t refuting, lurkers.

> But amusingly, you won't. Once again you've turned your speculation
> into evidence... and evidence that fails to support your claim.

The evidence is that Oswald left because he had the opinion there would be no more work done that day, lurkers. Bookhout`s FBI report has it...

"He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building."

> > If Oswald was telling the whole truth every step of the way on
> > November 22, he would have had NO knowledge that any shots would have
> > come from HIS building (the TSBD) to cause Mr. Truly to let everyone
> > go due to THAT building being the source of gunfire.
>
>
> The very same person who claims that everyone knew the shots came from
> the TSBD is now claiming the "sole ignorance" of Oswald!???

DVP`s idea is that Oswald very well knew about the shooting, lurkers. He is examining the idea of what he could know if the stories he told were valid.

> What kind of logic is this?
>
> David won't answer, he can't. Any serious examination of his statement
> is only going to lead to laughter...
>
>
> > Oswald also, if he's not the liar I know him to be
>
> From someone who cannot seem to acknowledge *REAL* liars in this case,
> such as Marina... this is truly amusing.

The retards hate Marina, lurkers, what she she said tells you *everything* you really need to know about Oswald`s mindset and how this event came to pass. Anyone with any sense can read her testimony and see she is just a person relating events as she knew them to be.

> If you cannot publicly acknowledge what both the Warren Commission and
> HSCA knew, how can you judge Oswald's truthfulness?

Always with the misdirection to the investigations, lurkers.

> David won't answer, and stump will cry...

When does this "refuting" start, lurkers?

>
> >, would not really
> > have known much of anything about the President's shooting (certainly
> > not from an EYEWITNESS standpoint, since the beloved Oswald was
> > supposedly located on the first or second floor of the building eating
> > his lunch when the assassination took place), although Mrs. Robert
> > Reid DID tell Oswald on his way out of the building that "the
> > President has been shot".
>
> Let's get this straight.
>
> Oswald would "not really have known much of anything about the
> President's shooting."

Why is Ben being so deceitful as to try to make it appear that DVP`s position is that Oswald knew nothing about the assassination, lurkers? Obviously DVP thinks Oswald knew everything about the assassination.

> But...
>
> He was told abvout the shooting by Mrs. Robert Reid.
>
> Which is it, David?

One is an examination of the stories Oswald was telling, lurkers, the other is an actual event. Retards have trouble making distinctions.

> And how does his ignorance or lack of ignorance have anything to do
> with him pulling a trigger?

Notice that unless you can say exactly why a particular person said or did a particular thing it is always suspicious and/or conspiratorial, lurkers. But not with the prime suspect! He can do anything that doesn`t make sense and the retards will attempt to cover for him.

Oswald came in contact with three people (Reed, Whaley and Roberts) after the assassination and he didn`t engage with any of them. Walks past Reed without trying to find out what is going on, this is weird. Whaley asks what the sirens are about, Oswald knows but says nothing, this is weird. Blows by Roberts, does he stop and check out the television with her trying to get information like a normal person would do? No. They invent excuses for his behavior, create imaginative backstories based on nothing, basically play silly games while criticizing those who don`t play the same silly games they do.

> Can you name a few million other people who had this EXACT SAME LEVEL
> OF KNOWLEDGE at 12:33?
>
> Indeed, can *YOU* prove that you weren't just as ignorant or
> knowledgeable as millions of other people at 12:33?
>
> For if you cannot document your knowledge at that time, then **YOU**
> must have been in on the conspiracy!
>
>
> > Plus: Who would want to LEAVE such an exciting (albeit very sad) scene
> > like that right after a Presidential shooting?
>
>
> And yet, others did *PRECISELY* this.

Are you seeing anyone named, lurkers?

> So what David has just proven, is a conspiracy. Because everyone that
> left Dealey Plaza must have been in on it.

Were they inside the building when the shooting occurred, lurkers?

> This is snowflake thinking...
>
>
> > An average Joe would want to stick around and
> > rubber-neck and see what the hell had happened.
>
> Or not.
>
> Speculation is just stupid.

Ben doesn`t do normal, lurkers. He has no idea what it looks like.

> Can you document your claim that by remaining in Dealey Plaza you
> would gather more details than more intelligent people who simply went
> about their business, and turned on a radio?

Bolting from the scene is not the normal reaction, lurkers, no matter how Ben desperately tried to spin it. And when does the refuting start?

> > Does Oswald do this? No. He doesn't stay around the exciting
> > scene at all. He evidently couldn't care less, because he leaves
> > within THREE MINUTES of the shooting.
>
> And this alleged "lack" of caring shows that he pulled the trigger.

It indicates he had all the information he needed, lurkers.

> This, in a town that had people who wouldn't couldn't be bothered to
> *spit* in JFK's direction.

I`m sure Kennedy would have preferred spit to the lead Oswald threw in his direction, lurkers.

But the other aspect Ben is ignoring is that Oswald was a political animal and Kennedy was *the* political figure.

> Yeah, you make a compelling case, David... just not for the "sole
> guilt" of anyone.
>
>
> > He doesn't talk to anyone (that we know of), except Pierce Allman or
> > Bob MacNeil, when one (or perhaps both) of those newsmen asked Oswald
> > where he/(they) could find a telephone.
>
> He doesn't talk to anyone.
>
> Then procedes to talk to people.

Answering a quick question when he should be asking them, lurkers.

> Yep... another compelling argument!
>
> Did he jaywalk to get to a bus station?
>
> Did he jaywalk to get to the cab?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know... anyone who'd jaywalk would certainly
> pull a trigger...
>
>
> > In short: Oswald's leaving his workplace without a truly valid and
> > believable reason to do so at 12:33 is solid circumstantial evidence
> > of his guilt.
>
> Yep... let's hang Givens.

Given wasn`t in the building during the shooting, so that thats one fail, lurkers. He left the vicinity of the building before the shooting, so that another fail. This is what the tards try with polls, they try to blend in with the crowd. They try the same tact with Oswald.

> Oh, you meant someone *ELSE* whom you claim left without "truly valid
> and believable reasons"...


> I'll be waiting for your list of those who worked in the building, and
> their time of departure along with the reason they gave for leaving.

Ben could actually *refute* DVP claim by producing one name, lurkers.

Not empty if he supports it with the findings of a major investigation, lurkers.

