The 45 Questions - One by One (#42)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Martybaugh...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
much...@hotmail.com
much...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Timst...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Note that he'll jump in to each
post, but refuse to answer the question.
**********************************************************************
42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
attempting to frame LHO?
There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
purchase documents.
Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
the assassination?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
j leyden
> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
> the assassination?
>
Gotta admit I don't have a clue, Ben. Maybe it was Baldoni or
Brokedad or Justme or Miss Rita or someone else off your paranoid-
sounding enemies list. But since you brought the subject up, Ben --
not us -- why don't you get off your duff, do some research for a
change and tell us. We eagerly anticipate your response. BTW stop
advertising your "Make a Million on the internet" website here in the
NG. Have some respect for the memory of JFK.
JGL
aeffects
> On Feb 5, 9:37 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
> > the assassination?
>
> Gotta admit I don't have a clue, Ben. Maybe it was Baldoni or
> Brokedad or Justme or Miss Rita or someone else off your paranoid-
> sounding enemies list. But since you brought the subject up, Ben --
> not us -- why don't you get off your duff, do some research for a
> change and tell us.
Jer, the nutter-trolls have been made fools of here, all they do is
whine about the Zapruder film, get'em focused Jer, they need to deal
with the framing of LHO and case medical evidence, Jer... Shape your
troops up, or move them into full tactical retreat....no sense hiding
the simple fact this batch of trolls can't cut it (nor can .john)
We eagerly anticipate your response. BTW stop
> advertising your "Make a Million on the internet" website here in the
> NG. Have some respect for the memory of JFK.
re-read the above.... and, ENVY is not your strong suit, Jer.....
p.s. we also understand why you can't let go of the altered Zapruder
film debate.....
Ben Holmes
j leyden says...
>
>On Feb 5, 9:37=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks be=
>fore
>> the assassination?
>>
>Gotta admit I don't have a clue, Ben. Maybe it was Baldoni or
>Brokedad or Justme or Miss Rita or someone else off your paranoid-
>sounding enemies list. But since you brought the subject up, Ben --
>not us -- why don't you get off your duff, do some research for a
>change and tell us. We eagerly anticipate your response. BTW stop
>advertising your "Make a Million on the internet" website here in the
>NG. Have some respect for the memory of JFK.
>
>JGL
It's good for you to admit that there's no reasonable, non-conspiratorial
explanation for the facts.
>> **********************************************************************
>> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's on=
>ly
>> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change m=
>> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply=
> deny
>> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simpl=
>y run
>> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>>
>> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but =
>he's
>> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>>
>> The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claimi=
>ng to
>> be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Note that he'll jump in t=
>o each
>> post, but refuse to answer the question.
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>> 42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the=
> DPD
>> that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =EF=BF=BDI=
>nterestingly,
>> no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up=
> to the
>> plate to admit that they had called. =EF=BF=BDHowever, in checking their =
>records, they
>> came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle fo=
>r a
>> customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =EF=BF=BDAnd even thoug=
>h no-one
>> remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* hav=
>e been
>> Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to m=
>ount a
>> telescopic sight. =EF=BF=BDThe MC only had *two* holes. =EF=BF=BDAnthony =
>Summer's, in recounting
>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket=
> could
>> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that wa=
>s
>> attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally f=
>rame
>> him as an arrogant man with an MC. =EF=BF=BDAnd although Oswald normally =
>only specified
>> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specify=
>ing his
>> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =EF=BF=BDRather puzzling for the LNT'er crow=
>d...
>>
>> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when =
>Oswald
>> was provably in Russia. =EF=BF=BDImmediately after the assassination, a m=
>anager of a
>> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that t=
>he name
>> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, an=
>d found
>> a prospective purchaser from 1961. =EF=BF=BDThe "Oswald" from 1961, along=
> with a Cuban,
>> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =EF=BF=BDDeslatte recalled that "Oswald"=
> first
>> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go=
> on the
>> purchase documents.
>>
>> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finall=
>y
>> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Cas=
>tro
>> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democrat=
>ic
>> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The =
>most
>> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the ques=
>tion
>> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks be=
Steve
> In article <4dcd019d-5816-43ac-9718-5effc126b...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A few points first.
1. Do you believe that Oswald's MC was the murder weapon?
2. Did CE 399 match Oswald's rifle?
3. Was the MC a quality rifle capable for assassinating the president
from the distance he at the time of the third shot?
4. Were the backyard photographs authentic?
Once you answer these questions I'll respond to your initial query.
Be careful Ben you are in a tricky spot here.
j leyden
> It's good for you to admit that there's no reasonable, non-conspiratorial
> explanation for the facts.
There were no "facts," Ben. Just gossip. There also were no Oswald
impersonators running around loose. This just shows how absolutely
gullible you are. Find another pastime, Ben. You're not really
suited for this. And, hey, coud you dispense with posting the link to
your "Make a Million on the internet" website when communicating with
me. I find itoffensive.
JGL
> In article <4dcd019d-5816-43ac-9718-5effc126b...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Holmes
j leyden says...
>
>On Feb 5, 3:11=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>> It's good for you to admit that there's no reasonable, non-conspiratorial
>> explanation for the facts.
>
>There were no "facts," Ben. Just gossip. There also were no Oswald
>impersonators running around loose. This just shows how absolutely
>gullible you are. Find another pastime, Ben. You're not really
>suited for this. And, hey, coud you dispense with posting the link to
>your "Make a Million on the internet" website when communicating with
>me. I find itoffensive.
>
>JGL
Simple denial...
Still no answers...
>> In article <4dcd019d-5816-43ac-9718-5effc126b...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> j leyden says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 9:37=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks=
> be=3D
>> >fore
>> >> the assassination?
>>
>> >Gotta admit I don't have a clue, Ben. =EF=BF=BDMaybe it was Baldoni or
>> >Brokedad or Justme or Miss Rita or someone else off your paranoid-
>> >sounding =EF=BF=BDenemies list. =EF=BF=BDBut since you brought the subje=
>ct up, Ben --
>> >not us -- =EF=BF=BDwhy don't you get off your duff, do some research for=
> a
>> >change and tell us. =EF=BF=BDWe eagerly anticipate your response. =EF=BF=
>=BDBTW stop
>> >advertising your "Make a Million on the internet" website here in the
>> >NG. =EF=BF=BDHave some respect for the memory of JFK.
>>
>> >JGL
>>
>> It's good for you to admit that there's no reasonable, non-conspiratorial
>> explanation for the facts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> **********************************************************************
>> >> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's=
> on=3D
>> >ly
>> >> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to chang=
>e m=3D
>> >> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will sim=
>ply=3D
>> > deny
>> >> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or si=
>mpl=3D
>> >y run
>> >> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>>
>> >> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, b=
>ut =3D
>> >he's
>> >> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>>
>> >> The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, cla=
>imi=3D
>> >ng to
>> >> be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Note that he'll jump i=
>n t=3D
>> >o each
>> >> post, but refuse to answer the question.
>> >> **********************************************************************
>>
>> >> 42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told =
>the=3D
>> > DPD
>> >> that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =3DEF=
>=3DBF=3DBDI=3D
>> >nterestingly,
>> >> no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step=
> up=3D
>> > to the
>> >> plate to admit that they had called. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDHowever, in checki=
>ng their =3D
>> >records, they
>> >> came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle=
> fo=3D
>> >r a
>> >> customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDAnd e=
>ven thoug=3D
>> >h no-one
>> >> remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* =
>hav=3D
>> >e been
>> >> Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes t=
>o m=3D
>> >ount a
>> >> telescopic sight. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThe MC only had *two* holes. =3DEF=3D=
>BF=3DBDAnthony =3D
>> >Summer's, in recounting
>> >> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the tic=
>ket=3D
>> > could
>> >> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> >> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that=
> wa=3D
>> >s
>> >> attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> >> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionall=
>y f=3D
>> >rame
>> >> him as an arrogant man with an MC. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDAnd although Oswald =
>normally =3D
>> >only specified
>> >> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man spec=
>ify=3D
>> >ing his
>> >> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDRather puzzling for the LN=
>T'er crow=3D
>> >d...
>>
>> >> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, wh=
>en =3D
>> >Oswald
>> >> was provably in Russia. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDImmediately after the assassina=
>tion, a m=3D
>> >anager of a
>> >> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating tha=
>t t=3D
>> >he name
>> >> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files,=
> an=3D
>> >d found
>> >> a prospective purchaser from 1961. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThe "Oswald" from 19=
>61, along=3D
>> > with a Cuban,
>> >> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDDeslatte recalled that=
> "Oswald"=3D
>> > first
>> >> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald"=
> go=3D
>> > on the
>> >> purchase documents.
>>
>> >> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was fin=
>all=3D
>> >y
>> >> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-=
>Cas=3D
>> >tro
>> >> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democ=
>rat=3D
>> >ic
>> >> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> >> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> >> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (T=
>he =3D
>> >most
>> >> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the q=
>ues=3D
>> >tion
>> >> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks=
> be=3D
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
>that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
>no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
>plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
>came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
>customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
>remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
>Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
>*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
So what is your point?
>
>The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
>attempting to frame LHO?
>
>There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
>him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
>his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
>name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>
>Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
>was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
>Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
>"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
>a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
>had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
>identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
>purchase documents.
>
What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
wild leftist?
Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
anti-Castro fources?
BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
>released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
>group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
>Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>
>Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>
Not anybody reliable.
>There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>
BZZZZZZ!
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
>the assassination?
>
>
Nobody.
It's another kook theory.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but since
he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
Here we have Ben AGAIN claiming that LHO owned a M-C! What evidence
can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's see,
okay?
> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> attempting to frame LHO?
It would seem like YOU are trying to frame him by claiming there was
an "Oswald's M-C when there is NO evidence for this claim!
> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
> him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>
> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
> was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
> a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
> purchase documents.
>
> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>
> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>
> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence,
remember! Why did they send the real LHO and an imposter????
> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
> the assassination?
William Seymour was one of them.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
> >plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> >telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>
> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>
> So what is your point?
MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he owned
none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a 36"
Carbine. OF course there is NO evidence either that ANY rifle ever
made it to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas.
What rifle are you referring to when you say "Oswald's MC?"
> >The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> >attempting to frame LHO?
>
> >There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
> >him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
> >his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
> >name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>
> >Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
> >was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
> >Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
> >"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
> >a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
> >had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
> >identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
> >purchase documents.
>
> What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
> trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
> have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
I agree with YOU on this one and tried to explain to Ben that some, or
all, of these "sightings" could be explained by other assignments LHO
had with the CIA, DIA and other groups.
This is why claiming things with NO supporting evidence or proof is
dangerous.
> And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
> wild leftist?
Well, they could also show he was anti-Communist as they "sheepdipped"
him in that too! Remember, the feeling among the right in 1963 was
that JFK was soft on Communism (many thought he supported it in fact!)
so this would work too!
What I find strange John is that the WC NEVER gave us a real motive.
How come?
> Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
> anti-Castro fources?
Why would the "honorable" men of the WC want to avoid giving us a
motive?
> BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
Explain how Hoover was knowledgable of LHO at this point in time!
> >Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> >released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
> >group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
> >Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>
> >Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>
> Not anybody reliable.
Who do you consider reliable then?
> >There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
> >famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
> >becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>
> BZZZZZZ!
>
> Assumes facts not in evidence.
Wrong John! The facts NOT in evidence are for showing the REAL LHO
was ever in Mexico City, but there is a lot of evidence showing LHO
was impersonated there.
> You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
> Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
Really?? Such as?
> >So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
> >the assassination?
>
> Nobody.
There are documented cases of this happening John. Whether they were
framing LHO for JFK's murder that far in advance is open to debate,
but the part about these events happening is NOT!
> It's another kook theory.
Then why can't you explain it away with actual evidence then?
Ben Holmes
>
>On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
>>that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
>>no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
>>plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
>>came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
>>customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
>>remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
>>Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>>telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>>this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
>>*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>
>Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>
>So what is your point?
Evading the questions again...
>>The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
>>attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>>There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
>>him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
>>his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
>>name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>>
>>Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
>>was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
>>Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
>>"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
>>a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
>>had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
>>identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
>>purchase documents.
>>
>
>What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>
>And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>wild leftist?
>
>Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>anti-Castro fources?
>
>BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
Evasion again...
>>Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
>>released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
>>group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
>>Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>>Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>
>Not anybody reliable.
More evasion...
>>There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>>famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>>becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>
>BZZZZZZ!
>
>Assumes facts not in evidence.
And you, "professor", are a liar.
>You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>
>
>
>>So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
>>the assassination?
>>
>>
>
>Nobody.
>
>It's another kook theory.>
>.John
Too bad that you cannot supply reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these
evidential questions...
Gil Jesus
Looks like he's going to call in sick tonight.
Must be the snow.
David Von Pein
BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>> "Too bad that you [John McAdams] cannot supply reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these evidential questions." <<<
DVP SAID:
Reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers HAVE been supplied, Benjamin.
You just simply don't like the answers.
And the main reason you don't like the answers that have been supplied
by LNers over the years is because those answers are, indeed, "non-
conspiratorial" in nature; and you, of course, WANT a conspiracy to
exist in virtually every nook and cranny of this case.
I've answered many of your never-ending questions (back when you only
had 21 inquiries on your silly list). You know I've answered those 21
questions (three full years ago, in fact, at the link provided below),
but you didn't like the responses you received, so you pretended that
nobody has ever once answered them in anything approaching a
satisfactory or "reasonable" manner.
AN "LNer" RESPONSE TO 21 "CTer" INQUIRIES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
And now Ben Holmes will pretend that John McAdams has not provided any
"reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these evidential
questions", even though Professor McAdams has done just that, of
course.
In short -- To a conspiracy kook like Benjamin Holmes, NO "non-
conspiratorial" answer will ever (ever!) be accepted as a "reasonable"
answer to ANY of his foolish inquiries. And that's because people like
Ben are too much in love with the idea of conspiracy to ever admit
that the "conspiracy" in the John F. Kennedy, J.D. Tippit, and Lee
Harvey Oswald murders only exists in their own fantasy-filled minds.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 5, 9:37=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> **********************************************************************
>ly
>> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change m=
> deny
>> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simpl=
>y run
>> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>>
>he's
>> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>>
>ng to
>> be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Note that he'll jump in t=
>o each
>> post, but refuse to answer the question.
>> **********************************************************************
>>
> DPD
>> that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =A0Interes=
>tingly,
>> no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up=
> to the
>> plate to admit that they had called. =A0However, in checking their record=
>s, they
>> came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle fo=
>r a
>> customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =A0And even though no-o=
>ne
>> remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* hav=
>e been
>> Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to m=
>ount a
> recounting
>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket=
> could
>> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>
>I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but since
>he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>
>Here we have Ben AGAIN claiming that LHO owned a M-C! What evidence
>can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's see,
>okay?
Certainly I can produce evidence.
But since no-one knows what *YOU* define evidence as, it cannot be produced.
Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that wa=
>s
>> attempting to frame LHO?
>
>It would seem like YOU are trying to frame him by claiming there was
>an "Oswald's M-C when there is NO evidence for this claim!
>
>> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally f=
>rame
>> him as an arrogant man with an MC. =A0And although Oswald normally only s=
>pecified
>> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specify=
>ing his
>> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =A0Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>>
>> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when =
>Oswald
>> was provably in Russia. =A0Immediately after the assassination, a manager=
> of a
>> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that t=
>he name
>> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, an=
>d found
>> a prospective purchaser from 1961. =A0The "Oswald" from 1961, along with =
>a Cuban,
>> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =A0Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
>> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go=
> on the
>> purchase documents.
>>
>> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finall=
>y
>> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Cas=
>tro
>> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democrat=
>ic
>> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The =
>most
>> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the ques=
>tion
>> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>
>But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence,
>remember! Why did they send the real LHO and an imposter????
Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not preclude the
other.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks be=
>fore
>> the assassination?
>
>William Seymour was one of them.
For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans related to
assassinating JFK... as you state.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 9, 1:27=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>e DPD
>> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =A0Intere=
>stingly,
>> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step u=
>p to the
>> >plate to admit that they had called. =A0However, in checking their recor=
>ds, they
>> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle f=
>or a
>> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =A0And even though no-=
>one
>> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* ha=
>ve been
>> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to =
>mount a
>> >telescopic sight. =A0The MC only had *two* holes. =A0Anthony Summer's, i=
>n recounting
>> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticke=
>t could
>> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> So what is your point?
>
>MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he owned
>none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a 36"
>Carbine.
So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC is denied by you,
eh?
>OF course there is NO evidence either that ANY rifle ever
>made it to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas.
>
>What rifle are you referring to when you say "Oswald's MC?"
>
>
>
>> >The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that w=
>as
>> >attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> >There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally =
>frame
>> >him as an arrogant man with an MC. =A0And although Oswald normally only =
>specified
>> >his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specif=
>ying his
>> >name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =A0Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>>
>> >Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when=
> Oswald
>> >was provably in Russia. =A0Immediately after the assassination, a manage=
>r of a
>> >Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that =
>the name
>> >"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, a=
>nd found
>> >a prospective purchaser from 1961. =A0The "Oswald" from 1961, along with=
> a Cuban,
>> >had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =A0Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" firs=
>t
>> >identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" g=
>o on the
>> >purchase documents.
>>
>> What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>> trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>> have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>
>I agree with YOU on this one and tried to explain to Ben that some, or
>all, of these "sightings" could be explained by other assignments LHO
>had with the CIA, DIA and other groups.
>
>This is why claiming things with NO supporting evidence or proof is
>dangerous.
>
>> And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>> wild leftist?
>
>Well, they could also show he was anti-Communist as they "sheepdipped"
>him in that too! Remember, the feeling among the right in 1963 was
>that JFK was soft on Communism (many thought he supported it in fact!)
>so this would work too!
>
>What I find strange John is that the WC NEVER gave us a real motive.
>How come?
>
>
>> Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>> anti-Castro fources?
>
>Why would the "honorable" men of the WC want to avoid giving us a
>motive?
>
>> BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>
>Explain how Hoover was knowledgable of LHO at this point in time!
>
>
>> >Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was final=
>ly
>> >released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Ca=
>stro
>> >group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democra=
>tic
>> >Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> >Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> Not anybody reliable.
>
>Who do you consider reliable then?
>
>> >There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The=
> most
>> >famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the que=
>stion
>> >becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> BZZZZZZ!
>>
>> Assumes facts not in evidence.
>
>Wrong John! The facts NOT in evidence are for showing the REAL LHO
>was ever in Mexico City, but there is a lot of evidence showing LHO
>was impersonated there.
>
>> You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>> Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>
>Really?? Such as?
>
>
>> >So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks b=
>efore
>> >the assassination?
>>
>> Nobody.
>
>There are documented cases of this happening John. Whether they were
>framing LHO for JFK's murder that far in advance is open to debate,
>but the part about these events happening is NOT!
>
>
>> It's another kook theory.
>
>Then why can't you explain it away with actual evidence then?
>
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <4b71a70b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
>>>that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
>>>no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
>>>plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
>>>came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
>>>customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
>>>remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
>>>Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>>>telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>>>this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
>>>*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>>Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>>scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>>So what is your point?
>
>
>Evading the questions again...
>
No, asking you what the point is.
You buffs specialize in asking questions, but have no answers.
Give me your answer.
>
>
>>>The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
>>>attempting to frame LHO?
>>>
>>>There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
>>>him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
>>>his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
>>>name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>>>
>>>Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
>>>was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
>>>Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
>>>"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
>>>a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
>>>had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
>>>identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
>>>purchase documents.
>>>
>>
>>What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>>trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>>have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>>
>>And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>>wild leftist?
>>
>>Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>>anti-Castro fources?
>>
Ben just evaded this.
>>BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>
>
>Evasion again...
>
The fact that the document appears to be tampered with *ought* to
matter to anybody concerned about the truth.
>
>
>>>Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
>>>released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
>>>group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
>>>Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>>
>>>Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>>
>>
>>Not anybody reliable.
>
>
>More evasion...
>
More mere assertion.
>
>
>>>There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>>>famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>>>becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>>
>>
>>BZZZZZZ!
>>
>>Assumes facts not in evidence.
>
>
Can't make your case, can you?
>
>
>>You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>>Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>>
>>
No response?
>>
>>>So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
>>>the assassination?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Nobody.
>>
>>It's another kook theory.>
>
>Too bad that you cannot supply reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these
>evidential questions...
>
But I have. You just don't like them.
yeuhd
> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
> >plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> >telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", p. 1028-1029:
[On November 25, 1963], an FBI agent interviewed Dial Ryder, service
manager of the Irving Sports Shop, who informed him that while cleaning
off his workbench on November 23, he discovered an undated repair tag for
a rifle bearing the name "Oswald." The tag reflected the work done to have
been "drill and tap $4.50" (mounting a telescopic sight on rifle) and
"bore sight $1.50." Ryder said the rifle was of Argentine make. The
transaction, Ryder claimed, must have taken place sometime between
November 1 and 14 when Charles Greener, the store's owner, was on
vacation, because he said that Greener did not recall the transaction.
Even excluding the suspicious anonymous calls [to the television station
and the Dallas FBI office] (who else, other than Ryder, would have been
privy to this alleged transaction?), Ryder's credibility went downhill
from that point on. Ryder had told the FBI that although he could not be
positive from photos of Oswald shown to him that Oswald had ever been a
customer in his store, he was quite sure he had seen or talked to Oswald,
probably in the store. But on December 1, 1963, just six days later, Ryder
told the Secret Service that Oswald was not the customer and he had never
seen him.
Most damning of all is that despite the fact that Ryder worked right
alongside his boss, Greener, for several days after the date he allegedly
discovered the tag, November 23, and they had discussed the assassination,
at no time did Ryder advise Greener that he, Ryder, had located a repair
tag bearing Oswald's name. Greener, in fact, told the FBI that he did not
learn of the Oswald tag in his store until November 28, when TV reporters
called him to comment on the allegation.
In his later testimony before the Warren Commission on March 25 and April
1, 1964, Ryder, who had told the FBI the rifle was of Argentine make, now
claimed he didn't know what kind of rifle he mounted the telescopic sight
on (the Carcano mailed to Oswald already had a sight mounted on it), but
knew it wasn't a Carcano or any other Italian rifle. He reaffirmed in his
testimony that "as far as seeing [Oswald] personally, I don't think I ever
have."
For those few who still want to believe Ryder's fable, if it were Oswald
in the store, his owning a second rifle would in no way militate against
the evidence of his guilt in the Kennedy assassination. However, Marina
Oswald said Oswald had only one rifle, and that was the one he kept in
Ruth Paine's garage. And the imposture argument here is even more inane
than in those cases where the alleged impersonator does nothing that in
any way would incriminate Oswald. Here, the imposture would go in the
direction of exonerating Oswald. If the framers of Oswald know he owns a
Carcano and intend to plant it, the murder weapon, on the sixth floor of
the Book Depository Building (as the conspiracy theorists claim the
framers in fact did), why would they want to put a different rifle, a
nonmurder weapon, that's not even the same make as the Carcano, in
Oswald's hands?
Predictably, the conspiracy theorists don't avail themselves of this logic
and also have no trouble with Ryder's credibility. Anthony Summers and
Mark Lane, in their books, don't tell their readers how Ryder kept
changing his story and the fact that he never even mentioned the Oswald
repair tag to his boss, concluding, respectively, "somebody who was not
Oswald had commissioned alterations for a gun — not Oswald's — in
Oswald's name" and "someone laid a trail of evidence leading to Oswald …
Ryder's testimony regarding the authenticity of the repair tag was
unchallenged by the evidence."
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
In your warped mind, any theory that doesn't coincide with yours is a
"kook" theory.
JB
Ben Holmes
>
>On 9 Feb 2010 13:12:04 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4b71a70b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
>>>>that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
>>>>no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
>>>>plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
>>>>came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
>>>>customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
>>>>remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
>>>>Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>>>>telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>>>>this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
>>>>*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>>
>>>Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>>>scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>>
>>>So what is your point?
>>
>>
>>Evading the questions again...
>>
>
>No, asking you what the point is.
>
>You buffs specialize in asking questions, but have no answers.
>
>Give me your answer.
Okay John - I'm going to presume that you're a blithering idiot, or totally
ignorant of the evidence in this case, and explain what you already know.
There were a number of credible "sightings" of Oswald that would tend to
implicate him as the Presidential assassin in the weeks leading up to 11/22...
and I'm asking you to explain that fact.
I've managed to live my entire life without a *SINGLE* "impersonation"... I'm
sure you have too - although I understand you like to impersonate other people.
So *knowing* that these Oswald sightings virtually all condemned him as an
assassin, and all happened in the few weeks preceding the crime, can you
*explain* them?
You can't admit that anyone else was intentionally impersonating Oswald, because
that would be virtually the definition of conspiracy... yet you know that the WC
held these "sightings" to be mistakes, or whatever... because they'd "tracked"
Oswald as being elsewhere.
So all you have to do is provide a reasonable, *NON* conspiratorial explanation
for the evidence.
But you can't... so you'll evade again...
>>>>The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
>>>>attempting to frame LHO?
>>>>
>>>>There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
>>>>him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
>>>>his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
>>>>name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>>>>
>>>>Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
>>>>was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
>>>>Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
>>>>"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
>>>>a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
>>>>had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
>>>>identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
>>>>purchase documents.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>>>trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>>>have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>>>
>>>And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>>>wild leftist?
>>>
>>>Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>>>anti-Castro fources?
>>>
>
>Ben just evaded this.
It seemed too obvious to explain, but I will.
That episode doesn't illustrate an "impersonation" of Oswald to implicate him in
the Presidential assassination.
What it *does* show is that there were intelligence tracks all over Oswald.
>>>BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>>
>>
>>Evasion again...
>>
>
>The fact that the document appears to be tampered with *ought* to
>matter to anybody concerned about the truth.
