info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #4
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 2, 2018, 12:13:24 PM2/2/18
to
> 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
> weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
> Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
> liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
> Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
> pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
"sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
his part.
But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
something to have happened.
So David must believe in bathroom doors that lock from the outside.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0174a.htm
That is the consequence of David's logic. He *MUST* believe that
bathroom doors lock from the outside.
Honest people can look to the HSCA, which compiled a long 29 page memo
documenting the many lies told by Marina - and realize that there's
serious problems with relying on what Marina said, or was forced to
say. David denies that Marina lied, so he's clearly a moron who thinks
that bathroom doors lock from the outside.
Interested researchers can look for the memo by the HSCA titled:
"Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature"... 29
pages worth of lies that the HSCA knew of.
But David isn't honest. He probably has never read this memo, and
seriously thinks that Marina was perfectly honest. And he must agree
that at least some bathroom doors are locked from the outside. I
invite him to document such a silly thing.
David knows, for example, that the HSCA **DID NOT** authenticate the
autopsy photos to the only autopsy camera that Bethesda had. Perhaps
there's a reasonable explanation, but one thing you *CANNOT* say is
that the photos were "authenticated." ... they clearly were not.
And indeed, it's a PROVEN FACT that the HSCA lied about the medical
testimony - why does David suddenly believe that they've authenticated
*ANYTHING*? Without an explanation for the provable lies that were
told, David is helpless.
Watch carefully and note that David will not answer, and no believer
will explain how this supports the claim David is making of "Oswald's
Sole Guilt."
> weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
> Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
> liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
> Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
> pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
"sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
his part.
But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
something to have happened.
So David must believe in bathroom doors that lock from the outside.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0174a.htm
That is the consequence of David's logic. He *MUST* believe that
bathroom doors lock from the outside.
Honest people can look to the HSCA, which compiled a long 29 page memo
documenting the many lies told by Marina - and realize that there's
serious problems with relying on what Marina said, or was forced to
say. David denies that Marina lied, so he's clearly a moron who thinks
that bathroom doors lock from the outside.
Interested researchers can look for the memo by the HSCA titled:
"Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature"... 29
pages worth of lies that the HSCA knew of.
But David isn't honest. He probably has never read this memo, and
seriously thinks that Marina was perfectly honest. And he must agree
that at least some bathroom doors are locked from the outside. I
invite him to document such a silly thing.
David knows, for example, that the HSCA **DID NOT** authenticate the
autopsy photos to the only autopsy camera that Bethesda had. Perhaps
there's a reasonable explanation, but one thing you *CANNOT* say is
that the photos were "authenticated." ... they clearly were not.
And indeed, it's a PROVEN FACT that the HSCA lied about the medical
testimony - why does David suddenly believe that they've authenticated
*ANYTHING*? Without an explanation for the provable lies that were
told, David is helpless.
Watch carefully and note that David will not answer, and no believer
will explain how this supports the claim David is making of "Oswald's
Sole Guilt."
Bud
Feb 2, 2018, 1:49:08 PM2/2/18
to
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:13:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
> > weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
> > Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
> > liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
> > Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
> > pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
>
> Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
> "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
> his part.
>
> But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
> states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
> something to have happened.
Not by itself, lurkers. There is also the photo, taken with Oswald`s camera.
> > 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
> > weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
> > Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
> > liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
> > Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
> > pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
>
> Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
> "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
> his part.
>
> But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
> states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
> something to have happened.
> So David must believe in bathroom doors that lock from the outside.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0174a.htm
> That is the consequence of David's logic. He *MUST* believe that
> bathroom doors lock from the outside.
Ben Holmes
Feb 12, 2018, 9:17:59 AM2/12/18
to
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:49:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:13:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
>> > weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
>> > Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
>> > liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
>> > Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
>> > pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
>>
>> Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
>> "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
>> his part.
>>
>> But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
>> states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
>> something to have happened.
>
> Not by itself, lurkers. There is also the photo, taken with Oswald`s camera.
You're lying again, Dufus. David CLEARLY attempted to make the case
that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them.
*HE* used the words. "all by itself."
So you're simply lying.
Tell us Dufus - do you think you can defend Dufus II with lies?
>> So David must believe in bathroom doors that lock from the outside.
>>
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0174a.htm
>
>> That is the consequence of David's logic. He *MUST* believe that
>> bathroom doors lock from the outside.
>
> Mine does, lurkers. Not that uncommon.
ROTFLMAO!!!
This is what believers sink to! And Dufus is actually SERIOUS!!!
This is a keeper... you'll see this again in the future.