But notice no actual refuting was done by Ben, lurkers. The case DVP laid out for the idea that Oswald uniquely bolted from the murder scene shortly after the assassination is just as valid as if Ben never responded at all.

[Bud]

Lurkers, the above should have read...

"The evidence is that Oswald *said he* left because he had the opinion there would be no more work done that day, lurkers. Bookhout`s FBI report has it...

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:36:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Right. I sure can. Via Commission Document No. 706, here....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11104&relPageId=2

73 TSBD employees give statements in CD706. I challenge you to find ONE employee who fits into the category Oswald fit into on 11/22/63 --- i.e., the category of:

WAS IN THE BUILDING AT 12:30 PM AND THEN LEFT THE BUILDING WITHIN MINUTES OF THE SHOOTING AND DID NOT RETURN TO THE BUILDING AT ANY TIME ON 11/22/63.

Lee Harvey Oswald is the lone TSBD worker who fits into the above category. And if you were really looking for the truth of what happened in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, the fact that Oswald was the only person who fits into that niche should be some very interesting information (especially when we combine that info with the fact that OSWALD'S gun was found up on the 6th floor).

But since Ben The Super Stump never embraces the idea of "adding things up", then he would prefer to leave these facts isolated forever. Right, Benny?

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, David.

Fail.

It was a simple challenge.

LIST THE PEOPLE... then document where they were at 12:30.



By the way, your nonstop cowardice in refusing to answer my posts as I
do yours is quite amusing!

COWARD!

[David Von Pein]

Again....see CD706. Too lazy to read the whole thing, Super Stump?

>
>
> By the way, your nonstop cowardice in refusing to answer my posts as I
> do yours is quite amusing!
>
> COWARD!

Mega Stump!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 18:46:31 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

Nope. CD706 doesn't support your claim. Indeed, it DEMOLISHES it...
because it demonstrates that there were other people INSIDE the TSBD
who left the building after the assassination.

You're a coward, David.

You've been refuted time and time again, and you have *NOTHING* to
say.

Meaningless cites that don't support your claims.

>> By the way, your nonstop cowardice in refusing to answer my posts as I
>> do yours is quite amusing!
>>
>> COWARD!
>
>Mega Stump!

Cry David... cry some more. You're a *PROVABLE* coward. That's a
statement based on fact.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Mega Stump!

Speaking of Mega Stump, does David Von Pein remember local Amazon perma-coma user "Mogul Cast"? (Ben, remember Mogul Cast??) One time uber-troll Mogul Cast was hectoring me about the second shooter. "What was his name? If there was a second shooter, NAME HIM!" I think I said the second shooter was Allen Dulles. Ex-CIA man. Lots of training. Mogul Cast began shrieking "it's not enough to just throw a name out there! Provide evidence for your claim! Provide evidence for your claim!!!"

He couldn't name a single member of the Warren Commission. He didn't know what CE399 was. He didn't know who Governor Connally was.

This is the kind of person that David Von Pein allies himself with.

David Von Pein is literally, literally shameless.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Mega Stump!
>
> Speaking of Mega Stump, does David Von Pein remember local Amazon
> perma-coma user "Mogul Cast"? (Ben, remember Mogul Cast??) One time
> uber-troll Mogul Cast was hectoring me about the second shooter. "What
> was his name? If there was a second shooter, NAME HIM!" I think I said
> the second shooter was Allen Dulles. Ex-CIA man. Lots of training.
> Mogul Cast began shrieking "it's not enough to just throw a name out
> there! Provide evidence for your claim! Provide evidence for your
> claim!!!"

When he first posted, he was pretending to be a fence straddler. I
very quickly pinned him down as just another garden variety believer.

He was a real kook.

> He couldn't name a single member of the Warren Commission. He didn't
> know what CE399 was. He didn't know who Governor Connally was.
>
>This is the kind of person that David Von Pein allies himself with.
>
>David Von Pein is literally, literally shameless.

Critics have not a problem in the world in shooting down another
critic if they move away from the evidence in this case. I know for a
fact that "Rob Caprio" just HATES MY GUTS for constantly correcting
his errors.

But believers will never criticize another believer. The most obscene
trolls aren't castigated at all by other believers.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 12:00:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Mega Stump!
>
> Speaking of Mega Stump, does David Von Pein remember local Amazon perma-coma user "Mogul Cast"? (Ben, remember Mogul Cast??) One time uber-troll Mogul Cast was hectoring me about the second shooter. "What was his name? If there was a second shooter, NAME HIM!" I think I said the second shooter was Allen Dulles. Ex-CIA man. Lots of training. Mogul Cast began shrieking "it's not enough to just throw a name out there! Provide evidence for your claim! Provide evidence for your claim!!!"
>
> He couldn't name a single member of the Warren Commission. He didn't know what CE399 was. He didn't know who Governor Connally was.

Conspiracy crackpots like to crow about opinion polls concerning the assassination, but it is unlikely many of the people who partake in those polls would do well with those questions.

> This is the kind of person that David Von Pein allies himself with.

And you have lodged your head firmly up the asscrack of one of the most deceitful blowhards on the internet, Ben Holmes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 12:00:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Mega Stump!
>>
>> Speaking of Mega Stump, does David Von Pein remember local Amazon perma-coma user "Mogul Cast"? (Ben, remember Mogul Cast??) One time uber-troll Mogul Cast was hectoring me about the second shooter. "What was his name? If there was a second shooter, NAME HIM!" I think I said the second shooter was Allen Dulles. Ex-CIA man. Lots of training. Mogul Cast began shrieking "it's not enough to just throw a name out there! Provide evidence for your claim! Provide evidence for your claim!!!"
>>
>> He couldn't name a single member of the Warren Commission. He didn't know what CE399 was. He didn't know who Governor Connally was.
>
> Conspiracy crackpots like to crow about opinion polls concerning
> the assassination, but it is unlikely many of the people who partake
> in those polls would do well with those questions.

The fact that the Warren Commission, traditional mass media, and
public educational system hasn't been able to change the public
perception of what happened on 11/22/63 is a constant irritant to
believers everywhere.

>> This is the kind of person that David Von Pein allies himself with.
>

> And you have lodged your head firmly up...

When obscenity is your only recourse, you've shown that you cannot
debate with facts.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Who has proved he was the only one in the building, stump?