The fact that Hoover himself raised the issue of Oswald's identity being used by
someone else would lead *any* intelligent person to the concept that we aren't
dealing with someone who scrawled a name on a piece of paper.
>>>>Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
>>>>released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
>>>>group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
>>>>Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not anybody reliable.
>>
>>
>>More evasion...
>>
>
>More mere assertion.
That's okay, John... lurkers who know the evidence got the information...
>>>>There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>>>>famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>>>>becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>>>
>>>
>>>BZZZZZZ!
>>>
>>>Assumes facts not in evidence.
>>
>>
>
>Can't make your case, can you?
I see you snipped my answer.
So let me make it clear again - John, you're a liar.
>>>You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>>>Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>>>
>>>
>
>No response?
Does something as ridiculous as that assertion require one?
>>>>So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
>>>>the assassination?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody.
>>>
>>>It's another kook theory.>
>>
>>Too bad that you cannot supply reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these
>>evidential questions...
>>
>
>But I have. You just don't like them.
Evading, denying the historical evidence, snipping, and running away hardly
qualify as a "reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation" John.
>.John
John McAdams
>On Feb 9, 1:27�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
>> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. �Interestingly,
>> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
>> >plate to admit that they had called. �However, in checking their records, they
>> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
>> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. �And even though no-one
>> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
>> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>> >telescopic sight. �The MC only had *two* holes. �Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
>> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> So what is your point?
>
>MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he owned
>none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a 36"
>Carbine. OF course there is NO evidence either that ANY rifle ever
>made it to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas.
>
>What rifle are you referring to when you say "Oswald's MC?"
The one Klein's shipped in response to a coupon that had Oswald's
handwriting on it. It came in an envelope that had Oswald's
handwriting on it.
And the envelope contained a money order that had Oswald's handwriting
on it.
And it was shipped to a PO Box that Oswald had rented.
>>
>> What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>> trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>> have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>
>I agree with YOU on this one and tried to explain to Ben that some, or
>all, of these "sightings" could be explained by other assignments LHO
>had with the CIA, DIA and other groups.
>
Or there are false "sightings" in the wake of any high-profile crime.
>This is why claiming things with NO supporting evidence or proof is
>dangerous.
>
>> And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>> wild leftist?
>
>Well, they could also show he was anti-Communist as they "sheepdipped"
>him in that too! Remember, the feeling among the right in 1963 was
>that JFK was soft on Communism (many thought he supported it in fact!)
>so this would work too!
>
No, you couldn't do both things at the same time.
One would destroy the effect of the other.
>What I find strange John is that the WC NEVER gave us a real motive.
>How come?
>
Perhaps because it was complex, including both his Marxist ideology
and desire to protect Castro, and his belief that he was destined to
be some historically important person.
>
>> Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>> anti-Castro fources?
>
>Why would the "honorable" men of the WC want to avoid giving us a
>motive?
>
Entirely different issue.
>> BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>
>Explain how Hoover was knowledgable of LHO at this point in time!
>
Do you mean that letter he wrote in response to the claim of Oswald's
ditzy mother that her son might be impersonated?
>
>> >Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
>> >released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
>> >group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
>> >Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> >Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> Not anybody reliable.
>
>Who do you consider reliable then?
>
Not Delphine Roberts nor Jack Martin.
The HSCA found several witnesses who were around Banister's office in
the summer of 1963, and said they never saw Oswald.
>> >There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>> >famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>> >becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> BZZZZZZ!
>>
>> Assumes facts not in evidence.
>
>Wrong John! The facts NOT in evidence are for showing the REAL LHO
>was ever in Mexico City, but there is a lot of evidence showing LHO
>was impersonated there.
>
Nonsense.
Aside from witness testimony, we have:
1.) his signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio.
2.) his signature and photo on the visa application submitted to the
Cuban embassy.
3.) Silvia Duran's phone number in his address book.
4.) A letter written to the Soviet Embassy in DC, complaining about
how he was treated at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Oswald
signed it.
5.) A draft of the letter above, in Oswald's handwriting.
>> You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>> Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>
>Really?? Such as?
>
>
OJ.
>> >So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
>> >the assassination?
>>
>> Nobody.
>
>There are documented cases of this happening John. Whether they were
>framing LHO for JFK's murder that far in advance is open to debate,
>but the part about these events happening is NOT!
>
>
The "events" were somebody who had some interaction with somebody they
*later* came to believe was our boy Lee.
>> It's another kook theory.
>
>Then why can't you explain it away with actual evidence then?
See above on Mexico City.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>Von Pein's on early.
>
>Looks like he's going to call in sick tonight.
>
>Must be the snow.
I wouldn't know. I killfiled him years ago when he kept evading simple questions
and evidence.
I have so little time these days...
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:og54n55erlrhrfvdr...@4ax.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <ef095248-0096-4f0c-bb45-035bd4d74...@19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR claim!
What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exists
and YET you won't list it.
YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
support it.
Still NO explanation, just more running.
> Stupid, aren't you?
YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks be=
> >fore
> >> the assassination?
>
> >William Seymour was one of them.
>
> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans related to
> assassinating JFK... as you state.
NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT that
they ALL related to JFK's murder. When one has to lie to make their
point...
Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is open
to debate.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <ae12cb9c-656e-4465-82db-7ddfe064e...@1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
So we have gone from CE-139 to "a" Carcano to NOW ANY Carcano by Ben!!
LOL!!
MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
it has NOT changed Ben. YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
remained the same.
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 9, 6:38=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <ef095248-0096-4f0c-bb45-035bd4d74...@19g2000yql.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 9:37=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> **********************************************************************
> on=3D
>> >ly
>> >> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to chang=
>e m=3D
>ply=3D
>> > deny
>> >> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or si=
>mpl=3D
>> >y run
>> >> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>>
>ut =3D
>> >he's
>> >> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>>
>imi=3D
>> >ng to
>> >> be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Note that he'll jump i=
>n t=3D
>> >o each
>> >> post, but refuse to answer the question.
>> >> **********************************************************************
>>
>the=3D
>> > DPD
>> >> that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =3DA0In=
>teres=3D
>> >tingly,
>> >> no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step=
> up=3D
>> > to the
>> >> plate to admit that they had called. =3DA0However, in checking their r=
>ecord=3D
>> >s, they
>> >> came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle=
> fo=3D
>> >r a
>> >> customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3DA0And even though=
> no-o=3D
>> >ne
>> >> remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* =
>hav=3D
>> >e been
>> >> Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes t=
>o m=3D
>> >ount a
>r's, in=3D
>> > recounting
>> >> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the tic=
>ket=3D
>> > could
>> >> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> >I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but since
>> >he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>>
>> >Here we have Ben AGAIN claiming that LHO owned a M-C! What evidence
>> >can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's see,
>> >okay?
>>
>> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>> But since no-one knows what *YOU* define evidence as, it cannot be produced.
>
>Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR claim!
Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quotes.
It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
>What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exists
>and YET you won't list it.
Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refute.
>YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken
window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the
evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as
testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev锟絠锟絛enced, ev锟絠锟絛enc锟絠ng, ev锟絠锟絛enc锟絜s
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Will you agree that this definition is accurate?
>The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
It will be interesting to watch you run from this. But *YOU* will continue to
refuse to cite for the meaning of the term "evidence".
>> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>
>YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
>support it.
You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>> >> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that=
> wa=3D
>> >s
>> >> attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> >It would seem like YOU are trying to frame him by claiming there was
>> >an "Oswald's M-C when there is NO evidence for this claim!
>>
>> >> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionall=
>y f=3D
>> >rame
>> >> him as an arrogant man with an MC. =3DA0And although Oswald normally o=
>nly s=3D
>> >pecified
>> >> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man spec=
>ify=3D
>> >ing his
>> >> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =3DA0Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd=
>...
>>
>> >> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, wh=
>en =3D
>> >Oswald
>> >> was provably in Russia. =3DA0Immediately after the assassination, a ma=
>nager=3D
>> > of a
>> >> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating tha=
>t t=3D
>> >he name
>> >> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files,=
> an=3D
>> >d found
>> >> a prospective purchaser from 1961. =3DA0The "Oswald" from 1961, along =
>with =3D
>> >a Cuban,
>> >> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =3DA0Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" =
>first
>> >> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald"=
> go=3D
>> > on the
>> >> purchase documents.
>>
>> >> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was fin=
>all=3D
>> >y
>> >> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-=
>Cas=3D
>> >tro
>> >> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democ=
>rat=3D
>> >ic
>> >> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> >> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> >> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (T=
>he =3D
>> >most
>> >> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the q=
>ues=3D
>> >tion
>> >> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence,
>> >remember! =A0Why did they send the real LHO and an imposter????
>>
>> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> preclude the other.
>
>Still NO explanation, just more running.
Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie - sheer
cowardice.
>> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks=
> be=3D
>> >fore
>> >> the assassination?
>>
>> >William Seymour was one of them.
>>
>> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans
>> related to assassinating JFK... as you state.
>
>NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT that
>they ALL related to JFK's murder. When one has to lie to make their
>point...
>
>Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is open
>to debate.
How can Seymour be used to make LHO look guilty???
The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirators chose
Oswald for the patsy.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 9, 6:39=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <ae12cb9c-656e-4465-82db-7ddfe064e...@1g2000yqi.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 9, 1:27=3DA0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
> th=3D
>> >e DPD
>> >> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =3DA0I=
>ntere=3D
>> >stingly,
>> >> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone ste=
>p u=3D
>> >p to the
>> >> >plate to admit that they had called. =3DA0However, in checking their =
>recor=3D
>> >ds, they
>> >> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifl=
>e f=3D
>> >or a
>> >> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3DA0And even thoug=
>h no-=3D
>> >one
>> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*=
> ha=3D
>> >ve been
>> >> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes =
>to =3D
>> >mount a
>> >> >telescopic sight. =3DA0The MC only had *two* holes. =3DA0Anthony Summ=
>er's, i=3D
>> >n recounting
>> >> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ti=
>cke=3D
>> >t could
>> >> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> So what is your point?
>>
>> >MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he owned
>> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a 36"
>> >Carbine.
>>
>> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC is
>> denied by you, eh?
>
>So we have gone from CE-139 to "a" Carcano to NOW ANY Carcano by Ben!!
>LOL!!
Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
>it has NOT changed Ben. YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
>remained the same.
My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Oswald owned an
MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>> >OF course there is NO evidence either that ANY rifle ever
>> >made it to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas.
>>
>> >What rifle are you referring to when you say "Oswald's MC?"
>>
>> >> >The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it tha=
>t w=3D
>> >as
>> >> >attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> >> >There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentional=
>ly =3D
>> >frame
>> >> >him as an arrogant man with an MC. =3DA0And although Oswald normally =
>only =3D
>> >specified
>> >> >his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man spe=
>cif=3D
>> >ying his
>> >> >name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =3DA0Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crow=
>d...
>>
>> >> >Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, w=
>hen=3D
>> > Oswald
>> >> >was provably in Russia. =3DA0Immediately after the assassination, a m=
>anage=3D
>> >r of a
>> >> >Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating th=
>at =3D
>> >the name
>> >> >"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files=
>, a=3D
>> >nd found
>> >> >a prospective purchaser from 1961. =3DA0The "Oswald" from 1961, along=
> with=3D
>> > a Cuban,
>> >> >had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =3DA0Deslatte recalled that "Oswald"=
> firs=3D
>> >t
>> >> >identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald=
>" g=3D
>> >o on the
>> >> >purchase documents.
>>
>> >> What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>> >> trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>> >> have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>>
>> >I agree with YOU on this one and tried to explain to Ben that some, or
>> >all, of these "sightings" could be explained by other assignments LHO
>> >had with the CIA, DIA and other groups.
>>
>> >This is why claiming things with NO supporting evidence or proof is
>> >dangerous.
>>
>> >> And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>> >> wild leftist?
>>
>> >Well, they could also show he was anti-Communist as they "sheepdipped"
>> >him in that too! =A0Remember, the feeling among the right in 1963 was
>> >that JFK was soft on Communism (many thought he supported it in fact!)
>> >so this would work too!
>>
>> >What I find strange John is that the WC NEVER gave us a real motive.
>> >How come?
>>
>> >> Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>> >> anti-Castro fources?
>>
>> >Why would the "honorable" men of the WC want to avoid giving us a
>> >motive?
>>
>> >> BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>>
>> >Explain how Hoover was knowledgable of LHO at this point in time!
>>
>> >> >Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was fi=
>nal=3D
>> >ly
>> >> >released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti=
>-Ca=3D
>> >stro
>> >> >group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Demo=
>cra=3D
>> >tic
>> >> >Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> >> >Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> >> Not anybody reliable.
>>
>> >Who do you consider reliable then?
>>
>> >> >There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (=
>The=3D
>> > most
>> >> >famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the =
>que=3D
>> >stion
>> >> >becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> >> BZZZZZZ!
>>
>> >> Assumes facts not in evidence.
>>
>> >Wrong John! =A0The facts NOT in evidence are for showing the REAL LHO
>> >was ever in Mexico City, but there is a lot of evidence showing LHO
>> >was impersonated there.
>>
>> >> You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>> >> Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>>
>> >Really?? Such as?
>>
>> >> >So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the week=
>s b=3D
>> >efore
>> >> >the assassination?
>>
>> >> Nobody.
>>
>> >There are documented cases of this happening John. =A0Whether they were
robcap...@netscape.com
Even IF it was LHO's writing ALL that stuff TIES TO A 36" CARBINE, NOT
a 40" Carcano! So I ask again, what rifle are you referring to when
you say "Oswald's rifle?"
> And the envelope contained a money order that had Oswald's handwriting
> on it.
IF you say so (experts said the sample was too small to know for
sure), but again I ask what rifle are you referring to since this ALL
ties to a 36" Carbine?
> And it was shipped to a PO Box that Oswald had rented.
IT was??? Please cite YOUR evidence showing it went to LHO's Dallas
P.O. Box for us!
> >> What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
> >> trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
> >> have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>
> >I agree with YOU on this one and tried to explain to Ben that some, or
> >all, of these "sightings" could be explained by other assignments LHO
> >had with the CIA, DIA and other groups.
>
> Or there are false "sightings" in the wake of any high-profile crime.
ALL of these were "false" in the sense it was determined NOT be LHO,
but the truth is SOMEONE was trying to make it look like LHO! How
come?
> >This is why claiming things with NO supporting evidence or proof is
> >dangerous.
>
> >> And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
> >> wild leftist?
>
> >Well, they could also show he was anti-Communist as they "sheepdipped"
> >him in that too! Remember, the feeling among the right in 1963 was
> >that JFK was soft on Communism (many thought he supported it in fact!)
> >so this would work too!
>
> No, you couldn't do both things at the same time.
Who said you had to?? YOU made the claim of a wild leftist, NOT me.
NOW this would have worked for framing him for Walker's shooting, but
NOT for a "left" president.
NO the phony anti-Communist stuff would have worked here.
> One would destroy the effect of the other.
Of course, that is WHY NO ONE BUT YOU has suggested they would use
BOTH.
> >What I find strange John is that the WC NEVER gave us a real motive.
> >How come?
>
> Perhaps because it was complex, including both his Marxist ideology
> and desire to protect Castro, and his belief that he was destined to
> be some historically important person.
Too complex is your reason??? They had nearly a year to come up with
one! NO one kills for NO reason (even if the reason is basic
survival), so tell us again why LHO would end his life by killing JFK.
> >> Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
> >> anti-Castro fources?
>
> >Why would the "honorable" men of the WC want to avoid giving us a
> >motive?
>
> Entirely different issue.
NO it isn't. YOU made an inference to motive, and I did too. It is
ENTIRELY related.
YOUR failure to answer says a lot.
> >> BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>
> >Explain how Hoover was knowledgable of LHO at this point in time!
>
> Do you mean that letter he wrote in response to the claim of Oswald's
> ditzy mother that her son might be impersonated?
NO, how he knew the name and what ramifications this meant when he was
alerted of this incident.
> >> >Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> >> >released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
> >> >group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
> >> >Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>
> >> >Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>
> >> Not anybody reliable.
>
> >Who do you consider reliable then?
>
> Not Delphine Roberts nor Jack Martin.
>
> The HSCA found several witnesses who were around Banister's office in
> the summer of 1963, and said they never saw Oswald.
Of course they "found" some witnesses who claimed this, but there are
other witnesses (beyond the two you listed) that said they saw LHO and
Banister together.
Do you know what Banister did for the FBI in New Orleans?
> >> >There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
> >> >famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
> >> >becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>
> >> BZZZZZZ!
>
> >> Assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> >Wrong John! The facts NOT in evidence are for showing the REAL LHO
> >was ever in Mexico City, but there is a lot of evidence showing LHO
> >was impersonated there.
>
> Nonsense.
Typical response from a person who can't rebut what you said.
> Aside from witness testimony, we have:
>
> 1.) his signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio.
It was signed in the SAME hand as ALL the other guests. Doesn't this
seem strange to you?
> 2.) his signature and photo on the visa application submitted to the
> Cuban embassy.
Signatures can be easily faked. As for the photo, explain to us why
NO location could be found to say they DEVELOPED that photo! Where
did he get it from John?
> 3.) Silvia Duran's phone number in his address book.
This hardly proves he went. He could have called down there, or could
have been given her name and address for him to "look up" if he ever
went.
> 4.) A letter written to the Soviet Embassy in DC, complaining about
> how he was treated at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Oswald
> signed it.
A typed letter, can you show LHO knew how to use a typewriter? Also,
explain the weird comment about him having to use his real name for
us.
> 5.) A draft of the letter above, in Oswald's handwriting.
Cite it. Then tell us how a letter proves he went again! He could
have been instructed to write this for any number of reasons, and then
as I said earlier, IF he couldn't type, someone had to type it for
him. ANY help can be construed as a conspiracy.
> >> You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
> >> Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>
> >Really?? Such as?
>
> OJ.
When were this sightings of OJ proven to be false again? IF it was
really OJ they are pertinent, but we ALL know the claimed sightings of
LHO in the weeks leading up to JFK's murder were NOT him.
> >> >So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
> >> >the assassination?
>
> >> Nobody.
>
> >There are documented cases of this happening John. Whether they were
> >framing LHO for JFK's murder that far in advance is open to debate,
> >but the part about these events happening is NOT!
>
> The "events" were somebody who had some interaction with somebody they
> *later* came to believe was our boy Lee.
NO, they were out and out making an attempt to make folks think it was
LHO. They would make a habit of saying LHO over and over again until
the person got it right. There is NO normal explanation for this, but
it could be explained by intelligence operations, but this too is a
death knell to your claim of LHO acting alone, right?
> >> It's another kook theory.
>
> >Then why can't you explain it away with actual evidence then?
>
> See above on Mexico City.
That evidence does NOT support the claim it is tied to John. It
leaves the door wide open for reasonable doubt.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <74f99e27-656d-486a-9eab-b9f16f155...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
YOU lie about doing this, but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date you
have offered NO evdience.
> It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
YOU are refusing to cite in this very post.
> >What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exists
> >and YET you won't list it.
>
> Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refute.
Then LIST it. Who is stopping you?
> >YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
>
> 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken
> window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the
> evidence for and against a hypothesis.
> 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
> 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as
> testimony in a court of law.
> tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
> 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
> 2. To support by testimony; attest.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
>
> Will you agree that this definition is accurate?
LOL!! He is back to "dictionary games"! Why is he afraid to LIST THE
EVIDENCE HE CLAIMS EXISTS SHOWING LHO OWNED CE-139???
> >The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
>
> It will be interesting to watch you run from this. But *YOU* will continue to
> refuse to cite for the meaning of the term "evidence".
He says evidence exists and then TURNS IT INTO A GAME OF WHAT I THINK
IS EVIDENCE! LOL!!
Why can't he just list what he thinks is evidence??
> >> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>
> >YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
> >support it.
>
> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
“I could say what others have said in addressing them, but I'm sure
you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.” (JohnBL)
“That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others have already
answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *cites*
these previous discussions.” (Ben Holmes—2/1/06)
Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
>
> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie - sheer
> cowardice.
YOU are running from YOUR OWN WC SUPPORTING CLAIM (LHO owned CE-139)
as fast as you can. NOW that is cowardice!
> >> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks=
> > be=3D
> >> >fore
> >> >> the assassination?
>
> >> >William Seymour was one of them.
>
> >> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans
> >> related to assassinating JFK... as you state.
>
> >NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT that
> >they ALL related to JFK's murder. When one has to lie to make their
> >point...
>
> >Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is open
> >to debate.
>
> How can Seymour be used to make LHO look guilty???
It calls for speculation just like claiming this was all done to frame
him for JFK's murder. He was involved in some serious work, and any
number of things could have been in the works to make him a Patsy
for. To say we don't know for sure is the truth.
> The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirators chose
> Oswald for the patsy.
Yes, and as you keep lying about there were other things going in the
world Ben (i.e. Castro's assasination, a possible Coup in Cuba, any
other number of assasinations the CIA had planned, etc...) beyond the
killing of JFK in Dallas.
Heck, they had TWO, MAYBE THREE (if you believe Miami) places AHEAD of
Dallas planned.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <eaeb6e0d-35f1-4a09-8b4c-7e0160f01...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. The FACT is the evidence the
WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
> >it has NOT changed Ben. YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
> >remained the same.
>
> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Oswald owned an
> MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
the shells on a board. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FOR
US!
So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
claim! Here is one example again!
“42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told
the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling of
*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?” (Ben
Holmes—2/5/10, Question 42)
Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 2/9/2010 7:05 PM, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:27 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> 42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
> >>> that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
> >>> no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
> >>> plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
> >>> came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
> >>> customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
> >>> remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
> >>> Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> >>> telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> >>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
> >>> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>
> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>
> >> So what is your point?
>
> > none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a 36"
> > it to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas.
>
> was started to substitute with short rifles.
Cite your evidence for this claim.
> Even stuck halway changing
> the ads from 36" Carbines to 40" rifles and writing 40" Carbines. Ain't no
> such animal.
They didn't "change" the ad until April. How come?
> > What rifle are you referring to when you say "Oswald's MC?"
>
> Model 91/38 short rifle, 21 inch barrel, 40 inches overall.
Where is YOUR evidence showing he ordered and received this rifle?
I love how all LNers claim this when their OWN evidence shows
something very different.
> >>> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> >>> attempting to frame LHO?
>
> >>> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
> >>> him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
> >>> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
> >>> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>
> >>> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
> >>> was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
> >>> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
> >>> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
> >>> a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
> >>> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
> >>> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
> >>> purchase documents.
>
> >> What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
> >> trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
> >> have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>
> > I agree with YOU on this one and tried to explain to Ben that some, or
> > all, of these "sightings" could be explained by other assignments LHO had
> > with the CIA, DIA and other groups.
>
> > This is why claiming things with NO supporting evidence or proof is
> > dangerous.
>
> >> And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
> >> wild leftist?
>
> > Well, they could also show he was anti-Communist as they "sheepdipped" him
> > in that too! Remember, the feeling among the right in 1963 was that JFK
> > was soft on Communism (many thought he supported it in fact!) so this
> > would work too!
>
> > What I find strange John is that the WC NEVER gave us a real motive. How
> > come?
>
> They didn't dare. They were ordered to cover up the motive.
They were ordered to cover-up the true nature of the murder, this did
NOT bar them from inventing a plausible motive.
> >> Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
> >> anti-Castro fources?
>
> > Why would the "honorable" men of the WC want to avoid giving us a
> > motive?
>
> To prevent WWIII. They were only doing their patriotic duty.
What truth would have started WWIII?? DO you really think the U.S.
would have gone to war over JFK's death when the folks who would start
it JUST KILLED JFK???
> >> BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>
> > Explain how Hoover was knowledgable of LHO at this point in time!
>
> CCs of memos.
That doesn't explain it in terms of why this peaked JEH's interest.
> >>> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> >>> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
> >>> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
> >>> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>
> >>> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>
> >> Not anybody reliable.
>
> > Who do you consider reliable then?
>
> He considers only WC defenders dedicated to the cover-up to be
> "reliable." That means he can rely on them to lie about the evidence.
He obviously hasn't read, or ignores, the FACT that many of his pro-WC
supporters either blatantly lied, or had their stories were twisted to
make it more plausible. Many of the primary witnesses told stories
that did NOT support the WC's theory, ONLY after they were altered did
they do this somewhat.
Of course, one can still tell it doesn't add up.
> >>> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
> >>> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
> >>> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>
> >> BZZZZZZ!
>
> >> Assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> > Wrong John! The facts NOT in evidence are for showing the REAL LHO was
> > ever in Mexico City, but there is a lot of evidence showing LHO was
> > impersonated there.
>
> >> You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
> >> Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>
> > Really?? Such as?
>
> Whitey Bulger.
Is this on the scale of JFK's murder?
> >>> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
> >>> the assassination?
>
> >> Nobody.
>
> > There are documented cases of this happening John. Whether they were
> > framing LHO for JFK's murder that far in advance is open to debate, but
> > the part about these events happening is NOT!
>
> Maybe they were trying to frame the Cubans or the Russians for JFK's
> murder.
Maybe, or maybe they originally planned on using LHO for some other
caper involving the Cubans or Cuba.
> >> It's another kook theory.
>
> > Then why can't you explain it away with actual evidence then?
>
> John doesn't do real evidence.
What LNer does?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 10, 10:19=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <eaeb6e0d-35f1-4a09-8b4c-7e0160f01...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 9, 6:39=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <ae12cb9c-656e-4465-82db-7ddfe064e...@1g2000yqi.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >om>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 9, 1:27=3D3DA0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wr=>> >> >> >42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller t=
>old=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e DPD
>> >> >> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =3D=
>3DA0I=3D
>> >ntere=3D3D
>> >> >stingly,
>> >> >> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone =
>ste=3D
>> >p u=3D3D
>> >> >p to the
>> >> >> >plate to admit that they had called. =3D3DA0However, in checking t=
>heir =3D
>> >recor=3D3D
>> >> >ds, they
>> >> >> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a r=
>ifl=3D
>> >e f=3D3D
>> >> >or a
>> >> >> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3D3DA0And even =
>thoug=3D
>> >h no-=3D3D
>> >> >one
>> >> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *n=
>ot*=3D
>> > ha=3D3D
>> >> >ve been
>> >> >> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* hol=
>es =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >mount a
>> >> >> >telescopic sight. =3D3DA0The MC only had *two* holes. =3D3DA0Antho=
>ny Summ=3D
>> >er's, i=3D3D
>> >> >n recounting
>> >> >> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the=
> ti=3D
>> >cke=3D3D
>> >> >t could
>> >> >> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> >> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> >> So what is your point?