>> Honest people can look to the HSCA, which compiled a long 29 page memo
>> documenting the many lies told by Marina - and realize that there's
>> serious problems with relying on what Marina said, or was forced to
>> say. David denies that Marina lied, so he's clearly a moron who thinks
>> that bathroom doors lock from the outside.
>>
>> Interested researchers can look for the memo by the HSCA titled:
>> "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature"... 29
>> pages worth of lies that the HSCA knew of.
>>
>> But David isn't honest. He probably has never read this memo, and
>> seriously thinks that Marina was perfectly honest. And he must agree
>> that at least some bathroom doors are locked from the outside. I
>> invite him to document such a silly thing.
>>
>> David knows, for example, that the HSCA **DID NOT** authenticate the
>> autopsy photos to the only autopsy camera that Bethesda had. Perhaps
>> there's a reasonable explanation, but one thing you *CANNOT* say is
>> that the photos were "authenticated." ... they clearly were not.
>>
>> And indeed, it's a PROVEN FACT that the HSCA lied about the medical
>> testimony - why does David suddenly believe that they've authenticated
>> *ANYTHING*? Without an explanation for the provable lies that were
>> told, David is helpless.
>>
>> Watch carefully and note that David will not answer, and no believer
>> will explain how this supports the claim David is making of "Oswald's
>> Sole Guilt."
Dead silence on the "sole guilt" issue - one that's *NOT* supported by
this item (or any of them!).
As I predicted: "no believer will explain how this supports the claim
multimillionaire many times over.
wrote:
>On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:13:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
>> > weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
>> > Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
>> > liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
>> > Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
>> > pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
>>
>> Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
>> "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
>> his part.
>>
>> But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
>> states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
>> something to have happened.
>
> Not by itself, lurkers. There is also the photo, taken with Oswald`s camera.
that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them.
*HE* used the words. "all by itself."
So you're simply lying.
Tell us Dufus - do you think you can defend Dufus II with lies?
>> So David must believe in bathroom doors that lock from the outside.
>>
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0174a.htm
>
>> That is the consequence of David's logic. He *MUST* believe that
>> bathroom doors lock from the outside.
>
> Mine does, lurkers. Not that uncommon.
This is what believers sink to! And Dufus is actually SERIOUS!!!
This is a keeper... you'll see this again in the future.
>> Honest people can look to the HSCA, which compiled a long 29 page memo
>> documenting the many lies told by Marina - and realize that there's
>> serious problems with relying on what Marina said, or was forced to
>> say. David denies that Marina lied, so he's clearly a moron who thinks
>> that bathroom doors lock from the outside.
>>
>> Interested researchers can look for the memo by the HSCA titled:
>> "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature"... 29
>> pages worth of lies that the HSCA knew of.
>>
>> But David isn't honest. He probably has never read this memo, and
>> seriously thinks that Marina was perfectly honest. And he must agree
>> that at least some bathroom doors are locked from the outside. I
>> invite him to document such a silly thing.
>>
>> David knows, for example, that the HSCA **DID NOT** authenticate the
>> autopsy photos to the only autopsy camera that Bethesda had. Perhaps
>> there's a reasonable explanation, but one thing you *CANNOT* say is
>> that the photos were "authenticated." ... they clearly were not.
>>
>> And indeed, it's a PROVEN FACT that the HSCA lied about the medical
>> testimony - why does David suddenly believe that they've authenticated
>> *ANYTHING*? Without an explanation for the provable lies that were
>> told, David is helpless.
>>
>> Watch carefully and note that David will not answer, and no believer
>> will explain how this supports the claim David is making of "Oswald's
>> Sole Guilt."
this item (or any of them!).
As I predicted: "no believer will explain how this supports the claim
David is making of "Oswald's Sole Guilt.""
If the lottery commission were Warren Commission believers, I'd be a
multimillionaire many times over.
Bud
Feb 12, 2018, 8:39:53 PM2/12/18
to
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:17:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:49:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:13:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
> >> > weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
> >> > Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
> >> > liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
> >> > Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
> >> > pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
> >>
> >> Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
> >> "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
> >> his part.
> >>
> >> But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
> >> states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
> >> something to have happened.
> >
> > Not by itself, lurkers. There is also the photo, taken with Oswald`s camera.
>
>
> You're lying again, Dufus. David CLEARLY attempted to make the case
> that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them.
Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 133 contains two photographs.
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:49:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:13:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > 4.) Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these
> >> > weapons on his person, which (all by itself) validates the "Backyard
> >> > Photographs". But even if conspiracists wish to think that Marina is a
> >> > liar, there's the fact that the HSCA [House Select Committee on
> >> > Assassinations] panel of photo experts vouched for the backyard
> >> > pictures (and the autopsy photos and X-rays, to boot).