You are, as usual, simply speculating, then building your dream
fantasy on top of all your unsupported speculation.

Nor is that the only location shots were fired from.

>> And, as usual, not a single believer will publicly acknowledge this
>> simple truth.
>
> Ben as shown himself too stupid to grasp the concept that these
> issues point *solely* to Oswald`s guilt and nobody else`s, lurkers.

And, as I pointed out, not a single believer will publicly acknowledge
this simple truth.

stump couldn't do it, and David's afraid to.

>> Not David...
>>
>> Not stump (aka "dufus")
>>
>> Not Steve.
>>
>> Not Mark.
>>
>> Not *ANY* believer...
>>
>> Now, on to the refutation in detail:
>>
>> > 13.) Oswald was the only Depository employee known to have been INSIDE
>> > the Depository Building at the time of the assassination to leave work
>> > prematurely on Friday, November 22nd. Why do you suppose this was? The
>> > day was only half over.
>>
>> This claim keeps being modified. It used to be that he was the only
>> one missing from the "lineup"... and each time critics proved
>> believers to be lying about the evidence, they simply changed their
>> claim again.
>
> Ben is starting out poorly, with a strawman that refutes nothing,
> lurkers.

dufus is TERRIFIED of historical fact. What I stated is the simple
truth.

And stump failed to refute it.

>> But *NOT A SINGLE TIME* has any believer acknowledged their previous
>> lies. They simply move on to the next claim.
>
> The claim is that an informal headcount by Oswald`s coworkers
> showed he was missing, lurkers. The authorities were then informed of
> his absence.

Long since been proven a believers' factoid.

Interestingly, you weren't even honest enough to state it in it's
original form... which is that Oswald WAS THE ONLY ONE MISSING.

Liar, aren't you stump?

>> So let's examine this claim... David is operating on his ignorance, he
>> doesn't know of anyone else who was inside the building at 12:30, and
>> indeed, cannot even credibly place Oswald as being inside the
>> building,
>
> Lurkers, Oswald himself said he was...

No stump. He didn't.

> https://youtu.be/sbR6vHXD1j0
>
> See 0:26 on. This just shows the desperation of these retards to
> even contest this. They have no interest in the truth and are merely
> playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

What "time" was Oswald referring to?

And, of course, this has *NOTHING* to do with proving that he was the
only one in the building.

>> then builds up this edifice of ignorance into 'proof' of
>> Oswald's "sole guilt."
>
>> So let's see what evidence David has... David will be happy to list
>> *ALL PEOPLE* who were in the building at anytime between 8am and
>> 12:30... and specify WITH CITATION TO EVIDENCE their precise location
>> at 12:30... right?
>
> Of course for Ben to actually refute DVP`s claim

Already did. His claim isn't supported by his "evidence."

> he would need the name of someone who was in the building during
> the shooting and left soon after, lurkers. Did you see Ben produce
> such a name?

Producing a *NAME* is a logical fallacy on your part. But two
strangers *were* seen exiting the building within minutes of the
shooting. I've previously referenced the testimony on that issue.

>> I think not.
>>
>> Once again, David has simply speculated, and pretends that his
>> speculation is evidence.
>>
>> Evidence WHICH DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT his basic claim of "sole guilt."
>
> Didn`t Ben claim he was going to refute this, lurkers.

I'm doing so. Even *YOU* haven't been able to show how even a *SINGLE*
item out of the twenty shows anyone's "sole guilt."

So *YOU* know it too!

> All he is
> doing is criticizing DVP`s abilities to make reasonable deductions.

No moron, I'm pointing out, item by item, that NOTHING DAVID HAS
POSTED SUPPORTS HIS "SOLE GUILT" CLAIM.

How many more times need I school you dufus?

> You watch, when this is done it will be just as likely that Oswald
> fled the crime scene after committing this murder than before Ben did
> this "refutation".

I've already pointed out that if you produced a video on the 6th
floor, showing Oswald pulling the trigger, that it would *STILL* not
show the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Just how stupid are you stump?

>> > Plus: Oswald's reason for ducking out of work at 12:33 PM is extremely
>> > weak -- not to menion downright prescient on his part. For HOW, three
>> > minutes after a shooting that he supposedly knew NOTHING about (what
>> > with him supposedly being in the lunchroom eating lunch at the time),
>> > could Oswald have possibly known for a fact that TSBD Superintendent
>> > Roy Truly (or Oswald's immediate supervisor, Bill Shelley) would
>> > spring everybody for the day due to the commotion caused by the
>> > shooting, which is exactly the convenient excuse he gave to police
>> > after his arrest?
>>
>>
>> Provide for everyone a transcript of what Roy Truly and Bill Shelley
>> said to *anyone* from 12:30 to 12:33.
>
> Disputing isn`t refuting, lurkers.

It does, however, by logical argument that you've been unable to
refute, show that David is absolutely wrong in his claim.

>> But amusingly, you won't. Once again you've turned your speculation
>> into evidence... and evidence that fails to support your claim.
>
> The evidence is that Oswald left because he had the opinion there
> would be no more work done that day, lurkers. Bookhout`s FBI report
> has it...

Yep... he was probably told that by Truly or Shelly.

> "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be
> anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building."

Yep... Shelly told him to take off for the rest of the day... and
Oswald simply took off.

Now, REFUTE THAT...

But you can't.

And it's just as credible and reasonable as anything *YOU* can claim.

David is too terrified to weigh in.

>> > If Oswald was telling the whole truth every step of the way on
>> > November 22, he would have had NO knowledge that any shots would have
>> > come from HIS building (the TSBD) to cause Mr. Truly to let everyone
>> > go due to THAT building being the source of gunfire.
>>
>>
>> The very same person who claims that everyone knew the shots came from
>> the TSBD is now claiming the "sole ignorance" of Oswald!???
>
> DVP`s idea is that Oswald very well knew about the shooting,
> lurkers. He is examining the idea of what he could know if the stories
> he told were valid.

Yep... speculation.

Tell us what Oswald would have done if he *DIDN"T* know.

>> What kind of logic is this?
>>
>> David won't answer, he can't. Any serious examination of his statement
>> is only going to lead to laughter...
>>
>>
>> > Oswald also, if he's not the liar I know him to be
>>
>> From someone who cannot seem to acknowledge *REAL* liars in this case,
>> such as Marina... this is truly amusing.
>

> I'm a retard that hates Marina, lurkers.


