The Provable Coward - David Von Pein

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum...

>Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
>double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
>he committed on 11/22/63.


How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?


>Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
>that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
>the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
>evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
>"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
>this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
>single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
>the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
>by Lee Harvey Oswald).


Here we see an example of this "skewing" of the evidence. David knows
quite well the MASSIVE amount of evidence that Oswald never owned the
Mannlicher Carcano... yet merely assumes that which he knows he can't
prove.


>Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
>to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
>Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?


The idea that the DPD intentionally "plotted" to frame an innocent man
is a *very* dishonest assertion by David.

[Not to mention that it could be done by just a couple of men... not
"many many people"...]

Police don't frame "innocent" men... they "improve" the evidence to
"help" them convict a suspect that they FIRMLY believe is the guilty
party.

David will *NEVER* produce a case where the police intentionally
plotted to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.

DAVID WILL **NEVER** PRODUCE A CASE WHERE THE POLICE INTENTIONALLY
PLOTTED TO FRAME SOMEONE THEY **KNEW** WAS INNOCENT.

In other words, David is lying, and he *KNOWS* he's lying.


This is the sort of lies and misleading statements that you find all
the time from believers... they can't make their case with the truth,
so they are CONSTANTLY lying... sometimes small little lies such as
this example, other times - they tell WHOPPERS - such as Chucky's
recent claim that Kilduff got his information from Perry.

>In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
>to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)

If conspiracy actually *were* unsupportable, then you wouldn't be
TERRIFIED to debate the topic.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:22:36 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Found in the censored forum...

Poor widdle Benny, lurkers, not enough of a man to post on alt.assassination and make arguments or rebuttals.

> >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> >he committed on 11/22/63.
>
>
> How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?

By exonerating him, lurkers.

> >Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
> >that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
> >the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
> >evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
> >"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
> >this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
> >single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
> >the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
> >by Lee Harvey Oswald).
>
>
> Here we see an example of this "skewing" of the evidence. David knows
> quite well the MASSIVE amount of evidence that Oswald never owned the
> Mannlicher Carcano... yet merely assumes that which he knows he can't
> prove.

Conspiracy retards can`t figure out that Oswald owned this rifle, lurkers. They are stumps who can`t even figure out the basics. Perhaps if there was a photo of him holding the rifle, hmmmm?

> >Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
> >to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
> >Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
>
>
> The idea that the DPD intentionally "plotted" to frame an innocent man
> is a *very* dishonest assertion by David.
>
> [Not to mention that it could be done by just a couple of men... not
> "many many people"...]

Ben can make these empty claims until he is blue in the face, lurkers. Until he put his theory on the table showing how a couple of men could accomplish what he needs done for his ideas to be valid, assertions of this type are meaningless.

> Police don't frame "innocent" men... they "improve" the evidence to
> "help" them convict a suspect that they FIRMLY believe is the guilty
> party.

A truly retarded idea in thus case, lurkers. The retards have the cops switching automatic shells for revolver shells. This isn`t "improving" the case against Oswald, it is letting Tippit`s murderer go free in order to frame Oswald for the murder.

> David will *NEVER* produce a case where the police intentionally
> plotted to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.

Where did DVP name the police as the culprit doing the framing, lurkers?

> DAVID WILL **NEVER** PRODUCE A CASE WHERE THE POLICE INTENTIONALLY
> PLOTTED TO FRAME SOMEONE THEY **KNEW** WAS INNOCENT.
>
> In other words, David is lying, and he *KNOWS* he's lying.
>
>
> This is the sort of lies and misleading statements that you find all
> the time from believers... they can't make their case with the truth,
> so they are CONSTANTLY lying... sometimes small little lies such as
> this example, other times - they tell WHOPPERS - such as Chucky's
> recent claim that Kilduff got his information from Perry.
>
> >In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
> >to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
>
> If conspiracy actually *were* unsupportable, then you wouldn't be
> TERRIFIED to debate the topic.