> >>
> >> Once again anyone can see that this has *NOTHING* to do with the
> >> "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David refuses to defend this lie on
> >> his part.
> >>
> >> But let's examine the logic here... David claims that because Marina
> >> states something, that such a statement *ALL BY ITSELF* proves
> >> something to have happened.
> >
> > Not by itself, lurkers. There is also the photo, taken with Oswald`s camera.
>
>
> You're lying again, Dufus. David CLEARLY attempted to make the case
> that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them.
These are pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle and pistol.
Mrs. OSWALD. For me at first they appeared to be one and the same, at first glance. But they are different poses.
Mr. RANKIN. You took both of those pictures, did you, in Exhibit 133?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And are those the pictures you took when you were out hanging up diapers, and your husband asked you to take the pictures of him?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. With the pistol and the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. We offer in evidence Exhibit 133.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
> *HE* used the words. "all by itself."
>
> So you're simply lying.
> Tell us Dufus - do you think you can defend Dufus II with lies?
>
> >> So David must believe in bathroom doors that lock from the outside.
> >>
> >> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0174a.htm
> >
> >> That is the consequence of David's logic. He *MUST* believe that
> >> bathroom doors lock from the outside.
> >
> > Mine does, lurkers. Not that uncommon.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> This is what believers sink to! And Dufus is actually SERIOUS!!!
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/how-to/how-to-make-new-key-old-mortise-lock
You can`t see it real good, since they don`t show both sides at the same time. Even Walmart sells them...
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Ultra-44609-2-1-4-Brass-Old-Time-Mortise-Interior-Door-Lock-Set/19870142#read-more
> This is a keeper... you'll see this again in the future.
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2018, 11:57:21 AM2/27/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:39:52 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Your quote doesn't address what David said *AT ALL*.
Lied, didn't you Stump Dufus?
>> *HE* used the words. "all by itself."
>>
>> So you're simply lying.
And *STILL* lying by your refusal to acknowledge this fact.
Lied, didn't you Stump Dufus?
>> *HE* used the words. "all by itself."
>>
>> So you're simply lying.
Bud
Mar 1, 2018, 10:57:00 PM3/1/18
to
> Lied, didn't you Stump Dufus?
>
> >> *HE* used the words. "all by itself."
> >>
> >> So you're simply lying.
>
>
> And *STILL* lying by your refusal to acknowledge this fact.
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2018, 9:56:05 AM3/8/18
to
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:56:59 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> Ben is clearly lying...
Then all you have to do is show why Marina's testimony supports the
"sole guilt" of anyone.
But you can't. The one who's lying is you, stump.
Then all you have to do is show why Marina's testimony supports the
"sole guilt" of anyone.
But you can't. The one who's lying is you, stump.
Bud
Mar 28, 2018, 2:20:39 PM3/28/18
to
"You're lying again, Dufus. David CLEARLY attempted to make the case
that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them."
> But you can't. The one who's lying is you, stump.
Ben Holmes
Mar 30, 2018, 9:55:52 AM3/30/18
to
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:20:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Defeated on **what**???
I've stated nothing that you've been able to refute.
> "You're lying again, Dufus. David CLEARLY attempted to make the case
>that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them."
Yep... still absolutely true.
> When I showed that DVP was correct, and that Marina`s testimony
> *did* by itself validate the BY photos, Ben attempted to switch to a
> completely different issue.
Sorry stump, no-one's talking about the BY photos.
As I've already stated: Once again anyone can see that this has
>> But you can't. The one who's lying is you, stump.
>
> Did I show that Marina`s testimony validated the BY photos,
> lurkers? Yes, I did.
The BY photos aren't the issue, nor does the testimony of a proven
liar "validate" something.
You lose again!
wrote:
I've stated nothing that you've been able to refute.
> "You're lying again, Dufus. David CLEARLY attempted to make the case
>that Marina's testimony "all by itself" validated them."
> When I showed that DVP was correct, and that Marina`s testimony
> *did* by itself validate the BY photos, Ben attempted to switch to a
> completely different issue.
As I've already stated: Once again anyone can see that this has
*NOTHING* to do with the "sole" guilt of anyone at all. And David
refuses to defend this lie on his part.
Changing the topic won't get you anywhere.
refuses to defend this lie on his part.
>> But you can't. The one who's lying is you, stump.
>
> Did I show that Marina`s testimony validated the BY photos,
> lurkers? Yes, I did.
liar "validate" something.
You lose again!
0 new messages