No reason to be spiteful, stump.

>> If you cannot publicly acknowledge what both the Warren Commission and
>> HSCA knew, how can you judge Oswald's truthfulness?
>
> Always with the misdirection to the investigations, lurkers.

Did the Warren Commission know Marina to be a liar?
Yes.

Did the HSCA know Marina to be a liar?
Yes.

Does the presumed identifier of another liar know Marina to be a liar?
No.

No refutation, no explanation... stump doesn't know Marina to be a
liar either.

>> David won't answer, and stump will cry...
>
> When does this "refuting" start, lurkers?

Been done.

Wooosh! Right over your stumpy head.

>> >, would not really
>> > have known much of anything about the President's shooting (certainly
>> > not from an EYEWITNESS standpoint, since the beloved Oswald was
>> > supposedly located on the first or second floor of the building eating
>> > his lunch when the assassination took place), although Mrs. Robert
>> > Reid DID tell Oswald on his way out of the building that "the
>> > President has been shot".
>>
>> Let's get this straight.
>>
>> Oswald would "not really have known much of anything about the
>> President's shooting."
>
> Why is Ben being so deceitful as to try to make it appear that
> DVP`s position is that Oswald knew nothing about the assassination,
> lurkers?

Because, unlike you, I can read:

"Oswald ... would not really have known much of anything about the
President's shooting."

> Obviously DVP thinks Oswald knew everything about the assassination.

"Oswald ... would not really have known much of anything about the
President's shooting."

>> But...
>>
>> He was told abvout the shooting by Mrs. Robert Reid.
>>
>> Which is it, David?
>
> One is an examination of the stories Oswald was telling, lurkers,

Quote it.

But you can't.

David never said anything of the sort.

You're simply lying again stump.


> I'm just a Retard that has trouble making
> distinctions.


Yep.

>> And how does his ignorance or lack of ignorance have anything to do
>> with him pulling a trigger?
>
> Notice that unless you can say exactly why a particular person
> said or did a particular thing it is always suspicious and/or
> conspiratorial, lurkers. But not with the prime suspect! He can do
> anything that doesn`t make sense and the retards will attempt to cover
> for him.

Everything Oswald said or did is turned into "evidence" that simply
isn't there.

> Oswald came in contact with three people (Reed, Whaley and
> Roberts) after the assassination and he didn`t engage with any of
> them.

You're lying again, stump.

> Walks past Reed without trying to find out what is going on,
> this is weird. Whaley asks what the sirens are about, Oswald knows but
> says nothing, this is weird. Blows by Roberts, does he stop and check
> out the television with her trying to get information like a normal
> person would do? No. They invent excuses for his behavior, create
> imaginative backstories based on nothing, basically play silly games
> while criticizing those who don`t play the same silly games they do.

Tell us stump, why are you playing silly games?

>> Can you name a few million other people who had this EXACT SAME LEVEL
>> OF KNOWLEDGE at 12:33?
>>
>> Indeed, can *YOU* prove that you weren't just as ignorant or
>> knowledgeable as millions of other people at 12:33?
>>
>> For if you cannot document your knowledge at that time, then **YOU**
>> must have been in on the conspiracy!
>>
>>
>> > Plus: Who would want to LEAVE such an exciting (albeit very sad) scene
>> > like that right after a Presidential shooting?
>>
>> And yet, others did *PRECISELY* this.
>
> Are you seeing anyone named, lurkers?

Publicly state that your in complete ignorance, and I'll be happy to
name names and CITE FOR THEM.

But you're lying right now, because your asserting by implication that
I'm not telling the ABSOLUTE TRUTH - the truth that you already know
to be true.

>> So what David has just proven, is a conspiracy. Because everyone that
>> left Dealey Plaza must have been in on it.
>
> Were they inside the building when the shooting occurred, lurkers?

List all that worked there, and where they were at 12:30.

But you won't.

You *CAN'T*

You're merely speculating.


>> This is snowflake thinking...


And stump is the quintessential snowflake.

David's just a coward.

>> > An average Joe would want to stick around and
>> > rubber-neck and see what the hell had happened.
>>
>> Or not.
>>
>> Speculation is just stupid.
>
> Ben doesn`t do normal, lurkers. He has no idea what it looks like.

More snowflake speculation...

>> Can you document your claim that by remaining in Dealey Plaza you
>> would gather more details than more intelligent people who simply went
>> about their business, and turned on a radio?
>
> Bolting from the scene is not the normal reaction, lurkers, no
> matter how Ben desperately tried to spin it. And when does the
> refuting start?

Can you document your claim that by remaining in Dealey Plaza you
would gather more details than more intelligent people who simply went
about their business, and turned on a radio?

And can you further document your new claim that all those who left
Dealey Plaza shortly after were involved in pulling a trigger?

>> > Does Oswald do this? No. He doesn't stay around the exciting
>> > scene at all. He evidently couldn't care less, because he leaves
>> > within THREE MINUTES of the shooting.
>>
>> And this alleged "lack" of caring shows that he pulled the trigger.
>
> It indicates he had all the information he needed, lurkers.

As did dozens or hundreds of others.

stump doesn't even know their names...

>> This, in a town that had people who wouldn't couldn't be bothered to
>> *spit* in JFK's direction.
>
> I`m sure Kennedy would have preferred spit to the lead Oswald
> threw in his direction, lurkers.
>
> But the other aspect Ben is ignoring is that Oswald was a
> political animal and Kennedy was *the* political figure.

And stump is too much a dishonest coward to admit the truth of what I
stated, that there was a great deal of hate for JFK in Dallas.

David's just a coward.

>> Yeah, you make a compelling case, David... just not for the "sole
>> guilt" of anyone.
>>
>> > He doesn't talk to anyone (that we know of), except Pierce Allman or
>> > Bob MacNeil, when one (or perhaps both) of those newsmen asked Oswald
>> > where he/(they) could find a telephone.
>>
>> He doesn't talk to anyone.
>>
>> Then procedes to talk to people.
>
> Answering a quick question when he should be asking them, lurkers.

More speculation from the snowflake.