>>
>> >> >MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he owned
>"
>> >> >Carbine.
>>
>> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC is
>> >> denied by you, eh?
>>
>> >So we have gone from CE-139 to "a" Carcano to NOW ANY Carcano by Ben!!
>> >LOL!!
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>
>YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. The FACT is the evidence the
>WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
>> >it has NOT changed Ben. =A0YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
>> >remained the same.
>>
>> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Oswald
>> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>
>YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
>the shells on a board. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FOR
>US!
Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way everyone
else does.
>So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
>claim! Here is one example again!
>
>=9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told
>the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
>Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
>did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
>However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
>showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
>"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
>remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
>have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling of
>*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
>holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
>were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
>referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
>raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=94 (Ben
>Holmes=972/5/10, Question 42)
>
>Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is going to
change that fact.
<snipped>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 10, 10:15=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <74f99e27-656d-486a-9eab-b9f16f155...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 9, 6:38=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <ef095248-0096-4f0c-bb45-035bd4d74...@19g2000yql.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 5, 9:37=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> *******************************************************************=
>***
>> >> >> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum wh=
>o's=3D
>> > on=3D3D
>> >> >ly
>> >> >> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to ch=
>ang=3D
>> >e m=3D3D
>> >> >essage
>> >> >> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attac=
>sim=3D
>> >ply=3D3D
>> >> > deny
>> >> >> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or=
> si=3D
>> >mpl=3D3D
>> >> >y run
>> >> >> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill file=
>s.
>>
>> >> >> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled=
>, b=3D
>> >ut =3D3D
>> >> >he's
>> >> >> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus=
>.
>>
>> >> >> The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, =
>cla=3D
>> >imi=3D3D
>> >> >ng to
>> >> >> be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Note that he'll jum=
>p i=3D
>> >n t=3D3D
>> >> >o each
>> >> >> post, but refuse to answer the question.
>***
>>
>> >> >> 42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller to=
>ld =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > DPD
>> >> >> that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =3D3=
>DA0In=3D
>> >teres=3D3D
>> >> >tingly,
>> >> >> no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone s=
>tep=3D
>> > up=3D3D
>> >> > to the
>> >> >> plate to admit that they had called. =3D3DA0However, in checking th=
>eir r=3D
>> >ecord=3D3D
>> >> >s, they
>> >> >> came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a ri=
>fle=3D
>> > fo=3D3D
>> >> >r a
>> >> >> customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3D3DA0And even t=
>hough=3D
>> > no-o=3D3D
>> >> >ne
>> >> >> remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *no=
>t* =3D
>> >hav=3D3D
>> >> >e been
>> >> >> Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* hole=
>s t=3D
>> >o m=3D3D
>> >> >ount a
>> >> >> telescopic sight. =3D3DA0The MC only had *two* holes. =3D3DA0Anthon=
>y Summe=3D
>> >r's, in=3D3D
>> >> > recounting
>> >> >> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the =
>tic=3D
>> >ket=3D3D
>> >> > could
>> >> >> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> >> >I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but since
>> >> >he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>>
>> >> >Here we have Ben AGAIN claiming that LHO owned a M-C! What evidence
>> >> >can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's see,
>> >> >okay?
>>
>> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>duced.
>>
>> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR claim!
>>
>> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quotes.
>
>YOU lie about doing this,
Liar, aren't you?
>but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
>say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date you
>have offered NO evdience.
What's the definition of "evidence", moron? Define it first, then I'll be happy
to provide evidence.
>> It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
>
>YOU are refusing to cite in this very post.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exists
>> >and YET you won't list it.
>>
>> Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refute.
>
>Then LIST it. Who is stopping you?
Your cowardly refusal to define the term.
>> >YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
>>
>> 1. =A0A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The =
>broken
>> window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the
>> evidence for and against a hypothesis.
>> 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner'=
>s face.
>> 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admiss=
>ible as
>> testimony in a court of law.
>> tr.v. ev=B7i=B7denced, ev=B7i=B7denc=B7ing, ev=B7i=B7denc=B7es
>> 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
>> 2. To support by testimony; attest.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evide=
>nce
>>
>> Will you agree that this definition is accurate?
>
>LOL!! He is back to "dictionary games"! Why is he afraid to LIST THE
>EVIDENCE HE CLAIMS EXISTS SHOWING LHO OWNED CE-139???
Yep... coward.
You refuse to accept even a dictionary meaning for the term.
>> >The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
>>
>> It will be interesting to watch you run from this. But *YOU* will continue to
>> refuse to cite for the meaning of the term "evidence".
>
>He says evidence exists and then TURNS IT INTO A GAME OF WHAT I THINK
>IS EVIDENCE! LOL!!
>
>Why can't he just list what he thinks is evidence??
Because you're a coward, of course.
>> >> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>>
>> >YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
>> >support it.
>>
>> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>
>LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
>constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
Still no cite.
>> >> >> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it t=
>hat=3D
>> > wa=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> >> >It would seem like YOU are trying to frame him by claiming there was
>> >> >an "Oswald's M-C when there is NO evidence for this claim!
>>
>> >> >> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intention=
>all=3D
>> >y f=3D3D
>> >> >rame
>> >> >> him as an arrogant man with an MC. =3D3DA0And although Oswald norma=
>lly o=3D
>> >nly s=3D3D
>> >> >pecified
>> >> >> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man s=
>pec=3D
>> >ify=3D3D
>> >> >ing his
>> >> >> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". =3D3DA0Rather puzzling for the LNT'er =
>crowd=3D
>> >...
>>
>> >> >> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier,=
> wh=3D
>> >en =3D3D
>> >> >Oswald
>> >> >> was provably in Russia. =3D3DA0Immediately after the assassination,=
> a ma=3D
>> >nager=3D3D
>> >> > of a
>> >> >> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating =
>tha=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >he name
>> >> >> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order fil=
>es,=3D
>> > an=3D3D
>> >> >d found
>> >> >> a prospective purchaser from 1961. =3D3DA0The "Oswald" from 1961, a=
>long =3D
>> >with =3D3D
>> >> >a Cuban,
>> >> >> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. =3D3DA0Deslatte recalled that "Osw=
>ald" =3D
>> >first
>> >> >> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswa=
>ld"=3D
>> > go=3D3D
>> >> > on the
>> >> >> purchase documents.
>>
>> >> >> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was =
>fin=3D
>> >all=3D3D
>> >> >y
>> >> >> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the An=
>ti-=3D
>> >Cas=3D3D
>> >> >tro
>> >> >> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of De=
>moc=3D
>> >rat=3D3D
>> >> >ic
>> >> >> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>>
>> >> >> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> >> >> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald,=
> (T=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >most
>> >> >> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and th=
>e q=3D
>> >ues=3D3D
>> >> >tion
>> >> >> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence,
>> >> >remember! =3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and an imposter????
>>
>> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>
>This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>
>=93I could say what others have said in addressing them, but I'm sure
>you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=94 (JohnBL)
>
>=93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others have already
>answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *cites*
>these previous discussions.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/1/06)
>
>Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder of the great
truths told by myself...
***********************************************************************
Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming.
He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
***********************************************************************
Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
>>
>> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie -
>> sheer cowardice.
>
>YOU are running from YOUR OWN WC SUPPORTING CLAIM (LHO owned CE-139)
>as fast as you can. NOW that is cowardice!
YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie - sheer
cowardice.
>> >> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the we=
>eks=3D
>> > be=3D3D
>> >> >fore
>> >> >> the assassination?
>>
>> >> >William Seymour was one of them.
>>
>> >> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans
>> >> related to assassinating JFK... as you state.
>>
>> >NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT that
>> >they ALL related to JFK's murder. =A0When one has to lie to make their
>> >point...
>>
>> >Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is open
>> >to debate.
>>
>> How can Seymour be used to make LHO look guilty???
>
>It calls for speculation just like claiming this was all done to frame
>him for JFK's murder. He was involved in some serious work, and any
>number of things could have been in the works to make him a Patsy
>for. To say we don't know for sure is the truth.
Anachronism.
>> The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirators chose
>> Oswald for the patsy.
>
>Yes, and as you keep lying about there were other things going in the
>world Ben (i.e. Castro's assasination, a possible Coup in Cuba, any
>other number of assasinations the CIA had planned, etc...) beyond the
>killing of JFK in Dallas.
And yet, you can't quote this "lie", along with a citation that shows it to be a
lie. Why is that, kook?
>Heck, they had TWO, MAYBE THREE (if you believe Miami) places AHEAD of
>Dallas planned.
Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <1ecb1ae2-b5f7-4f10-ac25-46ed73d1b...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
YOU claimed LHO OWNED CE-139 Ben, why are YOU running from supporting
that claim?
> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =A0YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
> >> >remained the same.
>
> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Oswald
> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>
> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
> >the shells on a board. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FOR
> >US!
>
> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way everyone
> else does.
YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
YOU! How come liar?
Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! Since
you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
> >claim! Here is one example again!
>
> >=9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told
> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling of
> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=94 (Ben
> >Holmes=972/5/10, Question 42)
>
> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>
> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is going to
> change that fact.
But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
“Since JFK never lived, neither did Oswald.” (Ben Holmes – 12/4/09)
> <snipped>
Ben continues to show his LNer tactics by snipping. He said CTers
don't need to do this, yet he keeps doing it.
"And, of course, this is EXACTLY the textbook play for LNT'ers. CT'ers
don't need to snip and run.” (Ben Holmes—10/28/08)
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <39fac603-1230-47c5-997d-426565643...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip old stuff)
> >> >> >I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but since
> >> >> >he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>
> >> >> >Here we have Ben AGAIN claiming that LHO owned a M-C! What evidence
> >> >> >can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's see,
> >> >> >okay?
>
> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>
> >> >> But since no-one knows what *YOU* define evidence as, it cannot be pro=
> >duced.
>
> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR claim!
>
> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quotes.
>
> >YOU lie about doing this,
>
> Liar, aren't you?
We see YOU are the liar, and quite clearly too!
> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
> >say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date you
> >have offered NO evdience.
>
> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
Why are YOU worried about MY definition?? YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? YOU said you like to educate
the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
LOL!!
> Define it first, then I'll be happy
> to provide evidence.
YOU are a liar Ben, there is NO evidence to present that is why YOU
are running as fast as you can and trying to dump it onto me.
Believe me lurkers, IF there was evidence showing us LHO owned C2766
he WOULD LIST IT FOR SURE!
> >> It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
>
> >YOU are refusing to cite in this very post.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
I think you are as you said those that run from the actual evidence
and rufuse to defend their own words are cowards.
YOU do BOTH things daily on here.
> >> >What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exists
> >> >and YET you won't list it.
>
> >> Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refute.
>
> >Then LIST it. Who is stopping you?
>
> Your cowardly refusal to define the term.
LOL!! So it is my fault! LOL!! This is priceless. This is a standard
tactic of ALL LNERS!
Ben is back to playing "dictionary games!"
That yellow streak on your back is getting REAL WIDE!
> >> >YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
>
> >> 1. =A0A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The =
> >broken
> >> window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the
> >> evidence for and against a hypothesis.
> >> 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner'=
> >s face.
> >> 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admiss=
> >ible as
> >> testimony in a court of law.
> >> tr.v. ev=B7i=B7denced, ev=B7i=B7denc=B7ing, ev=B7i=B7denc=B7es
> >> 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
> >> 2. To support by testimony; attest.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evide=
> >nce
>
> >> Will you agree that this definition is accurate?
>
> >LOL!! He is back to "dictionary games"! Why is he afraid to LIST THE
> >EVIDENCE HE CLAIMS EXISTS SHOWING LHO OWNED CE-139???
>
> Yep... coward.
Nice of you to admit it!
> You refuse to accept even a dictionary meaning for the term.
LOL!! My acceptance has NOTHING to do with it liar. IF the WC
presented it I have to accept it PER you!
NOW you are lying about your own words again! Why can't you list the
evidence you claim exists?
Coward, aren't you?
> >> >The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
>
> >> It will be interesting to watch you run from this. But *YOU* will continue to
> >> refuse to cite for the meaning of the term "evidence".
>
> >He says evidence exists and then TURNS IT INTO A GAME OF WHAT I THINK
> >IS EVIDENCE! LOL!!
>
> >Why can't he just list what he thinks is evidence??
>
> Because you're a coward, of course.
NO, we ALL SEE YOU ARE THE REAL COWARD, AND LIAR. YOU lie and support
the WC by claiming LHO owned CE-139!
Lying, cowardly, WC shill, aren't you?
> >> >> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>
> >> >YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
> >> >support it.
>
> >> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>
> >LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
> >constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
>
> Still no cite.
YOU still haven't cited for your lying claim, thanks for keeping
track.
(snip old stuff)
> >> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence,
> >> >> >remember! =3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and an imposter????
>
> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
> >> >> preclude the other.
>
> >> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>
> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>
> >This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>
> >=93I could say what others have said in addressing them, but I'm sure
> >you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=94 (JohnBL)
>
> >=93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others have already
> >answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *cites*
> >these previous discussions.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/1/06)
>
> >Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
>
> You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder of the great
> truths told by myself...
I quoted your comment about LHO going and being impersonated, but I
can't quote you telling us why BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE!
> ***********************************************************************
> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming.
> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
> ***********************************************************************
>
> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
to impersonate him too! Why not just use an imposter and save the
trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. YOU run from
it as usual.
> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >> >YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
>
> >> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie -
> >> sheer cowardice.
>
> >YOU are running from YOUR OWN WC SUPPORTING CLAIM (LHO owned CE-139)
> >as fast as you can. NOW that is cowardice!
>
> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie - sheer
> cowardice.
What claims?? YOU said he owned the alleged murder weapon, NOT me.
YOU are running from those words at top speed too.
What a coward you are.
> >> >> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the we=
> >eks=3D
> >> > be=3D3D
> >> >> >fore
> >> >> >> the assassination?
>
> >> >> >William Seymour was one of them.
>
> >> >> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans
> >> >> related to assassinating JFK... as you state.
>
> >> >NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT that
> >> >they ALL related to JFK's murder. =A0When one has to lie to make their
> >> >point...
>
> >> >Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is open
> >> >to debate.
>
> >> How can Seymour be used to make LHO look guilty???
>
> >It calls for speculation just like claiming this was all done to frame
> >him for JFK's murder. He was involved in some serious work, and any
> >number of things could have been in the works to make him a Patsy
> >for. To say we don't know for sure is the truth.
>
> Anachronism.
It is the truth, but of course YOU want NOTHING to do with the truth,
do you?
> >> The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirators chose
> >> Oswald for the patsy.
>
> >Yes, and as you keep lying about there were other things going in the
> >world Ben (i.e. Castro's assasination, a possible Coup in Cuba, any
> >other number of assasinations the CIA had planned, etc...) beyond the
> >killing of JFK in Dallas.
>
> And yet, you can't quote this "lie", along with a citation that shows it to be a
> lie. Why is that, kook?
YOU kept saying ALL THOSE events were for one thing--to frame LHO for
the murder of JFK and yet you offered NO evidence to support this
claim! Typical of you!
Ben even told this whopper and then ran from it!
“Much of the evidence PREDATES Tampa.” (Ben Holmes—1/27/10)
He to date has cited NOTHING that shows LHO was being framed for the
JFK murder that predates 11/18/63! Just another lie he won't support.
> >Heck, they had TWO, MAYBE THREE (if you believe Miami) places AHEAD of
> >Dallas planned.
>
> Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
I am complimented that my argument makes no sense to a liar like you!
The truth rarely does make sense to a habitual liar like Ben!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 10, 5:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1ecb1ae2-b5f7-4f10-ac25-46ed73d1b...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 10, 10:19=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <eaeb6e0d-35f1-4a09-8b4c-7e0160f01...@h2g2000yqj.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 9, 6:39=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <ae12cb9c-656e-4465-82db-7ddfe064e...@1g2000yqi.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.c=3D3D
>> >> >om>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 9, 1:27=3D3D3DA0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdam=
>s) wr=3D
>> >ote:
>> >> >> >> On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com=
>>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous calle=
>r t=3D
>> >old=3D3D
>> >> > th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >e DPD
>> >> >> >> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. =
>> >3DA0I=3D3D
>> >> >ntere=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >stingly,
>> >> >> >> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyo=
>ne =3D
>> >ste=3D3D
>> >> >p u=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >p to the
>> >> >> >> >plate to admit that they had called. =3D3D3DA0However, in check=
>ing t=3D
>> >heir =3D3D
>> >> >recor=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ds, they
>> >> >> >> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on =
>a r=3D
>> >ifl=3D3D
>> >> >e f=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >or a
>> >> >> >> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3D3D3DA0And =
>even =3D
>> >thoug=3D3D
>> >> >h no-=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >one
>> >> >> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could=
> *n=3D
>> >ot*=3D3D
>> >> > ha=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ve been
>> >> >> >> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* =
>hol=3D
>> >es =3D3D
>> >> >to =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >mount a
>> >> >> >> >telescopic sight. =3D3D3DA0The MC only had *two* holes. =3D3D3D=
>A0Antho=3D
>> >ny Summ=3D3D
>> >> >er's, i=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >n recounting
>> >> >> >> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that =
>the=3D
>> > ti=3D3D
>> >> >cke=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >t could
>> >> >> >> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>h a
>> >> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> So what is your point?
>>
>ned
>> >> >> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a=
> 36=3D
>> >"
>> >> >> >Carbine.
>>
>> >> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC is
>> >> >> denied by you, eh?
>>
>!
>> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & =
>claims.
>>
>> >YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. =A0The FACT is the evidence the
>> >WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>
>YOU claimed LHO OWNED CE-139 Ben, why are YOU running from supporting
>that claim?
Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
>> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
>> >> >remained the same.
>>
>> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Oswald
>> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>>
>> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
>> >the shells on a board. =A0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FOR
>> >US!
>>
>> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> everyone else does.
>
>YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
>yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
>YOU! How come liar?
Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way everyone
else does.
>Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
>evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! Since
>you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
>> >claim! =A0Here is one example again!
>>
>> >=3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller to=
>ld
>> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
>> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
>> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
>> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
>> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
>> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
>> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
>> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling of
>> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
>> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
>> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
>> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
>> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D94 (Ben
>> >Holmes=3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>>
>> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>>
>> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is
>> going to change that fact.
>
>But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
>=93Since JFK never lived, neither did Oswald.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 12/4/09)
<snipped>
curtjester1
> In article <9c912787-6e06-43d0-828b-ba6f2ea23...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
> >evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! Since
> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>
> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>
>
Oh, it's quite available. It's the loosely used term that one can
hide under.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
>
>
>
> >> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
> >> >claim! =A0Here is one example again!
>
> >> >=3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller to=
> >ld
> >> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
> >> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
> >> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
> >> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
> >> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
> >> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
> >> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling of
> >> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
> >> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
> >> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
> >> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
> >> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D94 (Ben
> >> >Holmes=3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>
> >> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>
> >> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is
> >> going to change that fact.
>
> >But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
>
> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
>
And since there are more 'provable lies of Ben Holmes', than the 45
Questions, what does that make you?....:)
CJ
> >=93Since JFK never lived, neither did Oswald.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 12/4/09)
>
> <snipped>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...>> In article <39fac603-1230-47c5-997d-426565643...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups=>> >> >> >I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but si=
>nce
>> >> >> >he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>>
>e
>> >> >> >can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's see,
>> >> >> >okay?
>>
>> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>pro=3D
>> >duced.
>>
>> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR claim!
>>
>> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quotes.
>>
>> >YOU lie about doing this,
>>
>> Liar, aren't you?
>
>> >say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date you
>> >have offered NO evdience.
>>
>> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>
>Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
>see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
>are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? YOU said you like to educate
>the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
>teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>
>LOL!!
Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as they refuse to
be bound by any outside authority.
>> Define it first, then I'll be happy
>> to provide evidence.
>
>YOU are a liar Ben, there is NO evidence to present that is why YOU
>are running as fast as you can and trying to dump it onto me.
>
>Believe me lurkers, IF there was evidence showing us LHO owned C2766
>he WOULD LIST IT FOR SURE!
You're a gutless yellow liar, kook!!
>> >> It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
>>
>> >YOU are refusing to cite in this very post.
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
>I think you are as you said those that run from the actual evidence
>and rufuse to defend their own words are cowards.
>
>YOU do BOTH things daily on here.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exist=
>s
>> >> >and YET you won't list it.
>>
>> >> Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refute.
>>
>> >Then LIST it. Who is stopping you?
>>
>> Your cowardly refusal to define the term.
>
>LOL!! So it is my fault! LOL!! This is priceless. This is a standard
>tactic of ALL LNERS!
>
>Ben is back to playing "dictionary games!"
>
>That yellow streak on your back is getting REAL WIDE!
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
>>
>> >> 1. =3DA0A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:=
> The =3D
>> >broken
>> >> window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh =
>the
>> >> evidence for and against a hypothesis.
>> >> 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourn=
>er'=3D
>> >s face.
>> >> 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects adm=
>iss=3D
>> >ible as
>> >> testimony in a court of law.
>> >> tr.v. ev=3DB7i=3DB7denced, ev=3DB7i=3DB7denc=3DB7ing, ev=3DB7i=3DB7den=
>c=3DB7es
>> >> 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
>> >> 2. To support by testimony; attest.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ev=
>ide=3D
>> >nce
>>
>> >> Will you agree that this definition is accurate?
>>
>> >LOL!! He is back to "dictionary games"! Why is he afraid to LIST THE
>> >EVIDENCE HE CLAIMS EXISTS SHOWING LHO OWNED CE-139???
>>
>> Yep... coward.
>
>> You refuse to accept even a dictionary meaning for the term.
>
>> >> >The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
>>
>> >> It will be interesting to watch you run from this. But *YOU* will cont=
>inue to
>> >> refuse to cite for the meaning of the term "evidence".
>>
>> >He says evidence exists and then TURNS IT INTO A GAME OF WHAT I THINK
>> >IS EVIDENCE! LOL!!
>>
>> >Why can't he just list what he thinks is evidence??
>>
>> Because you're a coward, of course.
>
>> >> >> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>>
>> >> >YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
>> >> >support it.
>>
>> >> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>>
>> >LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
>> >constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
>>
>> Still no cite.
>
>> >> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence,
>> >> >> >remember! =3D3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and an imposter????
>>
>> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>>
>> >=3D93I could say what others have said in addressing them, but I'm sure
>> >you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=3D94 (JohnBL)
>>
>> >=3D93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others have already
>> >answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *cites*
>> >these previous discussions.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/1/06)
>>
>> >Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
>>
>> You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder of the great
>> truths told by myself...
>
>I quoted your comment about LHO going and being impersonated, but I
>can't quote you telling us why BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE!
Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not preclude the
other.
Proved it, too.
>> ***********************************************************************
>> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming.
>> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>> ***********************************************************************
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>
>No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
>to impersonate him too! Why not just use an imposter and save the
>trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. YOU run from
>it as usual.
How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "patsy"...
according to your flawed theory.
>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
>>
>> >> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsi=
>e -
>> >> sheer cowardice.
>>
>> >YOU are running from YOUR OWN WC SUPPORTING CLAIM (LHO owned CE-139)
>> >as fast as you can. =A0NOW that is cowardice!
>>
>> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie -
>> sheer cowardice.
>
>What claims?? YOU said he owned the alleged murder weapon, NOT me.
>YOU are running from those words at top speed too.
>
>What a coward you are.
YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie - sheer
cowardice.
>> >> >> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the=
> we=3D
>> >eks=3D3D
>> >> > be=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >fore
>> >> >> >> the assassination?
>>
>> >> >> >William Seymour was one of them.
>>
>> >> >> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any plans
>> >> >> related to assassinating JFK... as you state.
>>
>> >> >NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT tha=
>t
>> >> >they ALL related to JFK's murder. =3DA0When one has to lie to make th=
>eir
>> >> >point...
>>
>> >> >Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is open
>> >> >to debate.
>>
>> >> How can Seymour be used to make LHO look guilty???
>>
>> >It calls for speculation just like claiming this was all done to frame
>> >him for JFK's murder. He was involved in some serious work, and any
>> >number of things could have been in the works to make him a Patsy
>> >for. To say we don't know for sure is the truth.
>>
>> Anachronism.
>
>It is the truth, but of course YOU want NOTHING to do with the truth,
>do you?
The fact that you're arguing that "any number of things could have been in the
works to make him a Patsy for" doesn't fit your argument that he wasn't chosen
as the patsy until the last minute... As I said, anachronistic...
>> >> The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirators=
> chose
>> >> Oswald for the patsy.
>>
>> >Yes, and as you keep lying about there were other things going in the
>> >world Ben (i.e. Castro's assasination, a possible Coup in Cuba, any
>> >other number of assasinations the CIA had planned, etc...) beyond the
>> >killing of JFK in Dallas.
>>
>> And yet, you can't quote this "lie", along with a citation that shows it
>> to be a lie. Why is that, kook?
>
>YOU kept saying ALL THOSE events were for one thing--to frame LHO for
>the murder of JFK and yet you offered NO evidence to support this
>claim! Typical of you!
And yet... I did precisely that.
>Ben even told this whopper and then ran from it!