Waste of time to argue with a retard, lurkers. Apparently I have time to waste.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 13:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:22:36 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum...
>
> Poor widdle Benny, lurkers, not enough of a man to post on alt.assassination and make arguments or rebuttals.
>
>> >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
>> >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
>> >he committed on 11/22/63.
>>
>>
>> How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
>
> By exonerating him, lurkers.

How do you kill a dead man?

[Bud]

exonerate [verb]; 1.(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

Nothing about being convicted of a crime, lurkers. Nothing about being dead or alive.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 17:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Just as you cannot kill a dead man, you cannot "exhonerate" someone
not guilty of any crime.

It seems silly to spank you like this, but my hint clearly didn't
school you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:09:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Ben is confusing historical truth with a jury decision.

Chucky Cheese is applying a word that doesn't fit to Oswald.

Why all the cowardice Chucky? Why do you keep running away every time
I school you on an issue?

[Bud]

We aren`t talking about someone innocent of any crime lurkers, we are talking about Lee Harvey Oswald.

> It seems silly to spank you like this, but my hint clearly didn't
> school you.

Did any of you lurkers see where Ben showed how the definition I supplied did not apply? Me neither.

[Bud]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 11:33:15 AM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sure if fits Oswald. It fits this Steven Paddock character in Vegas, too. Paddock will never stand trial. He's dead. People are already claiming this was a conspiracy. Something is fishy, there was another shooter on the 4th floor, etc. but Steven Paddock murdered those people in Vegas the other day. No question. It's an historical truth. It's also an historical truth that Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed Tippit.
>
> You can only run from the truth for so long, Tiny Dancer.

Ben will defend Oswald until his last breath. He is an Oswald defender.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Sure if fits Oswald. It fits this Steven Paddock character in Vegas,
> too. Paddock will never stand trial.

He's also INDISPUTABLY guilty, if not in the legal sense.

Something you *CANNOT* honestly say about Oswald.

> He's dead. People are already
> claiming this was a conspiracy. Something is fishy, there was another
> shooter on the 4th floor, etc. but Steven Paddock murdered those
> people in Vegas the other day. No question. It's an historical truth.
> It's also an historical truth that Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and
> killed Tippit.
>
>You can only run from the truth for so long, Tiny Dancer.

Whose the one running, moron?

You *STILL* refuse to state what the cause of 'first frame flash'
is... just to name *ONE* of the questions you've provably run from.

What question have you asked that I've *NOT* answered?

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:24:14 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>You.

And what was your answer to the cause of "first frame flash?"

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:34:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum...
>>
>> >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
>> >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
>> >he committed on 11/22/63.
>>
>>
>> How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
>>
>>
>> >Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
>> >that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
>> >the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
>> >evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
>> >"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
>> >this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
>> >single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
>> >the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
>> >by Lee Harvey Oswald).
>>
>>
>> Here we see an example of this "skewing" of the evidence. David knows
>> quite well the MASSIVE amount of evidence that Oswald never owned the
>> Mannlicher Carcano... yet merely assumes that which he knows he can't
>> prove.
>
>

> There isn't any evidence that points away from Oswald as the owner
> of the weapon. It's as conclusive and ironclad as it can get.


How did he pay for the rifle?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:55:49 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>That it is a mechanical defect in the design of the camera.

Nope. I noticed that you failed to cite... quite understandable.

Anytime you want to answer truthfully, you're welcome to do so...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Why does that matter?


Tut tut tut, Chucky... you made the claim that his ownership of the
rifle was 'conclusive and ironclad' - then you RUN AWAY from the very
first challenge.

Seems like you lied, didn't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:07:41 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> His wife says it was his.


His wife *ALSO* said he didn't own a rifle.


> There are pictures of him with it.


The problems with the photos have been long debated, as you well know.


> He told his wife he used it to fire at Walker.


The same wife who stated that Oswald didn't own a rifle? The same wife
who locked Oswald in a bathroom? That wife?