>> Yep... another compelling argument!
>>
>> Did he jaywalk to get to a bus station?
>>
>> Did he jaywalk to get to the cab?
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know... anyone who'd jaywalk would certainly
>> pull a trigger...
>>
>>
>> > In short: Oswald's leaving his workplace without a truly valid and
>> > believable reason to do so at 12:33 is solid circumstantial evidence
>> > of his guilt.
>>
>> Yep... let's hang Givens.
>
> Given wasn`t in the building during the shooting,

Tut tut tut... he wasn't in the lineup.

>> Oh, you meant someone *ELSE* whom you claim left without "truly valid
>> and believable reasons"...
>
>> I'll be waiting for your list of those who worked in the building, and
>> their time of departure along with the reason they gave for leaving.
>
> Ben could actually *refute* DVP claim by producing one name,
> lurkers.

Tut tut tut, stump.

The defense counsel doesn't have to do the job of the prosecution.


>> Not.


And stump couldn't do it either...

>> > He WANTED to leave, fairly obviously, before he was
>> > caught.
>>
>> Oh, very convincing... people *prefer* to stick around at work when
>> there's going to be no more work...
>>
>> Yep, you've convinced me, David.
>>
>> (I'll refrain from stating just *what* you convinced me of...)
>>
>>
>> > Addendum:
>> >
>> > "The committee [House Select Committee on Assassinations] found that
>>
>>
>> there was a "probable" conspiracy.
>>
>> Yep. We already know this. What would be far more interesting is if
>> you could explain why the HSCA medical panel lied about the medical
>> testimony - then slapped a classification on that testimony so no-one
>> could document their lying...

stump remains silent...

>> > while most of the depository employees were outside of the building at
>> > the time of the assassination and returned inside afterwards, Oswald
>> > did the reverse; he was inside before the assassination, and afterward
>> > he went outside. That Oswald left the building within minutes of the
>> > assassination was significant. Every other depository employee either
>> > had an alibi for the time of the assassination or returned to the
>> > building immediately thereafter. Oswald alone neither remained nor had
>> > an alibi." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 59
>>
>> Then you'll have no trouble listing all these people, and documenting
>> where they were at ... say, 12:30, right?
>>
>> As stump would say.... "empty claim."
>
> Not empty if he supports it with the findings of a major
> investigation, lurkers.

Then you've just lost.

Because I say "conspiracy," and I'll support it with the FINDINGS OF
THE MAJOR, AND LAST INVESTIGATION.

ROFTLMAO!!!

You lose!

> But notice no actual refuting was done by Ben, lurkers. The case
> DVP laid out for the idea that Oswald uniquely bolted from the murder
> scene shortly after the assassination is just as valid as if Ben never
> responded at all.

Nothing David gave supported his claim. Oswald did **NOT** "uniquely"
"bolt" - and you can't show that he did.

And since I've shown "conspiracy with the findings of "a major
investigation" ... you lose!

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 12:00:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Mega Stump!
> >>
> >> Speaking of Mega Stump, does David Von Pein remember local Amazon perma-coma user "Mogul Cast"? (Ben, remember Mogul Cast??) One time uber-troll Mogul Cast was hectoring me about the second shooter. "What was his name? If there was a second shooter, NAME HIM!" I think I said the second shooter was Allen Dulles. Ex-CIA man. Lots of training. Mogul Cast began shrieking "it's not enough to just throw a name out there! Provide evidence for your claim! Provide evidence for your claim!!!"
> >>
> >> He couldn't name a single member of the Warren Commission. He didn't know what CE399 was. He didn't know who Governor Connally was.
> >
> > Conspiracy crackpots like to crow about opinion polls concerning
> > the assassination, but it is unlikely many of the people who partake
> > in those polls would do well with those questions.
>
> The fact that the Warren Commission, traditional mass media, and
> public educational system hasn't been able to change the public
> perception of what happened on 11/22/63 is a constant irritant to
> believers everywhere.

Bluff, bluster and empty claims, lurkers. Doesn`t this guy ever have anything to say of substance?

[Bud]

Nobody said he was the only one in the building, lurkers.

> You are, as usual, simply speculating, then building your dream
> fantasy on top of all your unsupported speculation.

Notice the shrill desperation whenever I try to corner Ben into being honest, lurkers. It is like try to trap a wild animal. Ben would rather chew his own leg off than be honest.

> Nor is that the only location shots were fired from.

The only known shooter, lurkers, so we can examine his movements, lurkers. Ben can go on a snipe hunt tracking down his imaginary shooters in a separate post.

> >> And, as usual, not a single believer will publicly acknowledge this
> >> simple truth.
> >
> > Ben as shown himself too stupid to grasp the concept that these
> > issues point *solely* to Oswald`s guilt and nobody else`s, lurkers.
>
> And, as I pointed out, not a single believer will publicly acknowledge
> this simple truth.
>
> stump couldn't do it, and David's afraid to.

Shrill desperation, lurkers. Like a trapped animal. Ben knows that Oswald is the only person known to have been in the TSBD during the shooting who fled the murder scene shortly after but he also knows that admitting it would do great harm to teh silly games he enjoys playing with the deaths of these men.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers...

Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or
minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in
the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several
officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other
employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was
not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other
warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen
him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and
he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here
missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had
another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there
or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said,
"Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse,
and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number
and address at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just
have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas
address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown
on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other
employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was
missing.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after you got that information?
Mr. TRULY. Chief Lumpkin of the Dallas Police Department was standing
a few feet from me. I told Chief Lumpkin that I had a boy missing over
here "I don't know whether it amounts to anything or not." And I gave
him his description. And he says, "Just a moment. We will go tell
Captain Fritz."
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was
talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some
nature I didn't hear it. And then he turned to me and says, "Now we
will go upstairs".
So we got on one of the elevators, I don't know which, and rode up to
the sixth floor. I didn't know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor.
And he was over in the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin
stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted
to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over
about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that
effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and
telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr.
Truly. We will take care of it.

> Interestingly, you weren't even honest enough to state it in it's
> original form... which is that Oswald WAS THE ONLY ONE MISSING.

He is the only person known to have been in the building when the shots were fired who fled the murder scene shortly after, lurkers. But even with that huge red flag the idiots make excuses or try to obscure it.

> Liar, aren't you stump?

What I cited supports what I said and shows Ben to be a liar, lurkers.