>
>=93Much of the evidence PREDATES Tampa.=94 (Ben Holmes=971/27/10)
>
>He to date has cited NOTHING that shows LHO was being framed for the
>JFK murder that predates 11/18/63! Just another lie he won't support.
Sadly for this kook, the very things I mentioned predate 11/18/63.
>> >Heck, they had TWO, MAYBE THREE (if you believe Miami) places AHEAD of
>> >Dallas planned.
>>
>> Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
>
>I am complimented that my argument makes no sense to a liar like you!
>The truth rarely does make sense to a habitual liar like Ben!
You argue that the conspirators were ready in multiple places, yet you argue
that even the most basic part - the patsy they were going to frame, wasn't
chosen until the last minute.
Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
It doesn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidence",
CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
For once he *does* cite it - he will be hung as a liar the next time he denies
that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the definition as
given.
In article <c3855a29-b402-4e71...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 11, 1:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9c912787-6e06-43d0-828b-ba6f2ea23...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 10, 5:16=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1ecb1ae2-b5f7-4f10-ac25-46ed73d1b...@m16g2000yqc.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 10, 10:19=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <eaeb6e0d-35f1-4a09-8b4c-7e0160f01...@h2g2000yqj.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 9, 6:39=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> >> >> In article <ae12cb9c-656e-4465-82db-7ddfe064e...@1g2000yqi.googl=
>egr=3D
>> >oup=3D3D
>> >> >s.c=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >om>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 9, 1:27=3D3D3D3DA0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John M=
>cAdam=3D
>> >s) wr=3D3D
>> >> >ote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous ca=
>lle=3D
>> >r t=3D3D
>> >> >old=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > th=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >e DPD
>> >> >> >> >> >that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Sho=
>p. =3D
>> >=3D3D3D=3D3D
>> >> >3DA0I=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ntere=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >stingly,
>> >> >> >> >> >no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did a=
>nyo=3D
>> >ne =3D3D
>> >> >ste=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >p u=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >p to the
>> >> >> >> >> >plate to admit that they had called. =3D3D3D3DA0However, in =
>check=3D
>> >ing t=3D3D
>> >> >heir =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >recor=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ds, they
>> >> >> >> >> >came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed =
>on =3D
>> >a r=3D3D
>> >> >ifl=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >e f=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >or a
>> >> >> >> >> >customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. =3D3D3D3DA=
>0And =3D
>> >even =3D3D
>> >> >thoug=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >h no-=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >one
>> >> >> >> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it co=
>uld=3D
>> > *n=3D3D
>> >> >ot*=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > ha=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ve been
>> >> >> >> >> >Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *thre=
>e* =3D
>> >hol=3D3D
>> >> >es =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >to =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >mount a
>> >> >> >> >> >telescopic sight. =3D3D3D3DA0The MC only had *two* holes. =
>=3D3D3D3D=3D
>> >A0Antho=3D3D
>> >> >ny Summ=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >er's, i=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >n recounting
>> >> >> >> >> >this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons th=
>at =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > ti=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >cke=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >t could
>> >> >> >> >> >*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came =
>wit=3D
>> >h a
>> >> >> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So what is your point?
>>
>> >> >> >> >MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he=
> ow=3D
>> >ned
>> >> >> >> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordere=
>d a=3D
>> > 36=3D3D
>> >> >"
>> >> >> >> >Carbine.
>>
>> >> >> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC i=
>s
>> >> >> >> denied by you, eh?
>>
>> >> >> >So we have gone from CE-139 to "a" Carcano to NOW ANY Carcano by B=
>en!=3D
>> >!
>> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions=
> & =3D
>> >claims.
>>
>> >> >YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. =3DA0The FACT is the evidence=
> the
>> >> >WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
>>
>> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & =
>claims.
>>
>> >YOU claimed LHO OWNED CE-139 Ben, why are YOU running from supporting
>> >that claim?
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & cla=
>ims.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-1=
>39,
>> >> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3D3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, but i=
>t has
>> >> >> >remained the same.
>>
>> >> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Osw=
>ald
>> >> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>>
>> >> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
>> >> >the shells on a board. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
>ed
>> >> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FO=
>R
>> >> >US!
>>
>> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> >> everyone else does.
>>
>> >YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
>> >yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
>> >YOU! How come liar?
>>
>> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way every=
>one
>> else does.
>>
>Of course, "every one else" is that 'hidden ally.'
>
>> >Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
>> >evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! =A0Since
>> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>>
>> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>>
>>
>Oh, it's quite available. It's the loosely used term that one can
>hide under.
>
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
>> >> >claim! =3DA0Here is one example again!
>>
>> >> >=3D3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous call=
>er to=3D
>> >ld
>> >> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop=
>.
>> >> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
>> >> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
>> >> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
>> >> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
>> >> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
>> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
>> >> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling o=
>f
>> >> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
>> >> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
>> >> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
>> >> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
>> >> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D3D94 (B=
>en
>> >> >Holmes=3D3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>>
>> >> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>>
>> >> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is
>> >> going to change that fact.
>>
>> >But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
>>
>> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
>>
>And since there are more 'provable lies of Ben Holmes', than the 45
>Questions, what does that make you?....:)
>
>CJ
>
>> >=3D93Since JFK never lived, neither did Oswald.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 1=
>2/4/09)
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quo=
>ted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
curtjester1
> It doesn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidence",
> CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>
> For once he *does* cite it - he will be hung as a liar the next time he denies
> that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the definition as
> given.
>
defines court of law to the more generic usage. So it's subjective
even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
forum.
Evidence can be used to determine cover up as well. By close scrutiny
one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
conspired to frame the suspect. Now evidence can be used for proving
that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to a
weapon. See how 'evidence' works?
CJ
> In article <c3855a29-b402-4e71-8b8e-8164c9f51...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quo=
> >ted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <9c912787-6e06-43d0-828b-ba6f2ea23...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip old stuff)
> >> >> >> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came wit=
> >h a
> >> >> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>
> >> >> >> >> So what is your point?
>
> >> >> >> >MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he ow=
> >ned
> >> >> >> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordered a=
> > 36=3D
> >> >"
> >> >> >> >Carbine.
>
> >> >> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC is
> >> >> >> denied by you, eh?
>
> >> >> >So we have gone from CE-139 to "a" Carcano to NOW ANY Carcano by Ben!=
> >!
> >> >> >LOL!!
>
> >> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & =
> >claims.
>
> >> >YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. =A0The FACT is the evidence the
> >> >WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
>
> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>
> >YOU claimed LHO OWNED CE-139 Ben, why are YOU running from supporting
> >that claim?
>
> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
Parroting and running from YOUR own claims is noted by the lurkers
Ben. They see YOU make claims and can't back them up. They also see
YOU are afraid of the evidence in this case because YOU said there was
evidence showing LHO owned CE-139 yet you RUN FROM LISTING IT!
“YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
CE-139.” (Robert)
“Untrue.” (Ben Holmes—2/4/10)
> >> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-139,
> >> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, but it has
> >> >> >remained the same.
>
> >> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Oswald
> >> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>
> >> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
> >> >the shells on a board. =A0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FOR
> >> >US!
>
> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
> >> everyone else does.
>
> >YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
> >yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
> >YOU! How come liar?
>
> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way everyone
> else does.
YOU claimed it existed, so WHY IS MY DEFINITION IMPORTANT OR
RELEVANT?? IF you think there is evidence, and YOU do, then list it.
The lurkers see YOUR cowardice for what it really is Ben, DISHONESTY.
> >Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
> >evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! Since
> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>
> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
Why CAN'T YOU LIST THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??
Why do you have to make up silly games IF you are telling the truth?
> >> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
> >> >claim! =A0Here is one example again!
>
> >> >=3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller to=
> >ld
> >> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
> >> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
> >> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
> >> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
> >> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
> >> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
> >> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling of
> >> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
> >> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
> >> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
> >> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
> >> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D94 (Ben
> >> >Holmes=3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>
> >> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>
> >> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is
> >> going to change that fact.
>
> >But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
>
> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
LOL!! HE says JFK never lived and I'm the kook! LOL!! ALL LNers like
Ben use "transference" to save themselves!
> >=93Since JFK never lived, neither did Oswald.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 12/4/09)
>
> <snipped>
Ben proves he is NO CTer as HE said REAL CTers don't snip!
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <dff92db6-fae5-453a-adcf-402ad8439...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
NO you lie as YOU said there was evidence showing LHO owned CE-139,
and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
what evidence is! IF you don't know what it is, why did YOU say there
was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
“YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
CE-139.” (Robert)
“Untrue.” (Ben Holmes—2/4/10)
Ben has said this about the SAME TRICK HE is using now!
“Most LNT'ers do. Amazing, the power we seem to hold over you guys.
Stopping you from supporting your own assertions.” (Ben Holmes—2/1/06)
Amazing indeed.
> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? YOU said you like to educate
> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>
> >LOL!!
>
> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as they refuse to
> be bound by any outside authority.
YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
CLAIM EXISTS. YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
evidence and then you run from listing it! Remember this comment
AFTER YOU CLAIMED there was overwhelming evidence showing LHO wen to
Mexico a bunch of times!
“LOL!! This liar cited two things and NEITHER IS
"overwhelming"!” (Robert)
“Didn't tell you I would *cite* the overwhelming evidence... I simply
asserted that it exists.” (Ben Holmes – 10/6/09)
Naked, lying assertions is ALL you give us!
> >> Define it first, then I'll be happy
> >> to provide evidence.
>
> >YOU are a liar Ben, there is NO evidence to present that is why YOU
> >are running as fast as you can and trying to dump it onto me.
>
> >Believe me lurkers, IF there was evidence showing us LHO owned C2766
> >he WOULD LIST IT FOR SURE!
>
> You're a gutless yellow liar, kook!!
I think YOU have it BACKWARDS as usual liar. YOU are the coward and
we ALL see that.
> >> >> It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
>
> >> >YOU are refusing to cite in this very post.
>
> >> Coward, aren't you?
>
> >I think you are as you said those that run from the actual evidence
> >and rufuse to defend their own words are cowards.
>
> >YOU do BOTH things daily on here.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
LOL!! Transeference is a cornerstone of the LNer clan.
> >> >> >What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence exist=
> >s
> >> >> >and YET you won't list it.
>
> >> >> Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refute.
>
> >> >Then LIST it. Who is stopping you?
>
> >> Your cowardly refusal to define the term.
>
> >LOL!! So it is my fault! LOL!! This is priceless. This is a standard
> >tactic of ALL LNERS!
>
> >Ben is back to playing "dictionary games!"
>
> >That yellow streak on your back is getting REAL WIDE!
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Run coward, run from YOUR own words and claims!
Why Ben?? Why do you RUN from telling us why the real LHO went when
they were going to IMPERSONATE HIM TOO!
Why?? Why does Walt have your tongue on this question?
> Proved it, too.
YOU don't prove anything, and you said so too!
“I have no intention of "proving" anything. “ (Ben Holmes)
Lied again, didn't you?
> >> ***********************************************************************
> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming.
> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
could IMPERSONATE him too!
> >> ***********************************************************************
>
> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>
> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
> >to impersonate him too! Why not just use an imposter and save the
> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. YOU run from
> >it as usual.
>
> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "patsy"...
> according to your flawed theory.
YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? I
believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
have been for any number of reasons. YOU are the one that claims
every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder,
not me.
Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS?? YOU want others to answer YOURS,
but you won't answer anyone else's.
> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >> >> >YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ben.
>
> >> >> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsi=
> >e -
> >> >> sheer cowardice.
>
> >> >YOU are running from YOUR OWN WC SUPPORTING CLAIM (LHO owned CE-139)
> >> >as fast as you can. =A0NOW that is cowardice!
>
> >> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie -
> >> sheer cowardice.
>
> >What claims?? YOU said he owned the alleged murder weapon, NOT me.
> >YOU are running from those words at top speed too.
>
> >What a coward you are.
>
> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie - sheer
> cowardice.
YOU said LHO owned CE-139 and that JFK was killed with a CIVIL WAR LOW
VELOCITY MUSKET BALL! YOU run from supporting them along with a ton
of other lying claims. The lurkers are keeping score Ben.
YOU can't prove otherwise can you?? YOU lied and claimed "much
evidence predates Tampa" when in fact NO evidence tying him to JFK's
murder predates Tampa that I can tell.
There were many other things going on in 1963 Ben beyond 11/22/63, and
given his immense "sheepdipping" with the Cubans there are many other
reasons he could have been used for. YOU lied and claimed it was
obvious that he was setup for the JFK murder way ahead and as usual
FAILED to support this claim with ANY evidence.
> >> >> The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirators=
> > chose
> >> >> Oswald for the patsy.
>
> >> >Yes, and as you keep lying about there were other things going in the
> >> >world Ben (i.e. Castro's assasination, a possible Coup in Cuba, any
> >> >other number of assasinations the CIA had planned, etc...) beyond the
> >> >killing of JFK in Dallas.
>
> >> And yet, you can't quote this "lie", along with a citation that shows it
> >> to be a lie. Why is that, kook?
>
> >YOU kept saying ALL THOSE events were for one thing--to frame LHO for
> >the murder of JFK and yet you offered NO evidence to support this
> >claim! Typical of you!
>
> And yet... I did precisely that.
YOU are lying as usual Ben, why can't you link to it then?? Remember,
YOU said this to a LNer who made the same bogus claim!
“This junk's been debunked a million times already.
This guy, Ben (Yellow Pants) Holmes is quite delusional.” (Tim
Brennan)
“In any case, if these questions have already been "debunked", why
can't anyone
provide a link to this mythical "debunking"?
You'd think that if these questions really *HAD* already been dealt
with authoritatively, the trolls would love to get that information
out.
Instead, all we have is unsupported assertions and ad hominem...
“ (Ben Holmes—1/22/10)
> >Ben even told this whopper and then ran from it!
>
> >=93Much of the evidence PREDATES Tampa.=94 (Ben Holmes=971/27/10)
>
> >He to date has cited NOTHING that shows LHO was being framed for the
> >JFK murder that predates 11/18/63! Just another lie he won't support.
>
> Sadly for this kook, the very things I mentioned predate 11/18/63.
But they DON'T SHOW they were done to FRAME HIM FOR THE JFK MURDER!
Is English YOUR second language?? My guess is yes since LYING is his
FIRST.
> >> >Heck, they had TWO, MAYBE THREE (if you believe Miami) places AHEAD of
> >> >Dallas planned.
>
> >> Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >I am complimented that my argument makes no sense to a liar like you!
> >The truth rarely does make sense to a habitual liar like Ben!
>
> You argue that the conspirators were ready in multiple places, yet you argue
> that even the most basic part - the patsy they were going to frame, wasn't
> chosen until the last minute.
YOU act like they had to find the patsy from the general population
liar, they had many to choose from as they were running many
clandestine operations. Why lie about something so basic?
> Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
YOUR lies make no sense since ANY one can see they are lies by YOUR
inability to support them with evidence. Where is this bunch of
evidence that predates Tampa again?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Feb 11, 3:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:> It doesn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidence",
> > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>
> > For once he *does* cite it - he will be hung as a liar the next time he denies
> > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the definition as
> > given.
>
> It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. It
> defines court of law to the more generic usage. So it's subjective
> even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
> forum.
>
> Evidence can be used to determine cover up as well. By close scrutiny
> one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
> received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
> conspired to frame the suspect. Now evidence can be used for proving
> that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to a
> weapon. See how 'evidence' works?
>
> CJ
CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
shows LHO owned CE-139!
“YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
CE-139.” (Robert)
“Untrue.” (Ben Holmes—2/4/10)
This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! Why can't he list it
then??
He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
save himself. Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't list
it. That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, he looks stuck...:).
CJ
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 11, 1:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9c912787-6e06-43d0-828b-ba6f2ea23...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.=>> >> >> >> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came =
>wit=3D
>> >h a
>> >> >> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So what is your point?
>>
> ow=3D
>> >ned
>> >> >> >> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordere=
>d a=3D
>> > 36=3D3D
>> >> >"
>> >> >> >> >Carbine.
>>
>> >> >> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC i=
>s
>> >> >> >> denied by you, eh?
>>
>en!=3D
>> >!
>> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions=
> & =3D
>> >claims.
>>
>> >> >YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. =3DA0The FACT is the evidence=
>> >> >WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
>>
>claims.
>>
>> >YOU claimed LHO OWNED CE-139 Ben, why are YOU running from supporting
>> >that claim?
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>
>Parroting and running from YOUR own claims is noted by the lurkers
>Ben. They see YOU make claims and can't back them up. They also see
>YOU are afraid of the evidence in this case because YOU said there was
>evidence showing LHO owned CE-139 yet you RUN FROM LISTING IT!
Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
Stop whining and accept it.
>=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
Yep... still untrue.
>> >> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-1=
>39,
>> >> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3D3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, but i=
>t has
>> >> >> >remained the same.
>>
>> >> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Osw=
>ald
>> >> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>>
>> >> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
>> >> >the shells on a board. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
>ed
>> >> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FO=
>R
>> >> >US!
>>
>> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> >> everyone else does.
>>
>> >YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
>> >yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
>> >YOU! How come liar?
>>
>> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> everyone else does.
>
>YOU claimed it existed, so WHY IS MY DEFINITION IMPORTANT OR
>RELEVANT?? IF you think there is evidence, and YOU do, then list it.
Why can't you define the term What is it about dictionaries that frightens you
so much? Were you beaten as a child with a Webster's?
>The lurkers see YOUR cowardice for what it really is Ben, DISHONESTY.
Nah... many lurkers *know* that I'm simply telling the truth, and lurkers
unfamiliar with the evidence can learn it on their own.
For me to be "dishonest," there'd have to be *NO* evidence.
>> >Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
>> >evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! =A0Since
>> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>>
>> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>
>Why CAN'T YOU LIST THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??
Because I have no idea what you're asking for.
>Why do you have to make up silly games IF you are telling the truth?
Why are you so afraid to be specific?
>> >> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
>> >> >claim! =3DA0Here is one example again!
>>
>> >> >=3D3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous call=
>er to=3D
>> >ld
>> >> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop=
>.
>> >> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
>> >> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
>> >> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
>> >> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
>> >> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
>> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
>> >> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling o=
>f
>> >> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
>> >> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
>> >> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
>> >> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
>> >> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D3D94 (B=
>en
>> >> >Holmes=3D3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>>
>> >> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>>
>> >> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is
>> >> going to change that fact.
>>
>> >But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
>>
>> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
>
>LOL!! HE says JFK never lived and I'm the kook! LOL!! ALL LNers like
>Ben use "transference" to save themselves!
And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 11:21=A0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 3:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:> It does=
>n't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidence",
>> > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
> denies
>> > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the definit=
>ion as
>> > given.
>>
>> It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. =A0It
>> defines court of law to the more generic usage. =A0 So it's subjective
>> even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
>> forum.
>>
>> one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
>> received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>> that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to a
>>
>> CJ
>
>CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
>shows LHO owned CE-139!
CJ had no problem citing for the meaning of the term. Why do you have such a
hard time defining your use of the language?
>=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that LHO owned
C-139.
>This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! Why can't he list it
>then??
I *do* understand what evidence is. I use it in the same way that most people do
- but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitable meaning to
the term... you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
facts are quite different.
So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - there's no
reason to provide you with "evidence".
>He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>save himself. Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't list
>it. That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide the
evidence... even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
word "evidence".
How long will you keep running away, Robsie?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 11, 2:13=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <dff92db6-fae5-453a-adcf-402ad8439...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 10, 5:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>ups=3D>> >> >> >> >I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, but=
> si=3D
>> >nce
>> >> >> >> >he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>>
>enc=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> >can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's se=
>e,
>> >> >> >> >okay?
>>
>> >> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>be =3D
>> >pro=3D3D
>> >> >duced.
>>
>> >> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR claim!
>>
>> >> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quotes.
>>
>> >> >YOU lie about doing this,
>>
>> >> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
>> >> >say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date you
>> >> >have offered NO evdience.
>>
>> >> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>>
>> >Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
>>
>> Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
>
>NO you lie as YOU said there was evidence showing LHO owned CE-139,
There is. Based on the ordinary meaning of the word.
>and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
>what evidence is!
You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of the term.
Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things to do than
providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>IF you don't know what it is,
I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>why did YOU say there
>was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
I said it because it's true.
>=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
Yep... still untrue.
>> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>
>YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
>that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note that you
refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
>> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
>> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =A0YOU said you like to educate
>> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
>> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>>
>> >LOL!!
>>
>> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as they
>> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>
>YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
>CLAIM EXISTS.
Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
>evidence and then you run from listing it!
You see?!
>> >> Define it first, then I'll be happy
>> >> to provide evidence.
>>
>> >YOU are a liar Ben, there is NO evidence to present that is why YOU
>> >are running as fast as you can and trying to dump it onto me.
>>
>> >Believe me lurkers, IF there was evidence showing us LHO owned C2766
>> >he WOULD LIST IT FOR SURE!
>>
>> You're a gutless yellow liar, kook!!
>
>> >> >> It's *YOU* that continually refuses to cite.
>>
>> >> >YOU are refusing to cite in this very post.
>>
>> >> Coward, aren't you?
>>
>> >I think you are as you said those that run from the actual evidence
>> >and rufuse to defend their own words are cowards.
>>
>> >YOU do BOTH things daily on here.
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
>> >> >> >What I accept of do not accept is irrelevant, YOU said evidence ex=
>ist=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >and YET you won't list it.
>>
>> >> >> Yep... evidence does indeed exist. That *is* a fact you cannot refu=
>te.
>>
>> >> >Then LIST it. =A0Who is stopping you?
>>
>> >> Your cowardly refusal to define the term.
>>
>> >LOL!! So it is my fault! =A0LOL!! This is priceless. This is a standard
>> >tactic of ALL LNERS!
>>
>> >Ben is back to playing "dictionary games!"
>>
>> >That yellow streak on your back is getting REAL WIDE!
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
>> >> >> >YOU obviously have YOUR ideas of what evidence is, so list that!
>>
>> >> >> 1. =3D3DA0A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judg=
>ment:=3D
>> > The =3D3D
>> >> >broken
>> >> >> window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists wei=
>gh =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> evidence for and against a hypothesis.
>> >> >> 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mo=
>urn=3D
>> >er'=3D3D
>> >> >s face.
>> >> >> 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects =
>adm=3D
>> >iss=3D3D
>> >> >ible as
>> >> >> testimony in a court of law.
>> >> >> tr.v. ev=3D3DB7i=3D3DB7denced, ev=3D3DB7i=3D3DB7denc=3D3DB7ing, ev=
>=3D3DB7i=3D3DB7den=3D
>> >c=3D3DB7es
>> >> >> 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
>> >> >> 2. To support by testimony; attest.http://www.thefreedictionary.com=
>/ev=3D
>> >ide=3D3D
>> >> >nce
>>
>> >> >> Will you agree that this definition is accurate?
>>
>> >> >LOL!! He is back to "dictionary games"! =A0Why is he afraid to LIST T=
>HE
>> >> >EVIDENCE HE CLAIMS EXISTS SHOWING LHO OWNED CE-139???
>>
>> >> Yep... coward.
>>
>> >> You refuse to accept even a dictionary meaning for the term.
>>
>> >> >> >The lurkers see this this phony copout Ben.
>>
>> >> >> It will be interesting to watch you run from this. But *YOU* will c=
>ont=3D
>> >inue to
>> >> >> refuse to cite for the meaning of the term "evidence".
>>
>> >> >He says evidence exists and then TURNS IT INTO A GAME OF WHAT I THINK
>> >> >IS EVIDENCE! =A0LOL!!
>>
>> >> >Why can't he just list what he thinks is evidence??
>>
>> >> Because you're a coward, of course.
>>
>> >> >> >> Why not simply cite for *YOUR* claim, moron?
>>
>> >> >> >YOU made the claim, and as usual you are NOT citing anything to
>> >> >> >support it.
>>
>> >> >> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>>
>> >> >LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
>> >> >constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
>>
>> >> Still no cite.
>>
>> >> >> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evidence=
>,
>> >> >> >> >remember! =3D3D3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and an impost=
>er????
>>
>> >> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does =
>not
>> >> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>>
>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93I could say what others have said in addressing them, but I'm =
>sure
>> >> >you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=3D3D94 (JohnBL)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others have alrea=
>dy
>> >> >answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *cites*
>> >> >these previous discussions.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/1/06)
>>
>> >> >Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
>>
>> >> You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder of the=
> great
>> >> truths told by myself...
>>
>> >I quoted your comment about LHO going and being impersonated, but I
>> >can't quote you telling us why BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE!
>>
>> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> preclude the other.
>
>Why Ben?? Why do you RUN from telling us why the real LHO went when
>they were going to IMPERSONATE HIM TOO!
It's questions like this that illustrate your lack of intelligence.
Your question presumes that Oswald was only following directions.
>> Proved it, too.
>
>> >> **********************************************************************=
>*
>> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming.
>> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>
>Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
>could IMPERSONATE him too!
He didn't "have" to go. Why can't you stick to the known historical facts?
>> >> **********************************************************************=
>*
>>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
>> >to impersonate him too! =A0Why not just use an imposter and save the
>> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. =A0YOU run from
>> >it as usual.
>>
>> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "patsy"...
>> according to your flawed theory.
>
>YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? I
>believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
>have been for any number of reasons. YOU are the one that claims
>every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder,
>not me.
>
>Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
Who said he was "ordered?"
>Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS??
When are you going to stop molesting children?
>YOU want others to answer YOURS,
>but you won't answer anyone else's.
And yet, I repeatedly answer your questions...
>> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >> >YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is B=
>en.
>>
>> >> >> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Ro=
>bsi=3D
>> >e -
>> >> >> sheer cowardice.
>>
>> >> >YOU are running from YOUR OWN WC SUPPORTING CLAIM (LHO owned CE-139)
>> >> >as fast as you can. =3DA0NOW that is cowardice!
>>
>> >> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsi=
>e -
>> >> sheer cowardice.