And, of course, you *KNOW* that there's an eyewitness to that shooting
that is very problematic for your faith.


> His palm print was on it.

Nope.

Not photographed, and appeared later...


> Fibers similar to the shirt Oswald wore that morning were recovered
> from the rifle.


Good of you to actually be honest about something.

Unfortunately for you, fibers "similar" isn't good enough.


>And I'm not even going to the Hidell PO box, the money order, etc.

You don't DARE go into those issues. Because you *KNOW* that this
evidence doesn't support your faith.

Now, recall that the ver FIRST thing I brought up was how Oswald paid
for the rifle, and *YOU RAN!!!*

And now you *DARE* to pretend that you'd bring up the money order!!!

You're a liar, Chucky.


>Of course, you think all of this was faked by your amazing twelve conspirators, right?

Lt. Day was certainly doing his best to pin the crime on Oswald.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:09:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Au contraire... I could care less about Oswald.

I'm paying attention to the evidence. Something you run from.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:08:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 9:54:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 17:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 9:25:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 13:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:22:36 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> Found in the censored forum...
>> >> >
>> >> > Poor widdle Benny, lurkers, not enough of a man to post on alt.assassination and make arguments or rebuttals.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
>> >> >> >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
>> >> >> >he committed on 11/22/63.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
>> >> >
>> >> > By exonerating him, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> How do you kill a dead man?
>> >
>> > exonerate [verb]; 1.(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
>> >
>> > Nothing about being convicted of a crime, lurkers. Nothing about being dead or alive.
>>
>> Just as you cannot kill a dead man, you cannot "exhonerate" someone
>> not guilty of any crime.
>
> We aren`t talking about someone innocent of any crime lurkers, we
> are talking about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Begging the question... a frequent logical fallacy of believers...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:34:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum...
>>
>> >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
>> >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
>> >he committed on 11/22/63.
>>
>>
>> How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
>>
>>
>> >Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
>> >that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
>> >the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
>> >evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
>> >"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
>> >this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
>> >single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
>> >the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
>> >by Lee Harvey Oswald).
>>
>>
>> Here we see an example of this "skewing" of the evidence. David knows
>> quite well the MASSIVE amount of evidence that Oswald never owned the
>> Mannlicher Carcano... yet merely assumes that which he knows he can't
>> prove.
>

[Bud]

Yet she took police to where she believed her husband kept a rifle, lurkers. Conspiracy retards look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.

> > There are pictures of him with it.
>
>
> The problems with the photos have been long debated, as you well know.
>
>
> > He told his wife he used it to fire at Walker.
>
>
> The same wife who stated that Oswald didn't own a rifle? The same wife
> who locked Oswald in a bathroom? That wife?

See the retard, lurkers. See the retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men. Play, retard, play.

> And, of course, you *KNOW* that there's an eyewitness to that shooting
> that is very problematic for your faith.

Another issue where Ben can`t really make a point so he vaguely alludes, lurkers. If he put this idea on the table, and it was explored, he would run.

> > His palm print was on it.
>
> Nope.
>
> Not photographed,

Not x-rayed, lurkers. Not sketched. But it was lifted from the rifle.

> and appeared later...

Whatever that means to a retard, lurkers. It appeared when Oswald touched the stock.

>
> > Fibers similar to the shirt Oswald wore that morning were recovered
> > from the rifle.
>
>
> Good of you to actually be honest about something.
>
> Unfortunately for you, fibers "similar" isn't good enough.
>
>
> >And I'm not even going to the Hidell PO box, the money order, etc.
>
> You don't DARE go into those issues. Because you *KNOW* that this
> evidence doesn't support your faith.
>
> Now, recall that the ver FIRST thing I brought up was how Oswald paid
> for the rifle, and *YOU RAN!!!*
>
> And now you *DARE* to pretend that you'd bring up the money order!!!

Retards like to pretend the money order is fake, what could matter less, lurkers?