>
> >> So let's examine this claim... David is operating on his ignorance, he
> >> doesn't know of anyone else who was inside the building at 12:30, and
> >> indeed, cannot even credibly place Oswald as being inside the
> >> building,
> >
> > Lurkers, Oswald himself said he was...
>
>
> No stump. He didn't.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. It is his favorite thing to do.

> > https://youtu.be/sbR6vHXD1j0
> >
> > See 0:26 on. This just shows the desperation of these retards to
> > even contest this. They have no interest in the truth and are merely
> > playing silly games with the deaths of these men.
>
>
> What "time" was Oswald referring to?

Look at the desperation, lurkers. Here is the exchange...

Oswald: "I work in that building"

Question: "Were you in the building at the time?"

Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

Ben, being a dishonest person, will now contend that "at that time" meant the first pitch of the World Series or some event other than the assassination.

> And, of course, this has *NOTHING* to do with proving that he was the
> only one in the building.

Strawman, lurkers. Not the argument at all.

> >> then builds up this edifice of ignorance into 'proof' of
> >> Oswald's "sole guilt."
> >
> >> So let's see what evidence David has... David will be happy to list
> >> *ALL PEOPLE* who were in the building at anytime between 8am and
> >> 12:30... and specify WITH CITATION TO EVIDENCE their precise location
> >> at 12:30... right?
> >
> > Of course for Ben to actually refute DVP`s claim
>
> Already did. His claim isn't supported by his "evidence."
>
>
> > he would need the name of someone who was in the building during
> > the shooting and left soon after, lurkers. Did you see Ben produce
> > such a name?
>
> Producing a *NAME* is a logical fallacy on your part. But two
> strangers *were* seen exiting the building within minutes of the
> shooting. I've previously referenced the testimony on that issue.

Oswald is still the only known person to have been in the building at the time of the shooting who fled the murder scene shortly after, lurkers. That is what Ben needs to refute.

> >> I think not.
> >>
> >> Once again, David has simply speculated, and pretends that his
> >> speculation is evidence.
> >>
> >> Evidence WHICH DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT his basic claim of "sole guilt."
> >
> > Didn`t Ben claim he was going to refute this, lurkers.
>
> I'm doing so.

No, he isn`t lurkers. Oswald is still the only person known to have been in the building during the shooting who fled the scene shortly after. This is a bitter pill for the retards.

>Even *YOU* haven't been able to show how even a *SINGLE*
> item out of the twenty shows anyone's "sole guilt."
>
> So *YOU* know it too!

I don`t know why he tries to use me as support for his ideas, lurkers, it always entails deceit on his part.

> > All he is
> > doing is criticizing DVP`s abilities to make reasonable deductions.
>
> No moron, I'm pointing out, item by item, that NOTHING DAVID HAS
> POSTED SUPPORTS HIS "SOLE GUILT" CLAIM.

Ben is too stupid to understand the concept, lurkers.

> How many more times need I school you dufus?
>
>
> > You watch, when this is done it will be just as likely that Oswald
> > fled the crime scene after committing this murder than before Ben did
> > this "refutation".
>
> I've already pointed out that if you produced a video on the 6th
> floor, showing Oswald pulling the trigger, that it would *STILL* not
> show the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Who other than Oswald would such evidence show the guilt of, lurkers?

> Just how stupid are you stump?
>
>
> >> > Plus: Oswald's reason for ducking out of work at 12:33 PM is extremely
> >> > weak -- not to menion downright prescient on his part. For HOW, three
> >> > minutes after a shooting that he supposedly knew NOTHING about (what
> >> > with him supposedly being in the lunchroom eating lunch at the time),
> >> > could Oswald have possibly known for a fact that TSBD Superintendent
> >> > Roy Truly (or Oswald's immediate supervisor, Bill Shelley) would
> >> > spring everybody for the day due to the commotion caused by the
> >> > shooting, which is exactly the convenient excuse he gave to police
> >> > after his arrest?
> >>
> >>
> >> Provide for everyone a transcript of what Roy Truly and Bill Shelley
> >> said to *anyone* from 12:30 to 12:33.
> >
> > Disputing isn`t refuting, lurkers.
>
>
> It does, however, by logical argument that you've been unable to
> refute, show that David is absolutely wrong in his claim.

Lets see, Ben figures it does, Ben figures he has made logical arguments, Ben figures that I haven`t refuted his arguments and Ben figures that he has shown that David is completely wrong in his claim. Perhaps the problem is Ben`s figuring.

>
> >> But amusingly, you won't. Once again you've turned your speculation
> >> into evidence... and evidence that fails to support your claim.
> >
> > The evidence is that Oswald left because he had the opinion there
> > would be no more work done that day, lurkers. Bookhout`s FBI report
> > has it...
>
>
> Yep... he was probably told that by Truly or Shelly.

Did they say they did, lurkers?

And funny that Oswald could stand out in front with all those people, many who him by sight and not one person says they saw him. So how does this become "probably" what happened? Because Oswald said so? In Oswald we trust. The word of the main suspect is golden, it is everyone else we need to be suspicious of.

> > "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon
> > remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be
> > anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building."
>
> Yep... Shelly told him to take off for the rest of the day... and
> Oswald simply took off.
>
> Now, REFUTE THAT...

Can Ben support it, lurkers?

> But you can't.
>
> And it's just as credible and reasonable as anything *YOU* can claim.

Ben is a poor judge of what is credible and reasonable, lurkers.

> David is too terrified to weigh in.
>
>
> >> > If Oswald was telling the whole truth every step of the way on
> >> > November 22, he would have had NO knowledge that any shots would have
> >> > come from HIS building (the TSBD) to cause Mr. Truly to let everyone
> >> > go due to THAT building being the source of gunfire.
> >>
> >>
> >> The very same person who claims that everyone knew the shots came from
> >> the TSBD is now claiming the "sole ignorance" of Oswald!???
> >
> > DVP`s idea is that Oswald very well knew about the shooting,
> > lurkers. He is examining the idea of what he could know if the stories
> > he told were valid.
>
> Yep... speculation.

Reasoning, lurkers.

> Tell us what Oswald would have done if he *DIDN"T* know.

Try to gather information, lurkers. Exactly what he didn`t do.