>>
>> >What claims?? YOU said he owned the alleged murder weapon, NOT me.
>> >YOU are running from those words at top speed too.
>>
>> >What a coward you are.
>>
>> YOUR utter failure to support your claims is seen for what it is Robsie -
>> sheer cowardice.
>
>> >> >> >> >> So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in =
>the=3D
>> > we=3D3D
>> >> >eks=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > be=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >fore
>> >> >> >> >> the assassination?
>>
>> >> >> >> >William Seymour was one of them.
>>
>> >> >> >> For what possible reason, kook? It couldn't have been for any pl=
>ans
>> >> >> >> related to assassinating JFK... as you state.
>>
>> >> >> >NO, I said there were any number of REASONS for these events, NOT =
>tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >they ALL related to JFK's murder. =3D3DA0When one has to lie to ma=
>ke th=3D
>> >eir
>> >> >> >point...
>>
>> >> >> >Seymour was used to make LHO look guilty, but of what exactly is o=
>pen
>> >> >> >to debate.
>>
>> >> >> How can Seymour be used to make LHO look guilty???
>>
>> >> >It calls for speculation just like claiming this was all done to fram=
>e
>> >> >him for JFK's murder. He was involved in some serious work, and any
>> >> >number of things could have been in the works to make him a Patsy
>> >> >for. To say we don't know for sure is the truth.
>>
>> >> Anachronism.
>>
>> >It is the truth, but of course YOU want NOTHING to do with the truth,
>> >do you?
>>
>> The fact that you're arguing that "any number of things could have
>> been in the works to make him a Patsy for" doesn't fit your argument
>> that he wasn't chosen as the patsy until the last minute... As I said,
>> anachronistic...
>
>YOU can't prove otherwise can you??
Can't "prove" anything to a kook.
>YOU lied and claimed "much
>evidence predates Tampa"
That's simply historical fact.
>when in fact NO evidence tying him to JFK's
>murder predates Tampa that I can tell.
You can't even define "evidence".
>There were many other things going on in 1963 Ben beyond 11/22/63, and
>given his immense "sheepdipping" with the Cubans there are many other
>reasons he could have been used for. YOU lied and claimed it was
>obvious that he was setup for the JFK murder way ahead and as usual
>FAILED to support this claim with ANY evidence.
Untrue.
>> >> >> The impersonation took place *BEFORE* you assert that the conspirat=
>ors=3D
>> > chose
>> >> >> Oswald for the patsy.
>>
>> >> >Yes, and as you keep lying about there were other things going in the
>> >> >world Ben (i.e. Castro's assasination, a possible Coup in Cuba, any
>> >> >other number of assasinations the CIA had planned, etc...) beyond the
>> >> >killing of JFK in Dallas.
>>
>> >> And yet, you can't quote this "lie", along with a citation that shows =
>it
>> >> to be a lie. Why is that, kook?
>>
>> >YOU kept saying ALL THOSE events were for one thing--to frame LHO for
>> >the murder of JFK and yet you offered NO evidence to support this
>> >claim! =A0Typical of you!
>>
>> And yet... I did precisely that.
>
>> >Ben even told this whopper and then ran from it!
>>
>> >=3D93Much of the evidence PREDATES Tampa.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D971/27/10)
>>
>> >He to date has cited NOTHING that shows LHO was being framed for the
>> >JFK murder that predates 11/18/63! =A0Just another lie he won't support.
>>
>> Sadly for this kook, the very things I mentioned predate 11/18/63.
>
>But
You see? Even when I demonstrate that I've merely told the truth - the kook just
flies off in another direction!!
>they DON'T SHOW they were done to FRAME HIM FOR THE JFK MURDER!
>Is English YOUR second language?? My guess is yes since LYING is his
>FIRST.
>
>> >> >Heck, they had TWO, MAYBE THREE (if you believe Miami) places AHEAD o=
>f
>> >> >Dallas planned.
>>
>> >> Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >I am complimented that my argument makes no sense to a liar like you!
>> >The truth rarely does make sense to a habitual liar like Ben!
>>
>> You argue that the conspirators were ready in multiple places, yet
>> you argue that even the most basic part - the patsy they were going
>> to frame, wasn't chosen until the last minute.
>
>> Your argument makes no sense. Stupid, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 12, 12:32=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 11:21=A0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 11, 3:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:> It do=
>esn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidence",
>> > > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
>he denies
>> > > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the defin=
>ition as
>> > > given.
>>
>> > It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. =A0It
>> > defines court of law to the more generic usage. =A0 So it's subjective
>> > even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
>> > forum.
>>
>y
>> > one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
>> > received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>> > that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to a
>>
>> > CJ
>>
>> CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
>> shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>> CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>>
>> =93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
>>
>> then??
>>
>> He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>> it. =A0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!- Hide quoted te=
>xt -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yeah, he looks stuck...:).
>
>CJ
Tell us CJ - is Rob Caprio using the same definition for "evidence" as you
cited? And if so, can you demonstrate it?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d76dbfa4-ebe5-4a44-aba9-71623de89...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
CJ has NOTHING to do with this Ben. YOU understand the defintion of
the word, according to you, and YOU said there is evidence. Yet we
see you are TOO COWARDLY to list it for us, how come?
YOUR games are NOT going to save you WC shill!
> >=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
> >=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
>
> Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that LHO owned
> C-139.
He says it again, but he won't list it! Coward, aren't you?
To blame me for YOUR inability to cite is a pure LNer trick.
> >This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! Why can't he list it
> >then??
>
> I *do* understand what evidence is.
Good, then LIST it for us. Cat got your guts?
> I use it in the same way that most people do
Then why can't YOU list it for us?
> - but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitable meaning to
> the term...
YOU are employing the favorite trick of LNers...you are blaming the
other person for why YOU can't cite!
> you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
> facts are quite different.
The facts are exactly as I say and the lurkers are getting a taste of
this here as you run from listing the evidence you claim exists.
> So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - there's no
> reason to provide you with "evidence".
YOU are a coward and a LNer. ONLY LNers use this tactic. Real CTers
don't have to.
> >He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
> >save himself. Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't list
> >it. That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
>
> There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide the
> evidence...
YOU can't provide it!
> even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
> word "evidence".
I do, but I am NOT a liar who claims there is a LINK to a rifle there
is NO link to. The WC's evidence does NOT link LHO to CE-139, ONLY a
lying WC shill would claim so.
> How long will you keep running away, Robsie?
Nice try WC shill, BUT we all see you are the runner and it is from
the WC's lies YOU support so much.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <b55dfab8-a8e4-405a-9b59-c29c9e4a2...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Then list it! List what YOU call evidence. This is a pathetic game
Ben.
> >and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
> >what evidence is!
>
> You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of the term.
> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things to do than
> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
evidence. We see Ben is a LNer for sure.
So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
> >IF you don't know what it is,
>
> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
Then cite the evidence YOU claim exists. What do I have to do with
YOUR claim?
> >why did YOU say there
> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>
> I said it because it's true.
Then cite it. But the coward won't.
> >=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
> >=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
>
> Yep... still untrue.
Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>
> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>
> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note that you
> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
YOUR claims all the time?
> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =A0YOU said you like to educate
> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>
> >> >LOL!!
>
> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as they
> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>
> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>
> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>
> You see?!
List what you claim is the evidence. Why are you playing games liar
if YOU speak the truth?
(snip old stuff)
What else does a low level intelligence agent do? IF you are claiming
he went to Mexico on his own free will you need to start citing for
this.
But he won't.
> >> Proved it, too.
>
> >> >> **********************************************************************=
> >*
> >> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming.
> >> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>
> >Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
> >could IMPERSONATE him too!
>
> He didn't "have" to go. Why can't you stick to the known historical facts?
IF he did NOT have to go, why did he go then??? Why did they
impersonate him when he went according to you?
> >> >> **********************************************************************=
> >*
>
> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>
> >> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
> >> >to impersonate him too! =A0Why not just use an imposter and save the
> >> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. =A0YOU run from
> >> >it as usual.
>
> >> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "patsy"...
> >> according to your flawed theory.
>
> >YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? I
> >believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
> >have been for any number of reasons. YOU are the one that claims
> >every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder,
> >not me.
>
> >Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
>
> Who said he was "ordered?"
Explain why else he allegedly went then.
> >Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS??
>
> When are you going to stop molesting children?
YOUR sick Satanist tactics won't save you.
> >YOU want others to answer YOURS,
> >but you won't answer anyone else's.
>
> And yet, I repeatedly answer your questions...
LOL!! YOU never answer them. NO one on here can say for sure what YOU
believe at all beyond it was a conspiracy.
(snip old lies by Ben)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 2:19=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d76dbfa4-ebe5-4a44-aba9-71623de89...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 11:21=3DA0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 11, 3:09=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:> It=
> does=3D
>> >n't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidence"=
>,
>> >> > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
> he=3D
>> > denies
>> >> > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the defi=
>nit=3D
>> >ion as
>> >> > given.
>>
>> >> It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. =3DA0It
>> >> defines court of law to the more generic usage. =3DA0 So it's subjecti=
>ve
>> >> even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
>> >> forum.
>>
>tiny
>> >> one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
>> >> received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>ing
>> >> that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to a
>>
>> >> CJ
>>
>> >CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
>> >shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>h a
>> hard time defining your use of the language?
>
>CJ has NOTHING to do with this Ben.
He's a CT'er, even admitted by you - who *INSTANTLY* cited for the meaning of
"evidence", even when *NOT* directly asked.
Why can't you?
>YOU understand the defintion of
>the word, according to you, and YOU said there is evidence.
According to the dictionary meaning of the word, there *IS* evidence. You've
lied.
>Yet we
>see you are TOO COWARDLY to list it for us, how come?
List what?
You can't explain what you want me to list.
>> >=3D93YOU are a liar. =A0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>> >CE-139.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >=3D93Untrue.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/4/10)
>>
>> Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that LHO ow=
>ned
>> C-139.
>
>He says it again, but he won't list it!
List *WHAT*, moron?
>> >This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! =A0Why can't he list it
>> >then??
>>
>> I *do* understand what evidence is.
>
>> I use it in the same way that most people do
>
>Then why can't YOU list it for us?
List *WHAT*, kook?
>> - but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitable
>> meaning to the term...
>
>YOU are employing the favorite trick of LNers...you are blaming the
>other person for why YOU can't cite!
You virtually never cite for anything... rather hypocritical of you, isn't it?
>> you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
>> facts are quite different.
>
>The facts are exactly as I say
Uncited.
>and the lurkers are getting a taste of
>this here as you run from listing the evidence you claim exists.
Listing *what*?
>> So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - there's no
>> reason to provide you with "evidence".
>
>YOU are a coward and a LNer. ONLY LNers use this tactic. Real CTers
>don't have to.
Kook, aren't you?
>> >He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>> >save himself. =A0Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't list
>> >it. =A0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
>>
>> There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide the
>> evidence...
>
>YOU can't provide it!
Provide *what*, kook?
>> even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
>> word "evidence".
>
>I do,
No Robsie, you provably do not. You insist on defining it in a manner that is
inconsistent with it's real meaning, and you can't cite for a definition.
>but I am NOT a liar who claims there is a LINK to a rifle there
>is NO link to. The WC's evidence does NOT link LHO to CE-139, ONLY a
>lying WC shill would claim so.
And yet, there *IS* evidence supporting this - despite your whining and lies.
>> How long will you keep running away, Robsie?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 3:01=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <b55dfab8-a8e4-405a-9b59-c29c9e4a2...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 11, 2:13=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <dff92db6-fae5-453a-adcf-402ad8439...@o28g2000yqh.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 10, 5:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D>> >> >> >> >> >I have to give credit to John as I did NOT read this fully, =
>but=3D
>> > si=3D3D
>> >> >nce
>> >> >> >> >> >he just responded and drew attention to this section I did!
>>
>vid=3D
>> >enc=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> >> >> >can he produce for this claim??? NONE is my guess, but let's=
> se=3D
>> >e,
>> >> >> >> >> >okay?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>ot =3D
>> >be =3D3D
>> >> >pro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >duced.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR cla=
>im!
>>
>> >> >> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quot=
>es.
>>
>> >> >> >YOU lie about doing this,
>>
>> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
>u
>> >> >> >have offered NO evdience.
>>
>> >> >> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>>
>> >> >Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
>>
>> >> Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
>>
>> >NO you lie as YOU said there was evidence showing LHO owned CE-139,
>>
>> There is. Based on the ordinary meaning of the word.
>
>Then list it!
Nope. I only deal in evidence.
When you can cite for the meaning of the term - a cite I can accept, then I'll
be happy to list the evidence.
>List what YOU call evidence. This is a pathetic game
>Ben.
Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>> >and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
>> >what evidence is!
>>
>> You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of the=
> term.
>> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things to d=
>o than
>> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>
>ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
>evidence. We see Ben is a LNer for sure.
>
>So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
I rather doubt if there's very many lurkers that don't realize that you're a
kook.
>> >IF you don't know what it is,
>>
>> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>
>Then cite the evidence YOU claim exists. What do I have to do with
>YOUR claim?
Until you can ask me for what *everyone* other than you considers evidence, then
I have no reason to provide it.
When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word *THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO
ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list the evidence that Oswald
owned CE-139.
You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.
>> >why did YOU say there
>> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>>
>> I said it because it's true.
>
>Then cite it. But the coward won't.
I'd be happy to cite the evidence.
>> >=3D93YOU are a liar. =A0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>> >CE-139.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >=3D93Untrue.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/4/10)
>>
>> Yep... still untrue.
>
>Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.
>> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>>
>> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
>> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>>
>> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note that =
>you
>> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>
>I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
>YOUR claims all the time?
If you weren't such a kook, and I thought it were a worthwhile project, one
could easily compile a list of claims you've made.
>> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
>> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
>> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =3DA0YOU said you like to edu=
>cate
>> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
>> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>>
>> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as they
>> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>>
>> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
>> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>>
>> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>
>The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
Cite *WHAT*???
You use the word "evidence", but you don't mean what everyone else means when
*THEY* say the word.
So what is it that you want me to cite?
>> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
>> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>>
>> You see?!
>
>List what you claim is the evidence.
1. "Evidence"
2. "More Evidence"
3. "Additional Evidence"
4. And last, but not least: "Evidence".
And according to *MY* redefinition of what the term "evidence" means, I'm
perfectly correct.
>Why are you playing games liar
>if YOU speak the truth?
>
>(snip old stuff)
>
>> >> >> >> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>>
>> >> >> >LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
>> >> >> >constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
>>
>> >> >> Still no cite.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING evide=
>nce=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >> >> >remember! =3D3D3D3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and an i=
>mpost=3D
>> >er????
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One do=
>es =3D
>> >not
>> >> >> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>>
>> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >> >This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93I could say what others have said in addressing them, but=
> I'm =3D
>> >sure
>> >> >> >you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=3D3D3D94 (JohnBL)
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others have =
>alrea=3D
>> >dy
>> >> >> >answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *cites=
>*
>> >> >> >these previous discussions.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D3D972/1/06)
>>
>> >> >> >Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
>>
>> >> >> You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder of =
>the=3D
>> > great
>> >> >> truths told by myself...
>>
>> >> >I quoted your comment about LHO going and being impersonated, but I
>> >> >can't quote you telling us why BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE!
>>
>> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >Why Ben?? Why do you RUN from telling us why the real LHO went when
>> >they were going to IMPERSONATE HIM TOO!
>>
>> It's questions like this that illustrate your lack of intelligence.
>>
>> Your question presumes that Oswald was only following directions.
>
>What else does a low level intelligence agent do? IF you are claiming
>he went to Mexico on his own free will you need to start citing for
>this.
>
>But he won't.
Give us a cite for your claim.
>> >> Proved it, too.
>>
>> >> >> *******************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >*
>> >> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming=
>.
>> >> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>>
>> >Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
>> >could IMPERSONATE him too!
>>
>> He didn't "have" to go. Why can't you stick to the known historical facts?
>
>IF he did NOT have to go, why did he go then??? Why did they
>impersonate him when he went according to you?
You don't *have* to post here. Why do you post here? Why is a perverted kook
impersonating you so well that no-one can tell who's who?
>> >> >> *******************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >*
>>
>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
>> >> >to impersonate him too! =3DA0Why not just use an imposter and save th=
>e
>> >> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. =3DA0YOU run=
> from
>> >> >it as usual.
>>
>> >> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "patsy=
>"...
>> >> according to your flawed theory.
>>
>> >YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? =A0I
>> >believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
>> >have been for any number of reasons. =A0YOU are the one that claims
>> >every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder,
>> >not me.
>>
>> >Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
>>
>> Who said he was "ordered?"
>
>Explain why else he allegedly went then.
Why can't you answer the question? It was a simple one. Who said he was
"ordered?"
>> >Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS??
>>
>> When are you going to stop molesting children?
My guess is that Robsie's answer is "never".
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 11, 3:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> It doesn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term
>> "evidence", CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
>> For once he *does* cite it - he will be hung as a liar the next time
>> he denies that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits
>> the definition as given.
>>
>It's a necessary cite,
Of course. Intelligent people understand that.
>because it defines what is used here. It
>defines court of law to the more generic usage. So it's subjective
>even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
>forum.
It may be "subjective", but you cannot simply provide your own definition.
>Evidence can be used to determine cover up as well. By close scrutiny
>one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
>received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>conspired to frame the suspect.
Watch out! Robsie claims that no such evidence exists. Under *his* unique
redefinition of the term, he's right.
>Now evidence can be used for proving
>that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to a
>weapon. See how 'evidence' works?
>
>CJ
Of course.
Take, for example, the evidence of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray... IT IS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FACT THAT 6.5mm AMMUNITION WAS USED TO
KILL JFK!!
That's a fact. It *IS* evidence, and it *DOES* support that "fact".
But digging deeper - we learn that the 6.5mm object was never seen until a few
years later, it was in the wrong spot, and those two items alone condemn it as
evidence that the shooter used 6.5mm ammo... it *THEN* becomes evidence that a
coverup was in place, and *FORGING* evidence to be used against Oswald.
But the kook, Robert Caprio, would deny that the 6.5mm virtually round object
was evidence *AT ALL* - since it doesn't "prove" a particular fact.
He insists that evidence must *PROVE* something in order to be evidence - and
that is not the definition of evidence.
Evidence can be COMPLETELY FALSE, FORGED, AND A COMPLETE LIE - and still be
evidence. (Of course, under such circumstances, it might not be "evidence" of
Oswald's guilt, but rather evidence of the conspiracy and coverup in the murder
of JFK.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <38b03e3d-79a5-4d22-bf20-6f195427b...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip old stuff)
>>> >CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
> >> >shows LHO owned CE-139!
>
> >> CJ had no problem citing for the meaning of the term. Why do you have suc=
> >h a
> >> hard time defining your use of the language?
>
> >CJ has NOTHING to do with this Ben.
(snip CJ paranoia stuff)
> >YOU understand the defintion of
> >the word, according to you, and YOU said there is evidence.
>
> According to the dictionary meaning of the word, there *IS* evidence. You've
> lied.
LOL!! He can't list any evidence so it is my fault!! LOL!! Why can't
YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists??? What are you AFRAID OF
COWARD?
> >Yet we
> >see you are TOO COWARDLY to list it for us, how come?
>
> List what?
The evidence YOU say exists.
> You can't explain what you want me to list.
The evidence YOU claim exists. I have NOTHING to do with this Ben and
the lurkers see this! YOU have repeatedly said there is evidence
showing LHO owned CE-139 so you have claimed there is evidence. NOW
backed into a corner he wants to BLAME ME when he said it exists and
can't cite it!
YOU think there is evidence, so cite it for the lurkers.
> >> >=3D93YOU are a liar. =A0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >> >CE-139.=3D94 (Robert)
>
> >> >=3D93Untrue.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/4/10)
>
> >> Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that LHO ow=
> >ned
> >> C-139.
>
> >He says it again, but he won't list it!
>
> List *WHAT*, moron?
THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS. Cite it for us. But he won't as he
NEVER cites evidence when he claims it exists.
He's a liar. Still no cite....
> >> >This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! =A0Why can't he list it
> >> >then??
>
> >> I *do* understand what evidence is.
>
> >> I use it in the same way that most people do
>
> >Then why can't YOU list it for us?
>
> List *WHAT*, kook?
Denial won't save you Ben. IF you had any credibility left, and I
don't see how you could, you have used it up here. YOU clearly think
there is evidence showing LHO owned CE-139, yet you are TOO AFRAID TO
CITE IT!
Still no cite....
> >> - but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitable
> >> meaning to the term...
>
> >YOU are employing the favorite trick of LNers...you are blaming the
> >other person for why YOU can't cite!
>
> You virtually never cite for anything... rather hypocritical of you, isn't it?
Changing the topic won't save you Ben. YOU claimed evidence existed
and NOW you refuse to cite it.
Still no cite...
> >> you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
> >> facts are quite different.
>
> >The facts are exactly as I say
>
> Uncited.
The ONLY one NOT citing it is YOU and the lurkers see this clearly.
Cat got your balls?
> >and the lurkers are getting a taste of
> >this here as you run from listing the evidence you claim exists.
>
> Listing *what*?
Still no cite...
> >> So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - there's no
> >> reason to provide you with "evidence".
>
> >YOU are a coward and a LNer. ONLY LNers use this tactic. Real CTers
> >don't have to.
>
> Kook, aren't you?
Still no cite....he is in full run mode as he KNOWS HE LIED WHEN HE
SAID LHO OWNED CE-139!
> >> >He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
> >> >save himself. =A0Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't list
> >> >it. =A0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
>
> >> There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide the
> >> evidence...
>
> >YOU can't provide it!
>
> Provide *what*, kook?
Still no cite...
> >> even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
> >> word "evidence".
>
> >I do,
>
> No Robsie, you provably do not.
What does MY definition of evidence have to do WITH YOU TOTAL
INABILITY TO CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??? YOUR silly games
are seen for what they are liar.
> You insist on defining it in a manner that is
> inconsistent with it's real meaning, and you can't cite for a definition.
YOU said evidence exists, and yet you won't list it because I will
show it is NOT evidence SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM! That is why he is
afraid to list it as it will show what a liar he is. Of course his
utter refusal to even cite it is showing this too!
IF the Prosecution took Ben's view they would NEVER present ANY
evidence because those dasterdly defense guys WON'T AGREE WITH IT!
> >but I am NOT a liar who claims there is a LINK to a rifle there
> >is NO link to. The WC's evidence does NOT link LHO to CE-139, ONLY a
> >lying WC shill would claim so.
>
> And yet, there *IS* evidence supporting this - despite your whining and lies.
Still no cite though, how come liar?
I guess I can use this excuse to him in the future too, huh?? YOU
don't agree with me so why cite it since you don't agree with me!
LOL!!
Ben is a cheap con man who can't defend his own words!
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <9514bd87-1b5c-4a4e-8a32-0bf40f38f...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip old stuff)
> >> >> >> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> But since no-one knows what *YOU* define evidence as, it cann=
> >ot =3D
> >> >be =3D3D
> >> >> >pro=3D3D3D
> >> >> >> >duced.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR cla=
> >im!
>
> >> >> >> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & quot=
> >es.
>
> >> >> >> >YOU lie about doing this,
>
> >> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
>
> >> >> >> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
> >> >> >> >say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date yo=
> >u
> >> >> >> >have offered NO evdience.
>
> >> >> >> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>
> >> >> >Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
>
> >> >> Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
>
> >> >NO you lie as YOU said there was evidence showing LHO owned CE-139,
>
> >> There is. Based on the ordinary meaning of the word.
>
> >Then list it!
>
> Nope. I only deal in evidence.
LOL!! YOU don't deal in evidence as YOU never cite any!
> When you can cite for the meaning of the term - a cite I can accept, then I'll
> be happy to list the evidence.
This is the most lame excuse you have ever used. YOU are pathetic and
everyone sees this. YOU said there is evidence, so all you have to do
is cite it. I have NOTHING to do with this Ben.
> >List what YOU call evidence. This is a pathetic game
> >Ben.
>
> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
Nah, YOU're simply too much of a liar and WC shill to cite it as YOU
know it does NOT show what YOU claim!
> >> >and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
> >> >what evidence is!
>
> >> You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of the=
> > term.
> >> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things to d=
> >o than
> >> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>
> >ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
> >evidence. We see Ben is a LNer for sure.
>
> >So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
>
> I rather doubt if there's very many lurkers that don't realize that you're a
> kook.
YOU are proabably right as most of the lurkers are LNers like YOU!
LNers always associate telling the truth with being a kook.
> >> >IF you don't know what it is,
>
> >> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>
> >Then cite the evidence YOU claim exists. What do I have to do with
> >YOUR claim?
>
> Until you can ask me for what *everyone* other than you considers evidence, then
> I have no reason to provide it.
YOU said the WC's evidence is OFFICIAL AND DEFINITIVE, thus citing has
NOTHING to do with me Ben. Why are you sooooo afraid to cite YOUR own
evidence?
> When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word *THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO
> ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list the evidence that Oswald
> owned CE-139.
This is really pathetic. A LNer like Ben is AFRAID TO CITE WC
EVIDENCE! The LNers have hit rock bottom!
> You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.
YOU are the liar Ben as YOU are too afraid to cite it, but us CTers
know it is because there is NOTHING to cite!
WC shill, aren't you?
> >> >why did YOU say there
> >> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>
> >> I said it because it's true.
>
> >Then cite it. But the coward won't.
>
> I'd be happy to cite the evidence.
YOU haven't cited for this claim, so you have just lied again!
> >> >=3D93YOU are a liar. =A0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >> >CE-139.=3D94 (Robert)
>
> >> >=3D93Untrue.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/4/10)
>
> >> Yep... still untrue.
>
> >Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
>
> Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.
*MY* understanding has NO bearing or relevance on this Ben, the WC
gave us evidence and you said some of it shows LHO owned CE-139. NOW
all you have to do is cite this part of it.
But you won't because YOU are a liar.