> You're a liar, Chucky.
>
>
> >Of course, you think all of this was faked by your amazing twelve conspirators, right?
>
> Lt. Day was certainly doing his best to pin the crime on Oswald.

Ben is forced to take these silly positions because he is an Oswald defender, lurkers.

[Bud]

Ben doesn`t know how to use this term correctly, lurkers. Oswald was determined to be guilty by two major investigations. To pretend he is innocent is begging the question.

[Bud]

Ben is lying, lurkers. He is an Oswald defender.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Empty claim...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:50:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Yet she took police to where she believed her husband kept a rifle...

As there was not a rifle there, she could equally have taken the
police to literally ANYPLACE ON EARTH.

This is the sort of nonsense that only a believer can believe!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

"Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio
principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy
in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination
to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a
premise to support itself."

You cannot "exonerate" someone who's not "guilty."

Merely asserting that Oswald is "guilty" is begging the question in
the full sense of the term.

Go ahead, "Dud," refute that!

> Oswald was determined to be guilty by two major investigations. To
> pretend he is innocent is begging the question.

Ever heard of principle that one is considered innocent until proven
guilty?

It is *INDEED* begging the question to presume Oswald's guilt.

Especially when you CONSISTENTLY RUN from providing any evidence of
this supposed guilt.

>> a frequent logical fallacy of believers...

And clearly, "Dud" can't understand this simple fact.

[Bud]

There is no assumption after it has been shown, lurkers. Two major investigations determined that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy.

> In other words, begging the question involves using a
> premise to support itself."

Which I didn`t do, lurkers. I used established information in support of a premise.

> You cannot "exonerate" someone who's not "guilty."

Ben has the habit of repeating concepts without supporting them, lurkers.

> Merely asserting that Oswald is "guilty" is begging the question in
> the full sense of the term.

It is not "begging the question" to say the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, it is only stating established historical fact. Likewise calling Oswald guilty is merely relating historical fact.

> Go ahead, "Dud," refute that!

Ben will run from the points made, lurkers, bank on that.

> > Oswald was determined to be guilty by two major investigations. To
> > pretend he is innocent is begging the question.
>
>
> Ever heard of principle that one is considered innocent until proven
> guilty?

Good to see Ben come out in support of Hitler`s innocence, lurkers. And that Las Vegas shooter. Charles Whitman. Historical truth is not determined by juries.

> It is *INDEED* begging the question to presume Oswald's guilt.

Is it begging the question to assert the sun is hot, lurkers?

> Especially when you CONSISTENTLY RUN from providing any evidence of
> this supposed guilt.

Ben needs to get up to speed on this case, lurkers.

And what this challenge actually is is that I must convince him of Oswald`s guilt. He has access to the same information I have, if he can`t figure it out how do I make him smarter?

In reality, the burden is his. He has to convince me, and people like me that he has a superior explanation for this event. This is the only way he can persuade me. He isn`t even trying, he isn`t putting a theory on the table for consideration.

[Bud]

Ben has trouble reading, lurkers. She took the police to where she *believed* her husband kept a rifle. Ben can`t show that she believed her husband kept riles anywhere else.

> This is the sort of nonsense that only a believer can believe!!!

Where was Oswald`s rifle, lurkers? We know, don`t we?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> There is no assumption ...

Other than that Oswald was guilty. Something you're *NOT* prepared to
back up with citation to the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben has trouble reading...

"Dud" has trouble reading. THERE WAS NO RIFLE AT THE LOCATION.

It's as simple as that.

[Bud]

The idea Ben is running from, lurkers....

"There is no assumption after it has been shown, lurkers. Two major investigations determined that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy."

Ben`s claim that it is begging the question to say Oswald is guilty is unsupportable, lurkers.

[Bud]

Oswald`s wife believed her husband kept one there, lurkers. It not being there doesn`t help Oswald one bit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:54:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Oswald`s wife believed her husband kept one there...

So what?