>
> >> What kind of logic is this?
> >>
> >> David won't answer, he can't. Any serious examination of his statement
> >> is only going to lead to laughter...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Oswald also, if he's not the liar I know him to be
> >>
> >> From someone who cannot seem to acknowledge *REAL* liars in this case,
> >> such as Marina... this is truly amusing.
> >
> > I'm a retard that hates Marina, lurkers.
>
>
> No reason to be spiteful, stump.

Lurkers know Ben is a scumbag by now, there is no reason to belabor the point.

>
> >> If you cannot publicly acknowledge what both the Warren Commission and
> >> HSCA knew, how can you judge Oswald's truthfulness?
> >
> > Always with the misdirection to the investigations, lurkers.
>
>
> Did the Warren Commission know Marina to be a liar?
> Yes.

Did Ben show this, lurkers?

Did Ben provide the context?

Did the WC think Marina lied in her testimony?

> Did the HSCA know Marina to be a liar?
> Yes.

Did Ben show this, lurkers?

Did Ben provide the context?

Did the HSCA think Marina lied in her testimony?

> Does the presumed identifier of another liar know Marina to be a liar?
> No.

Ben doesn`t want to look at the available information correctly, lurkers. Certainly I can`t make him. But if any lurker wants to understand this event the best way to do so is to read Marina`s testimony. The tards want to dismiss what she said because she does great harm to the silly games they enjoy playing but she knew Oswald best and gives great insight into his actions.

> No refutation, no explanation... stump doesn't know Marina to be a
> liar either.

Ben is desperate to ignore the information Marina provided because it does harm to the silly games he enjoys playing, lurkers. No other reason.

> >> David won't answer, and stump will cry...
> >
> > When does this "refuting" start, lurkers?
>
> Been done.

Empty claim, lurkers.

> Wooosh! Right over your stumpy head.
>
>
>
> >> >, would not really
> >> > have known much of anything about the President's shooting (certainly
> >> > not from an EYEWITNESS standpoint, since the beloved Oswald was
> >> > supposedly located on the first or second floor of the building eating
> >> > his lunch when the assassination took place), although Mrs. Robert
> >> > Reid DID tell Oswald on his way out of the building that "the
> >> > President has been shot".
> >>
> >> Let's get this straight.
> >>
> >> Oswald would "not really have known much of anything about the
> >> President's shooting."
> >
> > Why is Ben being so deceitful as to try to make it appear that
> > DVP`s position is that Oswald knew nothing about the assassination,
> > lurkers?
>
>
> Because, unlike you, I can read:
>
> "Oswald ... would not really have known much of anything about the
> President's shooting."

So Ben really is that deceitful as to try to portray that as DVP`s actual position. Good to know, lurkers.

For the record, DVP`s *actual* position is that Oswald knew about the assassination because he committed the assassination. Ben just can`t muster honesty.

>
>
> > Obviously DVP thinks Oswald knew everything about the assassination.
>
> "Oswald ... would not really have known much of anything about the
> President's shooting."

Quoting out of context is another trick dishonest people use, lurkers. Stick around, you`ll see Ben use every dirty trick in the books. And then claim to be honest.

> >> But...
> >>
> >> He was told abvout the shooting by Mrs. Robert Reid.
> >>
> >> Which is it, David?
> >
> > One is an examination of the stories Oswald was telling, lurkers,
>
> Quote it.

Ben has already admitted he couldn`t contest my point when he changed it, lurkers.

> But you can't.
>
> David never said anything of the sort.
>
> You're simply lying again stump.
>
>
> > I'm just a Retard that has trouble making
> > distinctions.
>
>
> Yep.

Ben has to run from the points I make, lurkers.

Ben never supports a single thing he says, lurkers.

> But you're lying right now, because your asserting by implication that
> I'm not telling the ABSOLUTE TRUTH - the truth that you already know
> to be true.
>
>
> >> So what David has just proven, is a conspiracy. Because everyone that
> >> left Dealey Plaza must have been in on it.
> >
> > Were they inside the building when the shooting occurred, lurkers?
>
> List all that worked there, and where they were at 12:30.

Doesn`t impact the argument, lurkers. Oswald is the only person *known* to have been in the building during the shooting who fled the murder scene shortly after. Ben doesn`t see how this can possibly implicate him in the murder because he has no aptitude for criminal investigation. Ironically he feels fit to criticize those that do.

> But you won't.
>
> You *CAN'T*
>
> You're merely speculating.
>
>
> >> This is snowflake thinking...
>
>
> And stump is the quintessential snowflake.

I`m the perfect example of a feathery ice crystal, lurkers? That hurt!

> David's just a coward.
>
>
> >> > An average Joe would want to stick around and
> >> > rubber-neck and see what the hell had happened.
> >>
> >> Or not.
> >>
> >> Speculation is just stupid.
> >
> > Ben doesn`t do normal, lurkers. He has no idea what it looks like.
>
>
> More snowflake speculation...
>
>
>
> >> Can you document your claim that by remaining in Dealey Plaza you
> >> would gather more details than more intelligent people who simply went
> >> about their business, and turned on a radio?
> >
> > Bolting from the scene is not the normal reaction, lurkers, no
> > matter how Ben desperately tried to spin it. And when does the
> > refuting start?
>
> Can you document your claim that by remaining in Dealey Plaza you
> would gather more details than more intelligent people who simply went
> about their business, and turned on a radio?

Ben thinks it makes sense to leave where people saw what happened to go home to listen to the radio to hear the people there say what happened, lurkers.

And what would be the imperative to do everything you could to *not* gather any information at the scene?

> And can you further document your new claim that all those who left
> Dealey Plaza shortly after were involved in pulling a trigger?
>

Strawman, lurkers. And another feeble attempt to hide Oswald in the crowd.

>
> >> > Does Oswald do this? No. He doesn't stay around the exciting
> >> > scene at all. He evidently couldn't care less, because he leaves
> >> > within THREE MINUTES of the shooting.
> >>
> >> And this alleged "lack" of caring shows that he pulled the trigger.
> >
> > It indicates he had all the information he needed, lurkers.
>
>
> As did dozens or hundreds of others.

We are examining the actions of the main suspect of this crime, lurkers. Ben wants to pretend he is just like everyone else. This is, of course, pure desperation.