> >> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>
> >> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
> >> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>
> >> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note that =
> >you
> >> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>
> >I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
> >YOUR claims all the time?
>
> If you weren't such a kook, and I thought it were a worthwhile project, one
> could easily compile a list of claims you've made.
Go ahead and I'm sure we would see YOU ORIGINATED THE CLAIM! YOU
think when someone challenges you on YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND UNPROVEN
CLAIM that is a NEW claim!
YOU are a distoter and a liar.
> >> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
> >> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on here
> >> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =3DA0YOU said you like to edu=
> >cate
> >> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" to
> >> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>
> >> >> >LOL!!
>
> >> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as they
> >> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>
> >> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
> >> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>
> >> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>
> >The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
>
> Cite *WHAT*???
Still running, huh?? Still no cite....
> You use the word "evidence", but you don't mean what everyone else means when
> *THEY* say the word.
We are DISCUSSING WC EVIDENCE Ben! YOU have called this OFFICIAL AND
DEFINITIVE, NOW you are afraid to list it because of me! What a loser
you are!
YOUR cowardice is duly noted by all lurkers.
> So what is it that you want me to cite?
CITE THE WC EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS THAT SHOWS LHO OWNED CE-139.
Remember, you lied and said he did OWN it.
> >> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
> >> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>
> >> You see?!
>
> >List what you claim is the evidence.
>
> 1. "Evidence"
> 2. "More Evidence"
> 3. "Additional Evidence"
> 4. And last, but not least: "Evidence".
WHERE IS YOUR WC EVIDENCE BEN?? YOU SAID ONLY GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE
COUNTS IN THIS CASE.
> And according to *MY* redefinition of what the term "evidence" means, I'm
> perfectly correct.
YOU are a COWARD AND A LIAR, and this post SHOWS IT PERFECTLY FOR ALL
TO SEE.
First you have to give me the definition of "an order"! I think YOUR
definition is different from many other peoples'! LOL!!
> >> >> Proved it, too.
>
> >> >> >> *******************************************************************=
> >***=3D
> >> >*
> >> >> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelming=
> >.
> >> >> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>
> >> >Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
> >> >could IMPERSONATE him too!
>
> >> He didn't "have" to go. Why can't you stick to the known historical facts?
>
> >IF he did NOT have to go, why did he go then??? Why did they
> >impersonate him when he went according to you?
>
> You don't *have* to post here. Why do you post here? Why is a perverted kook
> impersonating you so well that no-one can tell who's who?
More lies and sickness INSTEAD OF SIMPLY TELLING US WHY HE THINKS A
CERTAIN WAY! Does this sound normal to you lurkers if he is here for
the truth???
> >> >> >> *******************************************************************=
> >***=3D
> >> >*
>
> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>
> >> >> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were going
> >> >> >to impersonate him too! =3DA0Why not just use an imposter and save th=
> >e
> >> >> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. =3DA0YOU run=
> > from
> >> >> >it as usual.
>
> >> >> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "patsy=
> >"...
> >> >> according to your flawed theory.
>
> >> >YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? =A0I
> >> >believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
> >> >have been for any number of reasons. =A0YOU are the one that claims
> >> >every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder,
> >> >not me.
>
> >> >Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
>
> >> Who said he was "ordered?"
>
> >Explain why else he allegedly went then.
>
> Why can't you answer the question? It was a simple one. Who said he was
> "ordered?"
LOL!! This from a man who WON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT SICKNESS
AND SILLINESS! YOU have to give me a definition of ordered first.
> >> >Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS??
>
> >> When are you going to stop molesting children?
>
> My guess is that Robsie's answer is "never".
MY guess is that Ben goes to about 10 SATANIC RITUALS A MONTH IN SAN
FRANCISCO!
ONLY a Satanists would find such delight in children being molested!
curtjester1
> In article <7cd2313a-93db-41b5-bcf1-964913b5e...@o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not a mind reader, nor do I intensely pour over posts for
someone's ideal for a word meaning, but I would have to say, generally
Rob would be more inclined to use the word evidence as it applies to a
court of law, and you would use the word evidence for your own
whimsical fancies.
CJ
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 6:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <38b03e3d-79a5-4d22-bf20-6f195427b...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>(snip old stuff)
>
>
>
>>>> >CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
>> >> >shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>suc=3D
>> >h a
>> >> hard time defining your use of the language?
>>
>> >CJ has NOTHING to do with this Ben.
>
>(snip CJ paranoia stuff)
>
>> >YOU understand the defintion of
>> >the word, according to you, and YOU said there is evidence.
>>
>> According to the dictionary meaning of the word, there *IS* evidence.
>> You've lied.
>
>LOL!! He can't list any evidence so it is my fault!!
I can't list any *what*?
You use the same word, but it doesn't mean the same thing.
>LOL!! Why can't
>YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists???
I can cite EVIDENCE that I "claim" exists... But there's no reason to cite what
*YOU* call "evidence". You refuse to cite for the term.
>What are you AFRAID OF COWARD?
That's a simple question you should be asking yourself. Why are you so afraid of
the dictionary?
>> >Yet we
>> >see you are TOO COWARDLY to list it for us, how come?
>>
>> List what?
>
>The evidence YOU say exists.
Oh, I can list what *EVERYONE ELSE* defines as "evidence".
I'm still waiting for you to define the word that *YOU* are dishonestly using.
>> You can't explain what you want me to list.
>
>The evidence YOU claim exists.
You're rather thick-headed, aren't you?
You use the word "evidence", but it's not the same thing as when everyone else
uses the term.
So explain to me just what you want me to list.
>I have NOTHING to do with this Ben and
>the lurkers see this! YOU have repeatedly said there is evidence
>showing LHO owned CE-139 so you have claimed there is evidence. NOW
>backed into a corner he wants to BLAME ME when he said it exists and
>can't cite it!
I'll be *HAPPY* to cite the evidence... you see, it *DOES* exist.
But whatever *YOU* mean by "evidence", who knows whether it exists or not? You
refuse to define it.
>YOU think there is evidence, so cite it for the lurkers.
Any lurkers dieing to know can email me.
>> >> >=3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
>ed
>> >> >CE-139.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that LHO=
> ow=3D
>> >ned
>> >> C-139.
>>
>> >He says it again, but he won't list it!
>>
>> List *WHAT*, moron?
>
>THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS. Cite it for us. But he won't as he
>NEVER cites evidence when he claims it exists.
>
>He's a liar. Still no cite....
>
>
>> >> >This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! =3DA0Why can't he list it
>> >> >then??
>>
>> >> I *do* understand what evidence is.
>>
>> >> I use it in the same way that most people do
>>
>> >Then why can't YOU list it for us?
>>
>> List *WHAT*, kook?
>
>Denial won't save you Ben. IF you had any credibility left, and I
>don't see how you could, you have used it up here. YOU clearly think
>there is evidence showing LHO owned CE-139, yet you are TOO AFRAID TO
>CITE IT!
>
>Still no cite....
I can't cite what I don't know you're asking for.
I can only cite for what *I've* asserted exists.
>> >> - but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitable
>> >> meaning to the term...
>>
>> >YOU are employing the favorite trick of LNers...you are blaming the
>> >other person for why YOU can't cite!
>>
>> You virtually never cite for anything... rather hypocritical of you, isn'=
>t it?
>
>Changing the topic won't save you Ben. YOU claimed evidence existed
>and NOW you refuse to cite it.
>
>Still no cite...
You mean "citing" isn't the topic???
ROTFLMAO!!!
So tell us kook, why do you virtually never cite for anything? Why do you refuse
to cite for your wacky re-definition of the term "evidence?"
>> >> you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
>> >> facts are quite different.
>>
>> >The facts are exactly as I say
>>
>> Uncited.
>
>The ONLY one NOT citing it is YOU and the lurkers see this clearly.
>
>Cat got your balls?
Still uncited.
>> >and the lurkers are getting a taste of
>> >this here as you run from listing the evidence you claim exists.
>>
>> Listing *what*?
>
>Still no cite...
Yep... and there won't be until you describe what it is you want me to cite.
>> >> So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - ther=
>e's no
>> >> reason to provide you with "evidence".
>>
>> >YOU are a coward and a LNer. =A0ONLY LNers use this tactic. =A0Real CTer=
>s
>> >don't have to.
>>
>> Kook, aren't you?
>
>Still no cite....he is in full run mode as he KNOWS HE LIED WHEN HE
>SAID LHO OWNED CE-139!
Evidence exists.
>> >> >He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>> >> >save himself. =3DA0Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't li=
>st
>> >> >it. =3DA0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
>>
>> >> There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide the
>> >> evidence...
>>
>> >YOU can't provide it!
>>
>> Provide *what*, kook?
>
>Still no cite...
Still no cite...
>> >> even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
>> >> word "evidence".
>>
>> >I do,
>>
>> No Robsie, you provably do not.
>
>What does MY definition of evidence have to do WITH YOU TOTAL
>INABILITY TO CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??? YOUR silly games
>are seen for what they are liar.
You use the same word, but you don't mean the same thing when you use it.
>> You insist on defining it in a manner that is
>> inconsistent with it's real meaning, and you can't cite for a definition.
>
>YOU said evidence exists,
Indeed, using the normal citable definition of the word, evidence *does* exists
that shows that Oswald owned CE-139. That's merely a fact of history.
Whether "evidence", in your meaning of the word, exists or not is unknown,
because you refuse to define it. And from what little we've seen of your
understanding of the word, it's drastically different from the normal dictionary
meaning.
>and yet you won't list it because I will
>show it is NOT evidence SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM!
Can't be done.
>That is why he is
>afraid to list it as it will show what a liar he is. Of course his
>utter refusal to even cite it is showing this too!
>
>IF the Prosecution took Ben's view they would NEVER present ANY
>evidence because those dasterdly defense guys WON'T AGREE WITH IT!
No stupid, the court would never allow it in - in the first place - because it
wouldn't be "evidence" (that is, under *your* evident definition of the word)
>> >but I am NOT a liar who claims there is a LINK to a rifle there
>> >is NO link to. =A0The WC's evidence does NOT link LHO to CE-139, ONLY a
>> >lying WC shill would claim so.
>>
>> And yet, there *IS* evidence supporting this - despite your whining and l=
>ies.
>
>Still no cite though, how come liar?
>
>I guess I can use this excuse to him in the future too, huh?? YOU
>don't agree with me so why cite it since you don't agree with me!
>LOL!!
>
>Ben is a cheap con man who can't defend his own words!
Still no cite though, how come liar?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 9:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9514bd87-1b5c-4a4e-8a32-0bf40f38f...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>(snip old stuff)
>
>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>ann=3D
>> >ot =3D3D
>> >> >be =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >pro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >duced.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR =
>cla=3D
>> >im!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & q=
>uot=3D
>> >es.
>>
>> >> >> >> >YOU lie about doing this,
>>
>> >> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
> yo=3D
>> >u
>> >> >> >> >have offered NO evdience.
>>
>> >> >> >> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>>
>> >> >> >Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
>>
>> >> >> Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
>>
>> >> >NO you lie as YOU said there was evidence showing LHO owned CE-139,
>>
>> >> There is. Based on the ordinary meaning of the word.
>>
>> >Then list it!
>>
>> Nope. I only deal in evidence.
>
>LOL!! YOU don't deal in evidence as YOU never cite any!
>
>> When you can cite for the meaning of the term - a cite I can accept,
>> then I'll be happy to list the evidence.
>
>This is the most lame excuse you have ever used. YOU are pathetic and
>everyone sees this. YOU said there is evidence, so all you have to do
>is cite it. I have NOTHING to do with this Ben.
Then we won't see *YOU* asking in the future for information you refuse to
specify, right?
>> >List what YOU call evidence. This is a pathetic game
>> >Ben.
>>
>> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>
>Nah, YOU're simply too much of a liar and WC shill to cite it as YOU
>know it does NOT show what YOU claim!
Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>> >> >and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
>> >> >what evidence is!
>>
>> >> You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of =
>the=3D
>> > term.
>> >> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things t=
>o d=3D
>> >o than
>> >> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>>
>> >ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
>> >evidence. =A0We see Ben is a LNer for sure.
>>
>> >So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
>>
>> I rather doubt if there's very many lurkers that don't realize that
>> you're a kook.
>
>> >> >IF you don't know what it is,
>>
>> >> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>>
>> >Then cite the evidence YOU claim exists. =A0What do I have to do with
>> >YOUR claim?
>>
>> Until you can ask me for what *everyone* other than you considers
>> evidence, then I have no reason to provide it.
>
>YOU said the WC's evidence is OFFICIAL AND DEFINITIVE,
Nope. No such comment was ever made by me.
>thus citing has
>NOTHING to do with me Ben. Why are you sooooo afraid to cite YOUR own
>evidence?
Cite *what*?
>> When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word *THAT YOU'RE
>> WILLING TO ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list
>> the evidence that Oswald owned CE-139.
>
>This is really pathetic. A LNer like Ben is AFRAID TO CITE WC
>EVIDENCE! The LNers have hit rock bottom!
Still no cite.
>> You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.
>
>> >> >why did YOU say there
>> >> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>>
>> >> I said it because it's true.
>>
>> >Then cite it. =A0But the coward won't.
>>
>> I'd be happy to cite the evidence.
>
>> >> >=3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
>ed
>> >> >CE-139.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> Yep... still untrue.
>>
>> >Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
>>
>> Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.
>
>*MY* understanding has NO bearing or relevance on this Ben,
So you're asking for something you don't understand?
>the WC
>gave us evidence and you said some of it shows LHO owned CE-139. NOW
>all you have to do is cite this part of it.
>
>But you won't because YOU are a liar.
So what does not being able to cite for your kooky definition of the word
"evidence" make you?
>> >> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>>
>> >> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
>> >> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>>
>> >> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note th=
>at =3D
>> >you
>> >> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>>
>> >I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
>> >YOUR claims all the time?
>>
>> If you weren't such a kook, and I thought it were a worthwhile project, one
>> could easily compile a list of claims you've made.
>
>Go ahead and I'm sure we would see YOU ORIGINATED THE CLAIM!
Feel free to locate where *I* claimed that the Death Certificate said anything
at all about "high-velocity" bullet to the head.
But you can't. You *ORIGINATED* that claim - one that was a lie.
>YOU
>think when someone challenges you on YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND UNPROVEN
>CLAIM that is a NEW claim!
>
>YOU are a distoter and a liar.
Can you cite for it?
>> >> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
>> >> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on her=
>e
>> >> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =3D3DA0YOU said you like t=
>o edu=3D
>> >cate
>> >> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" t=
>o
>> >> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>>
>> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as th=
>ey
>> >> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>>
>> >> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
>> >> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>>
>> >> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>>
>> >The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
>>
>> Cite *WHAT*???
>
>Still running, huh?? Still no cite....
Cite *WHAT*???
>> You use the word "evidence", but you don't mean what everyone else means =
>when
>> *THEY* say the word.
>
>> So what is it that you want me to cite?
>
>> >> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
>> >> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>>
>> >> You see?!
>>
>> >List what you claim is the evidence.
>>
>> 1. "Evidence"
>> 2. "More Evidence"
>> 3. "Additional Evidence"
>> 4. And last, but not least: "Evidence".
>
>WHERE IS YOUR WC EVIDENCE BEN??
There it was, directly above. I've defined the word "evidence" to mean the word
"evidence", and "WC" evidence is the same as "Chunky Peanut Butter" evidence.
It's all "evidence"
Of course, if you ask me to cite for it, I'll be as completely unable to as you
have.
>> And according to *MY* redefinition of what the term "evidence" means, I'm
>> perfectly correct.
>
>> >Why are you playing games liar
>> >if YOU speak the truth?
>>
>> >(snip old stuff)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>>
>> >> >> >> >LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
>> >> >> >> >constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
>>
>> >> >> >> Still no cite.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING ev=
>ide=3D
>> >nce=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >remember! =3D3D3D3D3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and=
> an i=3D
>> >mpost=3D3D
>> >> >er????
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One=
> do=3D
>> >es =3D3D
>> >> >not
>> >> >> >> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >> >> >This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>>
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D3D93I could say what others have said in addressing them=
>, but=3D
>> > I'm =3D3D
>> >> >sure
>> >> >> >> >you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=3D3D3D3D94 (Jo=
>hnBL)
>>
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D3D93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others =
>have =3D
>> >alrea=3D3D
>> >> >dy
>> >> >> >> >answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *ci=
>tes=3D
>> >*
>> >> >> >> >these previous discussions.=3D3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D3D3D972/=
>1/06)
>>
>> >> >> >> >Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
>>
>> >> >> >> You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder =
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > great
>> >> >> >> truths told by myself...
>>
>> >> >> >I quoted your comment about LHO going and being impersonated, but =
>I
>> >> >> >can't quote you telling us why BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE!
>>
>> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >Why Ben?? Why do you RUN from telling us why the real LHO went when
>> >> >they were going to IMPERSONATE HIM TOO!
>>
>> >> It's questions like this that illustrate your lack of intelligence.
>>
>> >> Your question presumes that Oswald was only following directions.
>>
>> >What else does a low level intelligence agent do? =A0IF you are claiming
>> >he went to Mexico on his own free will you need to start citing for
>> >this.
>>
>> >But he won't.
>>
>> Give us a cite for your claim.
>
>> >> >> Proved it, too.
>>
>> >> >> >> ****************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>> >> >*
>> >> >> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelm=
>ing=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>>
>> >> >Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
>> >> >could IMPERSONATE him too!
>>
>> >> He didn't "have" to go. Why can't you stick to the known historical fa=
>cts?
>>
>> >IF he did NOT have to go, why did he go then??? =A0Why did they
>> >impersonate him when he went according to you?
>>
>> You don't *have* to post here. Why do you post here? Why is a perverted k=
>ook
>> impersonating you so well that no-one can tell who's who?
>
>> >> >> >> ****************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>> >> >*
>>
>> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were goi=
>ng
>> >> >> >to impersonate him too! =3D3DA0Why not just use an imposter and sa=
>ve th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. =3D3DA0YO=
>U run=3D
>> > from
>> >> >> >it as usual.
>>
>> >> >> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "pa=
>tsy=3D
>> >"...
>> >> >> according to your flawed theory.
>>
>> >> >YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? =3DA0I
>> >> >believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
>> >> >have been for any number of reasons. =3DA0YOU are the one that claims
>> >> >every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder=
>,
>> >> >not me.
>>
>> >> >Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
>>
>> >> Who said he was "ordered?"
>>
>> >Explain why else he allegedly went then.
>>
>> Why can't you answer the question? It was a simple one. Who said he was
>> "ordered?"
>
>> >> >Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS??
>>
>> >> When are you going to stop molesting children?
>>
>> My guess is that Robsie's answer is "never".
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 12, 3:02=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <7cd2313a-93db-41b5-bcf1-964913b5e...@o8g2000vbm.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 12:32=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> >wrote:>> >> > On Feb 11, 3:09=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:> =
>It do=3D
>> >esn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evidenc=
>e",
>> >> > > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
>me =3D
>> >he denies
>> >> > > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the de=
>fin=3D
>> >ition as
>> >> > > given.
>>
>> >> > It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. =3DA0It
>> >> > defines court of law to the more generic usage. =3DA0 So it's subjec=
>tive
>> >> > even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in this
>> >> > forum.
>>
>rutin=3D
>> >y
>> >> > one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, and
>> >> > received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>oving
>> >> > that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close to =
>a
>> >> > weapon. =3DA0See how 'evidence' works?
>>
>> >> > CJ
>>
>> >> CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
>> >> shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>> >> CE-139.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> =3D93Untrue.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> then??
>>
>> >> He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>t
>> >> it. =3DA0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!- Hide quot=
>ed te=3D
>> >xt -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Yeah, he looks stuck...:).
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>u
>> cited? And if so, can you demonstrate it?
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>ted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I'm not a mind reader, nor do I intensely pour over posts for
>someone's ideal for a word meaning, but I would have to say, generally
>Rob would be more inclined to use the word evidence as it applies to a
>court of law, and you would use the word evidence for your own
>whimsical fancies.
>
>CJ
Then you're just a gutless liar, "CJ", as usual. You will *NEVER* be able to
cite any evidence whatsoever that I utilize the word other than the dictionary
meaning. Indeed, I've *CITED* the dictionary meaning.
So the answer to my question is "no" Rob is not using the word as cited, and
"no", you can't demonstrate it.
curtjester1
> In article <9539c40d-9262-4e89-aae0-7544aeb96...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >ted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >I'm not a mind reader, nor do I intensely pour over posts for
> >someone's ideal for a word meaning, but I would have to say, generally
> >Rob would be more inclined to use the word evidence as it applies to a
> >court of law, and you would use the word evidence for your own
> >whimsical fancies.
>
> >CJ
>
> Then you're just a gutless liar, "CJ", as usual. You will *NEVER* be able to
> cite any evidence whatsoever that I utilize the word other than the dictionary
> meaning. Indeed, I've *CITED* the dictionary meaning.
>
evidence that C-139 or a rifle with a serial number C2766 is being
tied to Oswald as YOU ASSERT! I guess that makes you a double liar
and double coward, huh?
> So the answer to my question is "no" Rob is not using the word as cited, and
> "no", you can't demonstrate it.
>
It's up to you to make the proof and cites since you are the one going
on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
weapon. I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
Now, is Ben going to assert that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenting
power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered weapons
from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
CJ
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 13, 3:13=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9539c40d-9262-4e89-aae0-7544aeb96...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 3:02=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7cd2313a-93db-41b5-bcf1-964913b5e...@o8g2000vbm.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >On Feb 12, 12:32=3D3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netsca=
>pe.co=3D
>> >m>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 12, 11:21=3D3DA0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 11, 3:09=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:> =3D
>> >It do=3D3D
>> >> >esn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "evid=
>enc=3D
>> >e",
>> >> >> > > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
> ti=3D
>> >me =3D3D
>> >> >he denies
>> >> >> > > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits the=
> de=3D
>> >fin=3D3D
>> >> >ition as
>> >> >> > > given.
>>
>> >> >> > It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. =3D3=
>DA0It
>> >> >> > defines court of law to the more generic usage. =3D3DA0 So it's s=
>ubjec=3D
>> >tive
>> >> >> > even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in th=
>is
>> >> >> > forum.
>>
>> >> >> > Evidence can be used to determine cover up as well. =3D3DA0By clo=
>se sc=3D
>> >rutin=3D3D
>> >> >y
>> >> >> > one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent, an=
>d
>> >> >> > received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>or pr=3D
>> >oving
>> >> >> > that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was close =
>to =3D
>> >a
>> >> >> > weapon. =3D3DA0See how 'evidence' works?
>>
>> >> >> > CJ
>>
>> >> >> CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence tha=
>t
>> >> >> shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>> >> >> =3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3D3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever=
> owned
>> >> >> CE-139.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >> =3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>t it
>> >> >> then??
>>
>> >> >> He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>t lis=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> it. =3D3DA0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!- Hide=
> quot=3D
>> >ed te=3D3D
>> >> >xt -
>>
>> >> >Yeah, he looks stuck...:).
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Tell us CJ - is Rob Caprio using the same definition for "evidence"
>>
>> So the answer to my question is "no" Rob is not using the word as cited, and
>> "no", you can't demonstrate it.
>>
>It's up to you to make the proof and cites
I did, "CJ". I've already cited for the term "evidence", and can also cite the
evidence I "claim" exists.
>since you are the one going
>on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
>weapon.
What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no evidence
that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
>
>Now, is Ben going to assert
Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen is fun, but a
completely meaningless fantasy...
curtjester1
> In article <4eb4ff2a-38ba-474b-a95f-a3fd34dc3...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
weapon to LHO.
> >since you are the one going
> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
> >weapon.
>
> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no evidence
> that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>
I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
>
> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>
> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen is fun, but a
> completely meaningless fantasy...
>
No, you are playing word games. You ALREADY asserted. There is no
strawman in that is there? When are you going to cite and provide
proof for your claim?
CJ
> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenting
> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered weapons
> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>
> >CJ
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 14, 12:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <4eb4ff2a-38ba-474b-a95f-a3fd34dc3...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >On Feb 13, 3:13=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9539c40d-9262-4e89-aae0-7544aeb96...@h2g2000yqj.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <7cd2313a-93db-41b5-bcf1-964913b5e...@o8g2000vbm.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:32=3D3D3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@n=
>etsca=3D
>> >pe.co=3D3D
>> >> >m>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Feb 12, 11:21=3D3D3DA0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.co=
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Feb 11, 3:09=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com=
>> wro=3D
>> >te:> =3D3D
>> >> >It do=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >esn't matter at all that *YOU* can cite the meaning of the term "e=
>vid=3D
>> >enc=3D3D
>> >> >e",
>> >> >> >> > > CJ... it matters that Rob refuses to.
>>
>ext=3D
>> > ti=3D3D
>> >> >me =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >he denies
>> >> >> >> > > that I've provided evidence when shown "evidence" that fits =
>the=3D
>> > de=3D3D
>> >> >fin=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ition as
>> >> >> >> > > given.
>>
>> >> >> >> > It's a necessary cite, because it defines what is used here. =
>> >DA0It
>> >> >> >> > defines court of law to the more generic usage. =3D3D3DA0 So i=
>t's s=3D
>> >ubjec=3D3D
>> >> >tive
>> >> >> >> > even in definition, and which people confront and hide from in=
> th=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >> > forum.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Evidence can be used to determine cover up as well. =3D3D3DA0B=
>y clo=3D
>> >se sc=3D3D
>> >> >rutin=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >y
>> >> >> >> > one can show the papertrail for a rifle being purchased, sent,=
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> >> >> > received by a suspect was totally made up by investigators who
>sed f=3D
>> >or pr=3D3D
>> >> >oving
>> >> >> >> > that, and well it's used in trying to show the suspect was clo=
>se =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >> > weapon. =3D3D3DA0See how 'evidence' works?