She *also* believed that she was capable of locking someone *IN* a
bathroom.

Are *YOU* that stupid?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I could care less what someone *says*... the fact that you're
completely unwilling to cite the evidence for your assertions tells
the true tale.

You clearly worship your hero, the coward Robert "Bob" Ford.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 6:34:35 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Found in the censored forum...
> >

> > >Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a
> > >double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings
> > >he committed on 11/22/63.
> >
> >
> > How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
> >
> >

> > >Rabid CTers will do everything they can to skew the reality of the events
> > >that occurred on that autumn day in 1963 -- meaning: many CTers will take
> > >the massive supply of physical and circumstantial evidence (which is
> > >evidence that indicates, without any doubt, that a man with the initials
> > >"LHO" murdered two people on November 22nd) and attempt to taint all of
> > >this "official" evidence by casting doubt on the reliability of every
> > >single scrap of it (particularly the ballistics/bullet evidence in both
> > >the JFK and Tippit crimes, which is evidence that leads to only guns owned
> > >by Lee Harvey Oswald).
> >
> >
> > Here we see an example of this "skewing" of the evidence. David knows
> > quite well the MASSIVE amount of evidence that Oswald never owned the
> > Mannlicher Carcano... yet merely assumes that which he knows he can't
> > prove.
>
>
>
> There isn't any evidence that points away from Oswald as the owner of the weapon. It's as conclusive and ironclad as it can get.
> >
>
>
> >

> > >Is that the way to realistically approach a murder case? Is it reasonable
> > >to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named
> > >Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
> >
> >
> > The idea that the DPD intentionally "plotted" to frame an innocent man
> > is a *very* dishonest assertion by David.
>
>
> That's not his assertion, asshole, it's the assertion of Oswald Lovers like yourself. Read for comprehension.

Exactly, Chuck. The stump named Holmes is actually berating **ME** for simply pointing out something that HE HIMSELF believes---i.e., that an INNOCENT Oswald was framed for both JFK's and Tippit's murders. Geez, what a stump.






>
> >
> > [Not to mention that it could be done by just a couple of men... not
> > "many many people"...]
>
>
> Are they part of your twelve men?
>
>
> >
> > Police don't frame "innocent" men... they "improve" the evidence to
> > "help" them convict a suspect that they FIRMLY believe is the guilty
> > party.
>
>
> Um, improving the evidence to help convict an innocent man that would be called FRAMING, you little twerp.
>
>
> >
> > David will *NEVER* produce a case where the police intentionally
> > plotted to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.
>
>
> Perhaps because he's discussing the JFK case, not some random case.
>
>
> >
> > DAVID WILL **NEVER** PRODUCE A CASE WHERE THE POLICE INTENTIONALLY
> > PLOTTED TO FRAME SOMEONE THEY **KNEW** WAS INNOCENT.
>
>
> Perhaps because he's discussing the JFK case, not some random case.
>
>
> >
> > In other words, David is lying, and he *KNOWS* he's lying.
>
>
> In other words, the little twerp Tiny Dancer, can't read for comprehension. Read before you spout, junior.
>
>
> >
> >
> > This is the sort of lies and misleading statements that you find all
> > the time from believers... they can't make their case with the truth,
> > so they are CONSTANTLY lying... sometimes small little lies such as
> > this example, other times - they tell WHOPPERS - such as Chucky's
> > recent claim that Kilduff got his information from Perry.
>
>
> That's what the man said.
>
> By the way Burkley also is apparently the source to Kilduff that JFK was only shot once. You don't believe that, do you? You're cherry-picking. Why not understand that first statements in this type of story are often erroneous, though not intentionally, and that statements need to be sorted later for accuracy. That's why we investigate and don't go by first impressions. Sometimes first impressions are accurate, other times they are not.
>
>
> >
> > >In my view, that crazy conspiracy approach is just downright silly. (Not
> > >to mention wholly unsupportable and unprovable.)
> >
> > If conspiracy actually *were* unsupportable, then you wouldn't be
> > TERRIFIED to debate the topic.
>
>
> Apparently the person terrified to debate is you. You've never come up with an alternate theory other than "twelve people did a bunch of shit on 11/22/63 and it's been covered up for over 50 years."