> stump doesn't even know their names...
>
>
> >> This, in a town that had people who wouldn't couldn't be bothered to
> >> *spit* in JFK's direction.
> >
> > I`m sure Kennedy would have preferred spit to the lead Oswald
> > threw in his direction, lurkers.
> >
> > But the other aspect Ben is ignoring is that Oswald was a
> > political animal and Kennedy was *the* political figure.
>
>
> And stump is too much a dishonest coward to admit the truth of what I
> stated, that there was a great deal of hate for JFK in Dallas.

It is a meaningless statement, lurkers. There is a great amount of hate for Trump in every major city (and probably every minor one also). And Obama. And Clinton. And both Bushes. Just saying something doesn`t matter, you have to show that what you are saying is significant to the assassination. The feeling that people had for Kennedy did not have any impact on the bullets Oswald was firing at him.

> David's just a coward.
>
>
> >> Yeah, you make a compelling case, David... just not for the "sole
> >> guilt" of anyone.
> >>
> >> > He doesn't talk to anyone (that we know of), except Pierce Allman or
> >> > Bob MacNeil, when one (or perhaps both) of those newsmen asked Oswald
> >> > where he/(they) could find a telephone.
> >>
> >> He doesn't talk to anyone.
> >>
> >> Then procedes to talk to people.
> >
> > Answering a quick question when he should be asking them, lurkers.
>
>
> More speculation from the snowflake.

Ben doesn`t know normal, lurkers. All these Oswald apologists are the same, nothing he does is seen as a red flag because they are so caught up in their silly little hobby.

> >> Yep... another compelling argument!
> >>
> >> Did he jaywalk to get to a bus station?
> >>
> >> Did he jaywalk to get to the cab?
> >>
> >> Inquiring minds want to know... anyone who'd jaywalk would certainly
> >> pull a trigger...
> >>
> >>
> >> > In short: Oswald's leaving his workplace without a truly valid and
> >> > believable reason to do so at 12:33 is solid circumstantial evidence
> >> > of his guilt.
> >>
> >> Yep... let's hang Givens.
> >
> > Given wasn`t in the building during the shooting,
>
> Tut tut tut... he wasn't in the lineup.

He didn`t shoot Kennedy, lurkers. He had to be in the building to do that. Like Oswald was.

> >> Oh, you meant someone *ELSE* whom you claim left without "truly valid
> >> and believable reasons"...
> >
> >> I'll be waiting for your list of those who worked in the building, and
> >> their time of departure along with the reason they gave for leaving.
> >
> > Ben could actually *refute* DVP claim by producing one name,
> > lurkers.
>
> Tut tut tut, stump.
>
> The defense counsel doesn't have to do the job of the prosecution.
>
>
> >> Not.
>
>
> And stump couldn't do it either...
>
>
>
> >> > He WANTED to leave, fairly obviously, before he was
> >> > caught.
> >>
> >> Oh, very convincing... people *prefer* to stick around at work when
> >> there's going to be no more work...
> >>
> >> Yep, you've convinced me, David.
> >>
> >> (I'll refrain from stating just *what* you convinced me of...)
> >>
> >>
> >> > Addendum:
> >> >
> >> > "The committee [House Select Committee on Assassinations] found that
> >>
> >>
> >> there was a "probable" conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Yep. We already know this. What would be far more interesting is if
> >> you could explain why the HSCA medical panel lied about the medical
> >> testimony - then slapped a classification on that testimony so no-one
> >> could document their lying...
>
>
> stump remains silent...

Why would I feel the need to comment on everything that pops into a retard`s head, lurkers?

>
>
> >> > while most of the depository employees were outside of the building at
> >> > the time of the assassination and returned inside afterwards, Oswald
> >> > did the reverse; he was inside before the assassination, and afterward
> >> > he went outside. That Oswald left the building within minutes of the
> >> > assassination was significant. Every other depository employee either
> >> > had an alibi for the time of the assassination or returned to the
> >> > building immediately thereafter. Oswald alone neither remained nor had
> >> > an alibi." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 59
> >>
> >> Then you'll have no trouble listing all these people, and documenting
> >> where they were at ... say, 12:30, right?
> >>
> >> As stump would say.... "empty claim."
> >
> > Not empty if he supports it with the findings of a major
> > investigation, lurkers.
>
> Then you've just lost.

Not if it supports what he said it supports, lurkers.

> Because I say "conspiracy," and I'll support it with the FINDINGS OF
> THE MAJOR, AND LAST INVESTIGATION.

Ben can believe that Oswald took all the shots that hit people in the limo but had a poor shooting accomplice on the knoll that shot and missed everything if he likes, lurkers.

> ROFTLMAO!!!
>
> You lose!
>
>
> > But notice no actual refuting was done by Ben, lurkers. The case
> > DVP laid out for the idea that Oswald uniquely bolted from the murder
> > scene shortly after the assassination is just as valid as if Ben never
> > responded at all.
>
> Nothing David gave supported his claim. Oswald did **NOT** "uniquely"
> "bolt" - and you can't show that he did.

He is the only person known to have, lurkers.

> And since I've shown "conspiracy with the findings of "a major
> investigation" ... you lose!

What a retard this guy is, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 12:00:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Mega Stump!
>> >>
>> >> Speaking of Mega Stump, does David Von Pein remember local Amazon perma-coma user "Mogul Cast"? (Ben, remember Mogul Cast??) One time uber-troll Mogul Cast was hectoring me about the second shooter. "What was his name? If there was a second shooter, NAME HIM!" I think I said the second shooter was Allen Dulles. Ex-CIA man. Lots of training. Mogul Cast began shrieking "it's not enough to just throw a name out there! Provide evidence for your claim! Provide evidence for your claim!!!"
>> >>
>> >> He couldn't name a single member of the Warren Commission. He didn't know what CE399 was. He didn't know who Governor Connally was.
>> >
>> > Conspiracy crackpots like to crow about opinion polls concerning
>> > the assassination, but it is unlikely many of the people who partake
>> > in those polls would do well with those questions.
>>
>> The fact that the Warren Commission, traditional mass media, and
>> public educational system hasn't been able to change the public
>> perception of what happened on 11/22/63 is a constant irritant to
>> believers everywhere.
>
> Bluff, bluster and empty claims, lurkers. Doesn`t this guy ever
> have anything to say of substance?

Just did, you ran.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:18:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

the shooting..."

Can't debate a moron who lies as blatantly as this.

Watch as stump denies that he lied.