>>
>> >> >> >> > CJ
>>
>> >> >> >> CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence =
>tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>HO ever=3D
>> > owned
>> >> >> >> CE-139.=3D3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >> >> =3D3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> >> >> This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! =3D3D3DA0Why can't h=
>e lis=3D
>> >t it
>> >> >> >> then??
>>
>> >> >> >> He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" =
>to
>> >> >> >> save himself. =3D3D3DA0Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and=
> won'=3D
>> >t lis=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >> it. =3D3D3DA0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!-=
> Hide=3D
>> > quot=3D3D
>> >> >ed te=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >xt -
>>
>> >> >> >Yeah, he looks stuck...:).
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> Tell us CJ - is Rob Caprio using the same definition for "evidence"
>> >> >> as you cited? And if so, can you demonstrate it?
>>
>d, and
>> >> "no", you can't demonstrate it.
>>
>> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>>
>e the
>> evidence I "claim" exists.
>>
>Can isn't doing. Cite any evidence that you have that would tie a
>weapon to LHO.
When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
Are *YOU* denying that there's any evidence that shows Oswald owning CE-139 too?
Why not be specific... and say it?
>> >since you are the one going
>> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
>> >weapon.
>>
>> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no
>> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>>
>I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
Then you're a liar.
>> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
>>
>> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>>
>> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen is fun,
>> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>>
>No, you are playing word games. You ALREADY asserted.
No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion you tried to
saddle me with.
Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>There is no strawman in that is there? When are you going to cite and provide
>proof for your claim?
>
>CJ
Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence linking Oswald
with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence" (pg
480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* lie and state
that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Carcano found in the
TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when *HE* states that there's
evidence...
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <4b71fd60....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 9 Feb 2010 13:12:04 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4b71a70b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>>
>>>>On 5 Feb 2010 06:37:54 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
>>>>>that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
>>>>>no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
>>>>>plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
>>>>>came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
>>>>>customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
>>>>>remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
>>>>>Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>>>>>telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>>>>>this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
>>>>>*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>>>
>>>>Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came with a
>>>>scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>>>
>>>>So what is your point?
>>>
>>>
>>>Evading the questions again...
>>>
>>
>>No, asking you what the point is.
>>
>>You buffs specialize in asking questions, but have no answers.
>>
>>Give me your answer.
>
>
>
>There were a number of credible "sightings" of Oswald that would tend to
>implicate him as the Presidential assassin in the weeks leading up to 11/22...
>and I'm asking you to explain that fact.
>
>I've managed to live my entire life without a *SINGLE* "impersonation"... I'm
>sure you have too.
Neither of us has been charged with killing the president.
>
>So *knowing* that these Oswald sightings virtually all condemned him as an
>assassin, and all happened in the few weeks preceding the crime, can you
>*explain* them?
>
Sure, in the wake of the assassination, people who had had some
contact with *somebody* one or more aspects of whose behavior
*reminded* them of Oswald came to believe that they had interacted
with Oswald.
It's the way memory works.
Memory is a reconstruction.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm
>You can't admit that anyone else was intentionally impersonating Oswald, because
>that would be virtually the definition of conspiracy... yet you know that the WC
>held these "sightings" to be mistakes, or whatever... because they'd "tracked"
>Oswald as being elsewhere.
>
And any conspiracy would know that having Oswald pop up where
investigators would later easily determine Oswald could not have been
would have been silly. People like you would decide it proved a
conspiracy.
More sensible people would decide that the incidents were fake
sightings.
>
>>>>>The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
>>>>>attempting to frame LHO?
>>>>>
>>>>>There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
>>>>>him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
>>>>>his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
>>>>>name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
>>>>>
>>>>>Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
>>>>>was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
>>>>>Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
>>>>>"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
>>>>>a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
>>>>>had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
>>>>>identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
>>>>>purchase documents.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What would have been the point of having an "Oswald impersonator" buy
>>>>trucks when Oswald was in the USSR, and any future investigation would
>>>>have easily proven that Oswald was in the USSR?
>>>>
>>>>And if Oswald was being "set up," wasn't it to create a "legend" of a
>>>>wild leftist?
>>>>
>>>>Why would The Evil Minions of The Conspiracy want to connect him with
>>>>anti-Castro fources?
>>>>
>>
>>Ben just evaded this.
>
>
>It seemed too obvious to explain, but I will.
>
>That episode doesn't illustrate an "impersonation" of Oswald to implicate him in
>the Presidential assassination.
>
>What it *does* show is that there were intelligence tracks all over Oswald.
>
Sashay(tm)!!
If Oswald was being "set up" as a left winger somehow, why would the
Evil Minions want him associated with right wingers?
You aren't saying the real Oswald bought the trucks, are you?
>
>
>
>>>>BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>>>
>>>
>>>Evasion again...
>>>
>>
>>The fact that the document appears to be tampered with *ought* to
>>matter to anybody concerned about the truth.
>
>
>The fact that Hoover himself raised the issue of Oswald's identity being used by
>someone else would lead *any* intelligent person to the concept that we aren't
>dealing with someone who scrawled a name on a piece of paper.
>
That's a bit of nonsense from Marguerite Oswald.
Didn't you know that?
She went complaining to the FBI because she didn't think her darling
son could be a traitor, and the FBI produced the routine form letter.
>
>>>>>There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>>>>>famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>>>>>becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BZZZZZZ!
>>>>
>>>>Assumes facts not in evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Can't make your case, can you?
>
>
>
>>>>You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>>>>Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>No response?
>
>
>Does something as ridiculous as that assertion require one?
>
Don't know much about real criminal investigations, do you?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
**********************************************************************
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Martybaugh...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
much...@hotmail.com
much...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Timst...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments on these
questions.
**********************************************************************
Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above material.
In article <lv9hn5ts3qd2udn5n...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
But I've served in the Corps the same as Oswald did. So tell me, how did *I*
manage to go my whole life without someone impersonating me?
>>So *knowing* that these Oswald sightings virtually all condemned him as an
>>assassin, and all happened in the few weeks preceding the crime, can you
>>*explain* them?
>
>Sure, in the wake of the assassination, people who had had some
>contact with *somebody* one or more aspects of whose behavior
>*reminded* them of Oswald came to believe that they had interacted
>with Oswald.
>
>It's the way memory works.
>
>Memory is a reconstruction.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm
And if you practice believing in enough impossible things before breakfast, it
makes it considerably easier to do.
>>You can't admit that anyone else was intentionally impersonating Oswald,
>>because that would be virtually the definition of conspiracy... yet you
>>know that the WC held these "sightings" to be mistakes, or whatever...
>>because they'd "tracked" Oswald as being elsewhere.
>
>And any conspiracy would know that having Oswald pop up where
>investigators would later easily determine Oswald could not have been
>would have been silly. People like you would decide it proved a
>conspiracy.
>
>More sensible people would decide that the incidents were fake
>sightings.
Yep... not a *single* eyewitness can you accept.
Must be tough going through life not able to believe what *anyone* says to you.
Let me guess... "Sashay" means "I've been caught again in the web of evidence.
>If Oswald was being "set up" as a left winger somehow, why would the
>Evil Minions want him associated with right wingers?
>
>You aren't saying the real Oswald bought the trucks, are you?
Say, are you *really* a "Professor"?
I'll have to rethink what little intelligence I normally assign to someone with
that title.
>>>>>BTW, the document seems to have "Oswald" added later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Evasion again...
>>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that the document appears to be tampered with *ought* to
>>>matter to anybody concerned about the truth.
>>
>>
>>The fact that Hoover himself raised the issue of Oswald's identity being
>>used by someone else would lead *any* intelligent person to the concept
>>that we aren't dealing with someone who scrawled a name on a piece of paper.
>
>That's a bit of nonsense from Marguerite Oswald.
>
>Didn't you know that?
>
>She went complaining to the FBI because she didn't think her darling
>son could be a traitor, and the FBI produced the routine form letter.
Yep. A "professor"... amazing!!!
Some kooky lady writes a letter, and the head of the FBI directly involves
himself in the matter.
Yep... perfectly believable... to a kook.
>>>>>>There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
>>>>>>famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
>>>>>>becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>BZZZZZZ!
>>>>>
>>>>>Assumes facts not in evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can't make your case, can you?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>You appear not to know anything about real criminal investigations.
>>>>>Any high profile crime is bound to create a lot of false "sightings."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>No response?
>>
>>
>>Does something as ridiculous as that assertion require one?
>>
>
>Don't know much about real criminal investigations, do you?
Does something as ridiculous as that assertion require a response?
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John, you're going to have to take a little bit more time with these responses,
you've got an image to uphold, and these responses just aren't getting the job
done...
All you're doing is demonstrating that there's no reasonable and
non-conspiratorial explanation for the evidence... you can't just label *EVERY*
eyewitness as 'mistaken' or worse, just because you don't like what they said.
curtjester1
>
> >> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>
> >> I did, "CJ". I've already cited for the term "evidence", and can also cit=
> >e the
> >> evidence I "claim" exists.
>
> >Can isn't doing. Cite any evidence that you have that would tie a
> >weapon to LHO.
>
> When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
>
CE-139. You simply won't use evidence to support it whether it's the
wrong evidence as you attempted to show in the X-Ray photo or not.
Now getting back to evidence and what I used for a dictionary, online
definition. There was not just one defnition, it was a different
layered set of definitions, obviously the most precise being the court
of law one. The general, flimsy one, would be one that anyone could
use, and was used (wrongly) by those showing the bullet in the X-ray.
> Are *YOU* denying that there's any evidence that shows Oswald owning CE-139 too?
>
Yes, by my definition of relevant evidence.
> Why not be specific... and say it?
>
I have been. There's nothing watered down. There's nothing watered
down when I say, you haven't provided 'Any' evidence to support that
Oswald was tied to CE-139, either.
> >> >since you are the one going
> >> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
> >> >weapon.
>
> >> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no
> >> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>
> >I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
>
> Then you're a liar.
>
You're not only a liar, but a coward for supporting it, and without
evidentiary support.
> >> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
>
> >> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>
> >> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen is fun,
> >> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>
> >No, you are playing word games. You ALREADY asserted.
>
> No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion you tried to
> saddle me with.
>
It's in this thread that you stated that! How can you run from that?
No are you going to say Oswald is not tied to CE-139 or not?
> Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>
You verified it, after it was brought back up in your face again. Are
you going to deny that?
> >There is no strawman in that is there? When are you going to cite and provide
> >proof for your claim?
>
> >CJ
>
> Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
>
And we'll wait for any evidence as you assert that LHO is tied into
CE-139.
> But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence linking Oswald
> with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence" (pg
> 480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
>
Well, since you have the book, why don't you demonstrate that
Armstrong goes into great detail about how there is no evidence tying
that contended rifle to Oswald. You have the book. Since you are
citing it as evidence, you must cite as well the reasons for coverup
that he uses. You must cite the 'court of law' evidence that he is
using for you to be honest, right? His merely sighting of other's
view of evidence certainly can't be construed as him saying that
CE-139 is bona fide evidence, can you?
> So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* lie and state
> that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Carcano found in the
> TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when *HE* states that there's
> evidence...
>
No, he didn't lie, you did. Are you claiming now that your missile in
the X-ray is now evidence? If so, then you must provide a better
definition for evidence. You must either go to the evidence
definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. Is
this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
correctness of evidence? Now, please, stop playing run and hide
games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
CE-139. You are going to run from that, aren't you?
CJ
> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenting
> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered weapons
> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>
> >> >CJ
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>
>>
>> >> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>>
>cit=3D
>> >e the
>> >> evidence I "claim" exists.
>>
>> >weapon to LHO.
>>
>> When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
>>
>No you won't because there isn't any relevant evidence tying Oswald to
>CE-139.
John Armstrong disagrees with you.
>You simply won't use evidence to support it whether it's the
>wrong evidence as you attempted to show in the X-Ray photo or not.
>Now getting back to evidence and what I used for a dictionary, online
>definition. There was not just one defnition, it was a different
>layered set of definitions, obviously the most precise being the court
>of law one. The general, flimsy one, would be one that anyone could
>use, and was used (wrongly) by those showing the bullet in the X-ray.
>
>> Are *YOU* denying that there's any evidence that shows Oswald owning CE-1=
>39 too?
>>
>Yes, by my definition of relevant evidence.
Then, of course, you're a liar. Or John Armstrong is. Who's the liar, "CJ"?
>> Why not be specific... and say it?
>>
>I have been. There's nothing watered down. There's nothing watered
>down when I say, you haven't provided 'Any' evidence to support that
>Oswald was tied to CE-139, either.
Nope, I've not provided it. When Robsie develops some courage, I will do so.
>> >> >since you are the one going
>> >> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
>> >> >weapon.
>>
>> >> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no
>> >> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>>
>> >I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
>>
>> Then you're a liar.
>>
>You're not only a liar, but a coward for supporting it, and without
>evidentiary support.
How can I be a "liar" when I agree with John Armstrong?
You must believe that Armstrong's a liar too... right?
>> >> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>>
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbad=
>d
>>
>> >> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>>
>> >> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen is f=
>un,
>> >> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>>
>> >No, you are playing word games. =A0You ALREADY asserted.
>>
>> No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion you t=
>ried to
>> saddle me with.
>>
>It's in this thread that you stated that!
Then quote it!
But you can't... I've *NEVER* made any such assertion. You're lying.
>How can you run from that?
Quote it!
(But you can't.)
>No are you going to say Oswald is not tied to CE-139 or not?
What am I already on the record as stating?
>> Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>>
>You verified it, after it was brought back up in your face again. Are
>you going to deny that?
Go ahead and quote it, liar.
But you'll refuse to - because YOU CANNOT!
>> >There is no strawman in that is there? =A0When are you going to cite and=
> provide
>> >proof for your claim?
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
>>
>And we'll wait for any evidence as you assert that LHO is tied into
>CE-139.
>
>> But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence linking=
> Oswald
>> with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence"=
> (pg
>> 480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
>>
>Well, since you have the book, why don't you demonstrate that
>Armstrong goes into great detail about how there is no evidence tying
>that contended rifle to Oswald.
He doesn't.
He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence".
He does *NOT* state that there is no evidence.
So tell everyone "CJ", who's lying?
>You have the book. Since you are
>citing it as evidence, you must cite as well the reasons for coverup
>that he uses. You must cite the 'court of law' evidence that he is
>using for you to be honest, right? His merely sighting of other's
>view of evidence certainly can't be construed as him saying that
>CE-139 is bona fide evidence, can you?
Does he state that there's evidence? Or that there's *no* evidence?
>> So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* lie
>> and state that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Carcano
>> found in the TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when *HE*
>> states that there's evidence...
>>
>No, he didn't lie, you did.
LOL!!!
When you're willing to deny what's right in front of you in order to uphold your
faith, what you're demonstrating is your character.
I quoted John Armstrong, I even gave a page number so you could see if I quoted
him accurately - and you assert that *I'm* lying...
Can you offer any cite in support of that position???
>Are you claiming now that your missile in
>the X-ray is now evidence?
Of course it is!
>If so, then you must provide a better
>definition for evidence.
The dictionary version works fine for me.
>You must either go to the evidence
>definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
>sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. Is
>this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
>correctness of evidence? Now, please, stop playing run and hide
>games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>CE-139.
If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, does
"bad evidence" exist?
You'll have to fight with Robsie over that one...
>You are going to run from that, aren't you?
Why would I? But you wouldn't want me to go back on my word and offer it before
Robsie defines the term, would you?
And since Armstrong STATED THAT IT EXISTS - then either you call him a liar, or
you admit that evidence exists.
>CJ
Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <655f0696-aaf4-4109-ab7f-8fb575387...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
YOU are the ONE lacking ANY courage Ben! YOU said there is evidnece
showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon, but all you have done is
RUN from citing it!
“My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that
Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
irrefutable.” (Ben Holmes—2/10/10)
Too bad I found this quote, huh?
“Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor have I *EVER*
claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The BY
photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***” (Ben
Holmes—12/21/09)
This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! NONE of the BY photos have ever
been shown to be real! They have too many issues with them!
Even Ben's best buddy in the world (Walt) knows he is lying, but won't
call him out! He he TELLS STEVE HE IS LYING FOR SAYING THE SAME
THING!
“5. Several photographs showing Oswald holding that rifle” (Steve)
“Another damned lie.....The rifle in CE 133A is DIFFERENT than the
TSBD rifle.” (Walt—2/4/10)
When will Walt call out Ben for his obvious lie??
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>
> >> >> I did, "CJ". I've already cited for the term "evidence", and can also =
> >cit=3D
> >> >e the
> >> >> evidence I "claim" exists.
>
> >> >Can isn't doing. =A0Cite any evidence that you have that would tie a
> >> >weapon to LHO.
>
> >> When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
>
> >No you won't because there isn't any relevant evidence tying Oswald to
> >CE-139.
>
> John Armstrong disagrees with you.
>
often portrayed as 'evidence'. He is not agreeing that CE-139 is
Oswald's weapon or any weapon that can be tied to the case.
> >You simply won't use evidence to support it whether it's the
> >wrong evidence as you attempted to show in the X-Ray photo or not.
> >Now getting back to evidence and what I used for a dictionary, online
> >definition. There was not just one defnition, it was a different
> >layered set of definitions, obviously the most precise being the court
> >of law one. The general, flimsy one, would be one that anyone could
> >use, and was used (wrongly) by those showing the bullet in the X-ray.
>
> >> Are *YOU* denying that there's any evidence that shows Oswald owning CE-1=
> >39 too?
>
> >Yes, by my definition of relevant evidence.
>
> Then, of course, you're a liar. Or John Armstrong is. Who's the liar, "CJ"?
>
Ben is. You forgot to add another possibility. Ben lies because he
uses evidence for not solving a case. He uses generic evidence which
he knows can be used to be sleight of hand that appears to be
evidence, but is not relevant evidence. He uses the missile in an X-
ray photo as proof of this all the time. Ben will because of his
deception will attempt now to say that the X-ray photo of the missile
'is evidence'. Of course this forum is not about playing childish
word games, it's about providing evidence that will be bona fide and
will sway a jury.
> >> Why not be specific... and say it?
>
> >I have been. There's nothing watered down. There's nothing watered
> >down when I say, you haven't provided 'Any' evidence to support that
> >Oswald was tied to CE-139, either.
>
> Nope, I've not provided it. When Robsie develops some courage, I will do so.
>
You've not provided it, because there is none, and will only play word
game evidence definition games. That is your only 'outlet'.
> >> >> >since you are the one going
> >> >> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
> >> >> >weapon.
>
> >> >> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no
> >> >> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>
> >> >I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
>
> >> Then you're a liar.
>
> >You're not only a liar, but a coward for supporting it, and without
> >evidentiary support.
>
> How can I be a "liar" when I agree with John Armstrong?
>
You agree by a generic use of evidence that is not relevant, not by
what the author intends or goes about proving. How deceptive!!
> You must believe that Armstrong's a liar too... right?
>
>
The only liar is Ben.
>
>
>
> >> >> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>
> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbad=
> >d
>
> >> >> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>
> >> >> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen is f=
> >un,
> >> >> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>
> >> >No, you are playing word games. =A0You ALREADY asserted.
>
> >> No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion you t=
> >ried to
> >> saddle me with.
>
> >It's in this thread that you stated that!
>
> Then quote it!
>
> But you can't... I've *NEVER* made any such assertion. You're lying.
>
You have claimed historical evidence is there to connect LHO to
CE-139, and you stand by it for 'your evidence'.
> >How can you run from that?
>
> Quote it!
>
> (But you can't.)
>
> >No are you going to say Oswald is not tied to CE-139 or not?
>
> What am I already on the record as stating?
>
That there is evidence of Oswald being tied to CE-139 and refusing to
support your view.
> >> Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>
> >You verified it, after it was brought back up in your face again. Are
> >you going to deny that?
>
> Go ahead and quote it, liar.
>
> But you'll refuse to - because YOU CANNOT!
>
>
Lurkers can read. It CANNOT save you. Are you going to say that your
X-ray photo is proof of lone gunman? It's 'evidence, you know.
>
>
>
> >> >There is no strawman in that is there? =A0When are you going to cite and=
> > provide
> >> >proof for your claim?
>
> >> >CJ
>
> >> Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
>
> >And we'll wait for any evidence as you assert that LHO is tied into
> >CE-139.
>
> >> But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence linking=
> > Oswald
> >> with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence"=
> > (pg
> >> 480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
>
> >Well, since you have the book, why don't you demonstrate that
> >Armstrong goes into great detail about how there is no evidence tying
> >that contended rifle to Oswald.
>
> He doesn't.
>
He has gone into great detail showing that there is no evidence to tie
any weapon to anyone. It's been posted and you have the book. So,
you are lying.
> He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence".
>
Of which he systematically dismantles.
> He does *NOT* state that there is no evidence.
>
Yes he does. He states that there is no relevant evidence by
evidentiary display.
> So tell everyone "CJ", who's lying?
>
Ben is.
> >You have the book. Since you are
> >citing it as evidence, you must cite as well the reasons for coverup
> >that he uses. You must cite the 'court of law' evidence that he is
> >using for you to be honest, right? His merely sighting of other's
> >view of evidence certainly can't be construed as him saying that
> >CE-139 is bona fide evidence, can you?
>
> Does he state that there's evidence? Or that there's *no* evidence?
>
Word games won't save you. "Evidence rules here." (Ben Holmes)
> >> So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* lie
> >> and state that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Carcano
> >> found in the TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when *HE*
> >> states that there's evidence...
>
> >No, he didn't lie, you did.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> When you're willing to deny what's right in front of you in order to uphold your
> faith, what you're demonstrating is your character.
>
> I quoted John Armstrong, I even gave a page number so you could see if I quoted
> him accurately - and you assert that *I'm* lying...
>
> Can you offer any cite in support of that position???
>
I did, a dictionary definition of evidence and what is relevant in
that definition by explanation, and what is used here in this forum,
(except by word game deceptive people such as yourself).
> >Are you claiming now that your missile in
> >the X-ray is now evidence?
>
> Of course it is!
>
See!!!
> >If so, then you must provide a better
> >definition for evidence.
>
> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>
How come it speaks of a court of law, and you can't provide any court
of law evidence to back up your assertions?
> >You must either go to the evidence
> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. Is
> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
> >correctness of evidence? Now, please, stop playing run and hide
> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
> >CE-139.
>
> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, does
> "bad evidence" exist?
>
This case is full of bad evidence. It's not bona fide, and will not
be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
> You'll have to fight with Robsie over that one...
>
No, you will. You will have to cite, if you actually believe that a
weapon can be tied to Oswald, like your asserting as evidence. If
not, you're merely playing childish word games. And Rob, I doubt will
have much more to do with that.
> >You are going to run from that, aren't you?
>
> Why would I? But you wouldn't want me to go back on my word and offer it before
> Robsie defines the term, would you?
>
> And since Armstrong STATED THAT IT EXISTS - then either you call him a liar, or
> you admit that evidence exists.
>
> >CJ
>
> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
>
Nope, it only accentuates what you are, a word game player, who
doesn't care about evidence in proving an issue.
CJ
> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenting
> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered weapons
> >> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
> >> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>
> >> >> >CJ
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 15, 4:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <655f0696-aaf4-4109-ab7f-8fb575387...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>>
>so =3D
>> >cit=3D3D
>> >> >e the
>> >> >> evidence I "claim" exists.
>>
>a
>> >> >weapon to LHO.
>>
>> >> When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
>>
>> >No you won't because there isn't any relevant evidence tying Oswald to
>> >CE-139.
>>
>> John Armstrong disagrees with you.
>>
>> >You simply won't use evidence to support it whether it's the
>> >wrong evidence as you attempted to show in the X-Ray photo or not.
>> >Now getting back to evidence and what I used for a dictionary, online
>> >layered set of definitions, obviously the most precise being the court
>> >use, and was used (wrongly) by those showing the bullet in the X-ray.
>>
>E-1=3D
>> >39 too?
>>
>> >Yes, by my definition of relevant evidence.
>>
>"?
>>
>> >> Why not be specific... and say it?
>>
>> >down when I say, you haven't provided 'Any' evidence to support that
>> >Oswald was tied to CE-139, either.
>>
>so.
>
>YOU are the ONE lacking ANY courage Ben! YOU said there is evidnece
>showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon, but all you have done is
>RUN from citing it!
Cite *what*, Robsie?
If you cannot cite for what you consider "evidence" to be, don't you think is
slightly presumptuous to demand that someone else cite?
>=93My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that
>Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
>irrefutable.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/10/10)
>
>Too bad I found this quote, huh?
Why is it "too bad"?
It's still perfectly accurate.
>=93Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor have I *EVER*
>claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The BY
>photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***=94 (Ben
>Holmes=9712/21/09)
Yep... still a perfectly true statement - one that you cannot refute.
>This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
>photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! NONE of the BY photos have ever
>been shown to be real! They have too many issues with them!
Yep... kooks to the left of me, kooks to the right...
>> >> >> >since you are the one going
>> >> >> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
>> >> >> >weapon.
>>
>> >> >> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no
>> >> >> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>>
>> >> >I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
>>
>> >> Then you're a liar.
>>
>> >You're not only a liar, but a coward for supporting it, and without
>> >evidentiary support.
>>
>> How can I be a "liar" when I agree with John Armstrong?
>>
>> You must believe that Armstrong's a liar too... right?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>>
>> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5ab=
>bad=3D
>> >d
>>
>> >> >> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>>
>> >> >> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen i=
>s f=3D
>> >un,
>> >> >> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>>
>> >> >No, you are playing word games. =3DA0You ALREADY asserted.
>>
>> >> No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion yo=
>u t=3D
>> >ried to
>> >> saddle me with.
>>
>> >It's in this thread that you stated that!
>>
>> Then quote it!
>>
>> But you can't... I've *NEVER* made any such assertion. You're lying.
>>
>> >How can you run from that?
>>
>> Quote it!
>>
>> (But you can't.)
>>
>> >No are you going to say Oswald is not tied to CE-139 or not?
>>
>> What am I already on the record as stating?