[Ben Holmes]

You're a GUTLESS liar, David Von Pein.

I certainly DO NOT believe that silly assertion. Nor would *ANY*
honest person.

Even *YOU* certainly DO NOT believe that a police department, no
matter *HOW* corrupt, would intentionally "plot" to frame SOMEONE THEY
KNEW WAS AN INNOCENT MAN.

So tell us David, WHY DID YOU INTENTIONALLY LIE?

Or are you actually STUPID enough to believe that a police department
in America would intentionally "plot" to frame someone they *KNEW* was
completely innocent?

Speak up, moron... let's see if you have any courage... or prefer to
slink back to the censored forum where lies like this aren't
challenged.

[Bud]

<snicker> This is why this stump can`t figure out this very easy to figure out crime, lurkers.

> She *also* believed that she was capable of locking someone *IN* a
> bathroom.

There is a lock on my bathroom door, stump. I don`t have the skeleton key that locks it but if I found a compatible one there is no reason to believe I couldn`t lock it. Likely it would need lubricating.

> Are *YOU* that stupid?

Apparently Lowes and Home Depot are stupid also, they both sell lockable bathroom doorknob sets.

[Bud]

Oswald`s guilt was the finding of two massive investigations, lurkers. It can`t be begging the question to call Oswald guilty.

> the fact that you're
> completely unwilling to cite the evidence for your assertions tells
> the true tale.

The usual dancing and misdirection Ben exhibits when he is shown to be wrong, lurkers.

[David Von Pein]

Good. Then Oswald's guilty. Nice to have that settled. And it's nice to know that Ben Holmes has finally come to grips with Oswald's obvious guilt. Somebody notify CNN.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:53:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Hmmm...

Tut tut tut, Chucky... you RAN from all the points above.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:36:10 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

Looks like David is still busy molesting the neighborhood children.
Your perversions are *YOUR* problem, seek help.


Chucky... can you publicly state what David just did when he announced
that he was a child molester?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:21:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I believe that you're a moron.

A perfect analogy to your claim, this shows that you *ARE* a moron.
Because my belief is all that's required to prove it true.

>> She *also* believed that she was capable of locking someone *IN* a
>> bathroom.
>

> There is a lock on my bathroom door...

I daresay that this moron will *NEVER* explain how he managed to put
his bathroom door lock on the wrong side of the door.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Oswald`s "guilt" has never been established in a court of law.

Yep... that's certainly true.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben can only argue against himself, lurkers. He changes my words because he has no chance against my arguments. This is what I actually said that the scumbag changed...

"Oswald`s guilt was the finding of two massive investigations, lurkers. It can`t be begging the question to call Oswald guilty."

Ben made a claim, that calling Oswald guilty was "begging the question". When I showed it couldn`t be, he was forced to run.

[Bud]

Ben shows he is one. He finds it irrelevant that Oswald`s wife believed her husband kept a rifle in the Paine`s garage. He has no business looking into this, or second guessing real profession crime investigators. Criminals would be safe with the likes of Ben investigating crime.

> A perfect analogy to your claim, this shows that you *ARE* a moron.
> Because my belief is all that's required to prove it true.
>
>
> >> She *also* believed that she was capable of locking someone *IN* a
> >> bathroom.
> >
> > There is a lock on my bathroom door...
>
> I daresay that this moron will *NEVER* explain how he managed to put
> his bathroom door lock on the wrong side of the door.

Ben is being retarded several ways, lurkers. One, I didn`t put the lock on, it is probably older than I am. Two, it can be locked or unlocked from either side, that is common for the old mortise locks.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:13:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben shows that he knows the truth.

Yep.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> <snicker> Ben can only argue the truth...

Yep.