>>
>> >> Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>>
>> >You verified it, after it was brought back up in your face again. =A0Are
>> >you going to deny that?
>>
>> Go ahead and quote it, liar.
>>
>> But you'll refuse to - because YOU CANNOT!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >There is no strawman in that is there? =3DA0When are you going to cit=
>e and=3D
>> > provide
>> >> >proof for your claim?
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
>>
>> >And we'll wait for any evidence as you assert that LHO is tied into
>> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence link=
>ing=3D
>> > Oswald
>> >> with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive eviden=
>ce"=3D
>> > (pg
>> >> 480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
>>
>> >Well, since you have the book, why don't you demonstrate that
>> >Armstrong goes into great detail about how there is no evidence tying
>> >that contended rifle to Oswald.
>>
>> He doesn't.
>>
>> He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence".
>>
>> He does *NOT* state that there is no evidence.
>>
>> So tell everyone "CJ", who's lying?
>>
>> >You have the book. =A0 Since you are
>> >citing it as evidence, you must cite as well the reasons for coverup
>> >that he uses. =A0You must cite the 'court of law' evidence that he is
>> >using for you to be honest, right? =A0His merely sighting of other's
>> >view of evidence certainly can't be construed as him saying that
>> >CE-139 is bona fide evidence, can you?
>>
>> Does he state that there's evidence? Or that there's *no* evidence?
>>
>> >> So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* lie
>> >> and state that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Carca=
>no
>> >> found in the TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when *HE=
>*
>> >> states that there's evidence...
>>
>> >No, he didn't lie, you did.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>> When you're willing to deny what's right in front of you in order to upho=
>ld your
>> faith, what you're demonstrating is your character.
>>
>> I quoted John Armstrong, I even gave a page number so you could see if I =
>quoted
>> him accurately - and you assert that *I'm* lying...
>>
>> Can you offer any cite in support of that position???
>>
>> >Are you claiming now that your missile in
>> >the X-ray is now evidence?
>>
>> Of course it is!
>>
>> >If so, then you must provide a better
>> >definition for evidence.
>>
>> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>> >You must either go to the evidence
>> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
>> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =A0 Is
>> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
>> >correctness of evidence? =A0 Now, please, stop playing run and hide
>> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>> >CE-139.
>>
>> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, d=
>oes
>> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> You'll have to fight with Robsie over that one...
>>
>> >You are going to run from that, aren't you?
>>
>> Why would I? But you wouldn't want me to go back on my word and offer it =
>before
>> Robsie defines the term, would you?
>>
>> And since Armstrong STATED THAT IT EXISTS - then either you call him a li=
>ar, or
>> you admit that evidence exists.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
>>
>> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
>> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenting
>> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered weapo=
>ns
>> >> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
>> >> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
I wonder why Robsie refuses to label Armstrong a liar?
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 15, 4:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <655f0696-aaf4-4109-ab7f-8fb575387...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>>
>so =3D
>> >cit=3D3D
>> >> >e the
>> >> >> evidence I "claim" exists.
>>
>a
>> >> >weapon to LHO.
>>
>> >> When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
>>
>> >No you won't because there isn't any relevant evidence tying Oswald to
>> >CE-139.
>>
>> John Armstrong disagrees with you.
>>
>That's a lie. John Armstrong only dismantles the 'evidence' that is
>often portrayed as 'evidence'. He is not agreeing that CE-139 is
>Oswald's weapon or any weapon that can be tied to the case.
Armstrong is on record as stating that there *IS* evidence. You deny it. Who's
lying?
>> >You simply won't use evidence to support it whether it's the
>> >wrong evidence as you attempted to show in the X-Ray photo or not.
>> >Now getting back to evidence and what I used for a dictionary, online
>> >definition. =A0There was not just one defnition, it was a different
>> >layered set of definitions, obviously the most precise being the court
>> >of law one. =A0The general, flimsy one, would be one that anyone could
>> >use, and was used (wrongly) by those showing the bullet in the X-ray.
>>
>> >> Are *YOU* denying that there's any evidence that shows Oswald owning C=
>E-1=3D
>> >39 too?
>>
>> >Yes, by my definition of relevant evidence.
>>
>> Then, of course, you're a liar. Or John Armstrong is. Who's the liar, "CJ=
>"?
>>
>Ben is.
Where's your citation showing that any statement I've made is a "lie?"
You say there's *no* evidence... Armstrong states that there *is* evidence - the
two statements contradict each other - one of them must be a lie.
So who's lying, "CJ"?
>You forgot to add another possibility. Ben lies because he
>uses evidence for not solving a case. He uses generic evidence which
>he knows can be used to be sleight of hand that appears to be
>evidence, but is not relevant evidence. He uses the missile in an X-
>ray photo as proof of this all the time. Ben will because of his
>deception will attempt now to say that the X-ray photo of the missile
>'is evidence'.
Of course it is.
>Of course this forum is not about playing childish
>word games, it's about providing evidence that will be bona fide and
>will sway a jury.
John Armstrong disagrees with you. Rather embarrassing, isn't it?
>> >> Why not be specific... and say it?
>>
>> >I have been. =A0There's nothing watered down. =A0There's nothing watered
>> >down when I say, you haven't provided 'Any' evidence to support that
>> >Oswald was tied to CE-139, either.
>>
>> Nope, I've not provided it. When Robsie develops some courage, I will do =
>so.
>>
>You've not provided it, because there is none, and will only play word
>game evidence definition games. That is your only 'outlet'.
John Armstrong states that evidence exists... why are you contradicting John
Armstrong?
>> >> >> >since you are the one going
>> >> >> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a murder
>> >> >> >weapon.
>>
>> >> >> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's no
>> >> >> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>>
>> >> >I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
>>
>> >> Then you're a liar.
>>
>> >You're not only a liar, but a coward for supporting it, and without
>> >evidentiary support.
>>
>> How can I be a "liar" when I agree with John Armstrong?
>>
>You agree by a generic use of evidence that is not relevant, not by
>what the author intends or goes about proving. How deceptive!!
I agree with him that there *IS* evidence, how can I be a "liar" when you refuse
to label John Armstrong a liar?
>> You must believe that Armstrong's a liar too... right?
>>
>>
>The only liar is Ben.
And yet, I'm in agreement with John Armstrong, whom you refuse to label a liar
for the same assertion.
We both agree that there's evidence tying Oswald to CE-139.
>> >> >> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>>
>> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5ab=
>bad=3D
>> >d
>>
>> >> >> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>>
>> >> >> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawmen i=
>s f=3D
>> >un,
>> >> >> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>>
>> >> >No, you are playing word games. =3DA0You ALREADY asserted.
>>
>> >> No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion yo=
>u t=3D
>> >ried to
>> >> saddle me with.
>>
>> >It's in this thread that you stated that!
>>
>> Then quote it!
>>
>> But you can't... I've *NEVER* made any such assertion. You're lying.
>>
>You have claimed historical evidence is there to connect LHO to
>CE-139, and you stand by it for 'your evidence'.
Yes... but that is *NOT* what you stated I'd said. (It's still in the post,
below)
Why can't you quote me saying it, kook?
>> >How can you run from that?
>>
>> Quote it!
>>
>> (But you can't.)
>>
>> >No are you going to say Oswald is not tied to CE-139 or not?
>>
>> What am I already on the record as stating?
>>
>That there is evidence of Oswald being tied to CE-139 and refusing to
>support your view.
Untrue. I don't "refuse" to support my view. Indeed, I've cited John Armstrong
in support. And stated that I'll list specific evidence when Robsie cites for
the meaning of the term.
>> >> Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>>
>> >You verified it, after it was brought back up in your face again. =A0Are
>> >you going to deny that?
>>
>> Go ahead and quote it, liar.
>>
>> But you'll refuse to - because YOU CANNOT!
>>
>>
>Lurkers can read. It CANNOT save you. Are you going to say that your
>X-ray photo is proof of lone gunman? It's 'evidence, you know.
Again, unable to quote what you asserted I'd said.
>> >> >There is no strawman in that is there? =3DA0When are you going to cit=
>e and=3D
>> > provide
>> >> >proof for your claim?
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
>>
>> >And we'll wait for any evidence as you assert that LHO is tied into
>> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence link=
>ing=3D
>> > Oswald
>> >> with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive eviden=
>ce"=3D
>> > (pg
>> >> 480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
>>
>> >Well, since you have the book, why don't you demonstrate that
>> >Armstrong goes into great detail about how there is no evidence tying
>> >that contended rifle to Oswald.
>>
>> He doesn't.
>>
>He has gone into great detail showing that there is no evidence to tie
>any weapon to anyone. It's been posted and you have the book. So,
>you are lying.
Feel free to quote him as I've done.
But you can't.
>> He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence".
>>
>Of which he systematically dismantles.
He refers to evidence. "Evidence" must then exist. Lying, aren't you?
>> He does *NOT* state that there is no evidence.
>>
>Yes he does. He states that there is no relevant evidence by
>evidentiary display.
He does *NOT* state that there is no evidence.
>> So tell everyone "CJ", who's lying?
>>
>Ben is.
And yet, I'm merely echoing what John Armstrong says... indeed, I'm citing him.
>> >You have the book. =A0 Since you are
>> >citing it as evidence, you must cite as well the reasons for coverup
>> >that he uses. =A0You must cite the 'court of law' evidence that he is
>> >using for you to be honest, right? =A0His merely sighting of other's
>> >view of evidence certainly can't be construed as him saying that
>> >CE-139 is bona fide evidence, can you?
>>
>> Does he state that there's evidence? Or that there's *no* evidence?
>>
>Word games won't save you. "Evidence rules here." (Ben Holmes)
Does he state that there's evidence? Or that there's *no* evidence?
>> >> So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* lie
>> >> and state that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Carca=
>no
>> >> found in the TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when *HE=
>*
>> >> states that there's evidence...
>>
>> >No, he didn't lie, you did.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>> When you're willing to deny what's right in front of you in order to upho=
>ld your
>> faith, what you're demonstrating is your character.
>>
>> I quoted John Armstrong, I even gave a page number so you could see if I =
>quoted
>> him accurately - and you assert that *I'm* lying...
>>
>> Can you offer any cite in support of that position???
>>
>I did, a dictionary definition of evidence
Of which, you cannot show that I'm contradicting...
Why is that, kook?
>and what is relevant in
>that definition by explanation, and what is used here in this forum,
>(except by word game deceptive people such as yourself).
>
>> >Are you claiming now that your missile in
>> >the X-ray is now evidence?
>>
>> Of course it is!
>>
>See!!!
Cite for the meaning of "evidence" that this X-ray does not fulfill.
But you can't.
>> >If so, then you must provide a better
>> >definition for evidence.
>>
>> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>How come it speaks of a court of law, and you can't provide any court
>of law evidence to back up your assertions?
Nor can you, stupid.
>> >You must either go to the evidence
>> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
>> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =A0 Is
>> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
>> >correctness of evidence? =A0 Now, please, stop playing run and hide
>> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>> >CE-139.
>>
>> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, d=
>oes
>> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>This case is full of bad evidence.
So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>It's not bona fide, and will not
>be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no claim that it
must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other similar claims.
>> You'll have to fight with Robsie over that one...
>>
>No, you will. You will have to cite, if you actually believe that a
>weapon can be tied to Oswald, like your asserting as evidence.
For you, I've cited John Armstrong.
That will have to do until Robsie cites.
>If not, you're merely playing childish word games. And Rob, I doubt will
>have much more to do with that.
Of course not - he frequently refuses to cite.
>> >You are going to run from that, aren't you?
>>
>> Why would I? But you wouldn't want me to go back on my word and offer it =
>before
>> Robsie defines the term, would you?
>>
>> And since Armstrong STATED THAT IT EXISTS - then either you call him a li=
>ar, or
>> you admit that evidence exists.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
>>
>Nope, it only accentuates what you are, a word game player, who
>doesn't care about evidence in proving an issue.
That you're required to lie about John Armstrong demonstrates that you're just
like LNT'ers... twisting the facts to reach their preconceived goal.
>CJ
>
>> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
>> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenting
>> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered weapo=
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <f6744f7d-4d43-4abb-abd0-b828adf9b...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
RUN COWARD, RUN! Ben is a coward, but hey, he told us he was one
upfront!
“LOL!! He is back to "dictionary games"! Why is he afraid to LIST THE
EVIDENCE HE CLAIMS EXISTS SHOWING LHO OWNED CE-139???” (Robert)
“Yep... coward.” (Ben Holmes—2/10/10)
Nice of YOU to admit you are a coward for us!
> If you cannot cite for what you consider "evidence" to be, don't you think is
> slightly presumptuous to demand that someone else cite?
YOU KNOW what evidence is because YOU told us there *IS* evidence
showing LHO owned CE-139! NOW he runs from citing it for us! What a
coward!
> >=93My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that
> >Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
> >irrefutable.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/10/10)
>
> >Too bad I found this quote, huh?
>
> Why is it "too bad"?
It shows what YOU call evidence! I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
> It's still perfectly accurate.
IT was never accurate you liar and YOUR pal even said so!
“5. Several photographs showing Oswald holding that rifle” (Steve)
“Another damned lie.....The rifle in CE 133A is DIFFERENT than the
TSBD rifle.” (Walt—2/4/10)
> >=93Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor have I *EVER*
> >claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The BY
> >photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***=94 (Ben
> >Holmes=9712/21/09)
>
> Yep... still a perfectly true statement - one that you cannot refute.
YOUR pal refuted it!
“5. Several photographs showing Oswald holding that rifle” (Steve)
“Another damned lie.....The rifle in CE 133A is DIFFERENT than the
TSBD rifle.” (Walt—2/4/10)
Why do you claim the rifle in the phony BY photos is THE SAME ONE
FOUND IN THE TSBD Ben?
> >This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
> >photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! NONE of the BY photos have ever
> >been shown to be real! They have too many issues with them!
>
> Yep... kooks to the left of me, kooks to the right...
YOU are the liar Ben and WC supporter, don't blame ANYONE but
YOURSELF!
curtjester1
purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
defintion I gave in evidence and what is appropo for this newsgroup.
>
> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>
> >How come it speaks of a court of law, and you can't provide any court
> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>
> Nor can you, stupid.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
> >> >You must either go to the evidence
> >> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =A0 Is
> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
> >> >correctness of evidence? =A0 Now, please, stop playing run and hide
> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
> >> >CE-139.
>
> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, d=
> >oes
> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>
> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>
> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>
Yep, just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
> >It's not bona fide, and will not
> >be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
>
> It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no claim that it
> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other similar claims.
>
Yes it does, if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
Snip all the deceptive dancings by Ben Holmes on his childish rantings
on evidence.
CJ
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 16, 11:56=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <f6744f7d-4d43-4abb-abd0-b828adf9b...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 15, 4:16=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <655f0696-aaf4-4109-ab7f-8fb575387...@c10g2000vbr.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >It's up to you to make the proof and cites
>>
> al=3D
>> >so =3D3D
>> >> >cit=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >e the
>> >> >> >> evidence I "claim" exists.
>>
> tie =3D
>> >a
>> >> >> >weapon to LHO.
>>
>> >> >> When Robsie manages to cite, I'll be happy to.
>>
>o
>> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> John Armstrong disagrees with you.
>>
>> >> >You simply won't use evidence to support it whether it's the
>> >> >wrong evidence as you attempted to show in the X-Ray photo or not.
>> >> >Now getting back to evidence and what I used for a dictionary, online
>> >> >layered set of definitions, obviously the most precise being the cour=
>t
>> >> >of law one. =3DA0The general, flimsy one, would be one that anyone co=
>uld
>> >> >use, and was used (wrongly) by those showing the bullet in the X-ray.
>>
>g C=3D
>> >E-1=3D3D
>> >> >39 too?
>>
>> >> >Yes, by my definition of relevant evidence.
>>
>"CJ=3D
>> >"?
>>
>> >> >> Why not be specific... and say it?
>>
>watered
>> >> >down when I say, you haven't provided 'Any' evidence to support that
>> >> >Oswald was tied to CE-139, either.
>>
>do =3D
>> >so.
>>
>> >YOU are the ONE lacking ANY courage Ben! =A0YOU said there is evidnece
>> >showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon, but all you have done is
>> >RUN from citing it!
>>
>> Cite *what*, Robsie?
>
>> slightly presumptuous to demand that someone else cite?
>
>
>> >Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
>>
>> >Too bad I found this quote, huh?
>>
>> Why is it "too bad"?
>
>It shows what YOU call evidence!
How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
>I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
>DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
Feel free to define it.
>> It's still perfectly accurate.
>
>> >=3D93Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor have I *EVER*
>> >claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The BY
>> >photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***=3D94 (Ben
>> >Holmes=3D9712/21/09)
>>
>> Yep... still a perfectly true statement - one that you cannot refute.
>
>> >This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
>> >photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! =A0NONE of the BY photos have ever
>> >been shown to be real! =A0They have too many issues with them!
>>
>> Yep... kooks to the left of me, kooks to the right...
>
>> >> >> >> >since you are the one going
>> >> >> >> >on an LNT'er limb and saying Oswald owned and was tied to a mur=
>der
>> >> >> >> >weapon.
>>
>> >> >> >> What "limb", "CJ"? Are you willing to lie and state that there's=
> no
>> >> >> >> evidence that Oswald owned CE-139 as well?
>>
>> >> >> >I just did, and below stated some of my proof.
>>
>> >> >> Then you're a liar.
>>
>> >> >You're not only a liar, but a coward for supporting it, and without
>> >> >evidentiary support.
>>
>> >> How can I be a "liar" when I agree with John Armstrong?
>>
>> >> You must believe that Armstrong's a liar too... right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >I do provide my own evidence when it comes to that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c=
>5ab=3D
>> >bad=3D3D
>> >> >d
>>
>> >> >> >> >Now, is Ben going to assert
>>
>> >> >> >> Why speculate about what I'm "going" to assert? Creating strawme=
>n i=3D
>> >s f=3D3D
>> >> >un,
>> >> >> >> but a completely meaningless fantasy...
>>
>> >> >> >No, you are playing word games. =3D3DA0You ALREADY asserted.
>>
>> >> >> No liar, I did not. You can *NO-WHERE* find me making the assertion=
> yo=3D
>> >u t=3D3D
>> >> >ried to
>> >> >> saddle me with.
>>
>> >> >It's in this thread that you stated that!
>>
>> >> Then quote it!
>>
>> >> But you can't... I've *NEVER* made any such assertion. You're lying.
>>
>> >> >How can you run from that?
>>
>> >> Quote it!
>>
>> >> (But you can't.)
>>
>> >> >No are you going to say Oswald is not tied to CE-139 or not?
>>
>> >> What am I already on the record as stating?
>>
>> >> >> Taking lessons from Robsie on how to lie about what others say?
>>
>> >> >You verified it, after it was brought back up in your face again. =3D=
>A0Are
>> >> >you going to deny that?
>>
>> >> Go ahead and quote it, liar.
>>
>> >> But you'll refuse to - because YOU CANNOT!
>>
>> >> >> >There is no strawman in that is there? =3D3DA0When are you going t=
>o cit=3D
>> >e and=3D3D
>> >> > provide
>> >> >> >proof for your claim?
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> Oh, I'll wait for Robsie.
>>
>> >> >And we'll wait for any evidence as you assert that LHO is tied into
>> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> >> But just for the fun of it, John Armstrong refers to the evidence l=
>ink=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > Oswald
>> >> >> with CE-139. He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evi=
>den=3D
>> >ce"=3D3D
>> >> > (pg
>> >> >> 480), but he refuses, as you and Robsie do, to lie about it.
>>
>> >> >Well, since you have the book, why don't you demonstrate that
>> >> >Armstrong goes into great detail about how there is no evidence tying
>> >> >that contended rifle to Oswald.
>>
>> >> He doesn't.
>>
>> >> He refers to "highly questionable and inconclusive evidence".
>>
>> >> He does *NOT* state that there is no evidence.
>>
>> >> So tell everyone "CJ", who's lying?
>>
>> >> >You have the book. =3DA0 Since you are
>> >> >citing it as evidence, you must cite as well the reasons for coverup
>> >> >that he uses. =3DA0You must cite the 'court of law' evidence that he =
>is
>> >> >using for you to be honest, right? =3DA0His merely sighting of other'=
>s
>> >> >view of evidence certainly can't be construed as him saying that
>> >> >CE-139 is bona fide evidence, can you?
>>
>> >> Does he state that there's evidence? Or that there's *no* evidence?
>>
>> >> >> So tell us, "CJ", since you clearly admire Armstrong, why did *HE* =
>lie
>> >> >> and state that there was evidence tying Oswald to the Mannlicher Ca=
>rca=3D
>> >no
>> >> >> found in the TSBD? For surely, you must believe that he lied, when =
>*HE=3D
>> >*
>> >> >> states that there's evidence...
>>
>> >> >No, he didn't lie, you did.
>>
>> >> LOL!!!
>>
>> >> When you're willing to deny what's right in front of you in order to u=
>pho=3D
>> >ld your
>> >> faith, what you're demonstrating is your character.
>>
>> >> I quoted John Armstrong, I even gave a page number so you could see if=
> I =3D
>> >quoted
>> >> him accurately - and you assert that *I'm* lying...
>>
>> >> Can you offer any cite in support of that position???
>>
>> >> >Are you claiming now that your missile in
>> >> >the X-ray is now evidence?
>>
>> >> Of course it is!
>>
>> >> >If so, then you must provide a better
>> >> >definition for evidence.
>>
>> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>> >> >You must either go to the evidence
>> >> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
>> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =3D=
>A0 Is
>> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
>> >> >correctness of evidence? =3DA0 Now, please, stop playing run and hide
>> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence=
>, d=3D
>> >oes
>> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >> You'll have to fight with Robsie over that one...
>>
>> >> >You are going to run from that, aren't you?
>>
>> >> Why would I? But you wouldn't want me to go back on my word and offer =
>it =3D
>> >before
>> >> Robsie defines the term, would you?
>>
>> >> And since Armstrong STATED THAT IT EXISTS - then either you call him a=
> li=3D
>> >ar, or
>> >> you admit that evidence exists.
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
>> >> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenti=
>ng
>> >> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered we=
>apo=3D
>> >ns
>> >> >> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
>> >> >> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>>
>> >> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> I wonder why Robsie refuses to label Armstrong a liar?
I wonder why Robsie is running from this question?
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidence term
>purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
>defintion I gave in evidence and what is appropo for this newsgroup.
>>
>> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>> >How come it speaks of a court of law, and you can't provide any court
>> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>>
>> Nor can you, stupid.
>>
>Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>> >> >You must either go to the evidence
>> >> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
>> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =A0 Is
>> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
>> >> >correctness of evidence? =A0 Now, please, stop playing run and hide
>> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, d=
>> >oes
>> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>>
>> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>>
>Yep,
End of story.
>just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
>or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>
>> >It's not bona fide, and will not
>> >be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
>>
>>It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no claim that it
>> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other similar claims.
>>
>Yes it does,
You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the term that
requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other
similar claims.
Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turns out to be
fabricated or lies.
Very few people go to court and say "Yes your Honor, I committed the murder, may
I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evidence that turns
out to be less than accurate.
>if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
>compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>
>Snip all the deceptive dancings by Ben Holmes on his childish rantings
>on evidence.
>
>
>CJ
Kook, aren't you?
curtjester1
> In article <b207978a-19e2-464e-a7f2-f0982b736...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
> >Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidence term
> >purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
> >defintion I gave in evidence and what is appropo for this newsgroup.
>
> >> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>
> >> >How come it speaks of a court of law, and you can't provide any court
> >> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>
> >> Nor can you, stupid.
>
> >Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
>
> Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>
>
using research and evidence to come to a conclusion that anyone in
this forum would hope to be in a court of law deciding it's
worthiness.
>
>
>
> >> >> >You must either go to the evidence
> >> >> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
> >> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =A0 Is
> >> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
> >> >> >correctness of evidence? =A0 Now, please, stop playing run and hide
> >> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
> >> >> >CE-139.
>
> >> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evidence, d=
> >> >oes
> >> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>
> >> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>
> >> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>
> >Yep,
>
> End of story.
>
Not end of story. You're using the word evidence in any way a LNT'er
would be using it, or someone that would be using it incorrectly.
Rather unworthy to cite a definition of evidence and be on the wrong
side of it's evaluation, don't you think?
> >just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
> >or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>
> >> >It's not bona fide, and will not
> >> >be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
>
> >>It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no claim that it
> >> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other similar claims.
>
> >Yes it does,
>
> You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the term that
> requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other
> similar claims.
>
Being admissable in a court of law requires that it be scrutinized.
That's what we do here, scrutinize. If you take the side of evidence
that a LNT'er takes, which you do, then you will be called on it.
> Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turns out to be
> fabricated or lies.
>
And so do people in these forums. They put for evidence that is
debated and deemed unworthy, like your stance on LHO being the owner
of CE-139 and using 'his' ammunition of CE-399. You need to prove it,
not hide behind words of dictionaries on evidence.
> Very few people go to court and say "Yes your Honor, I committed the murder, may
> I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evidence that turns
> out to be less than accurate.
>
That's why they have a trial. They weigh evidence at trials. We
weigh evidence here.
> >if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
> >compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>
> >Snip all the deceptive dancings by Ben Holmes on his childish rantings
> >on evidence.
>
> >CJ
>
> Kook, aren't you?
>
Coward and deceptive 'CT'er' aren't you? I am sure you will come up
with some future gems like evidence is a LNT'ers best friend, won't
you?
CJ
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 16, 4:01=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <b207978a-19e2-464e-a7f2-f0982b736...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidence term
>> >purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
>> >defintion I gave in evidence and what is appropo for this newsgroup.
>>
>> >> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>> >> >How come it speaks of a court of law, and you can't provide any court
>> >> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>>
>> >> Nor can you, stupid.
>>
>> >Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/001154b3c5abbadd
>>
>> Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>>
>>
>Of course not, avoiding ad hominem, there isn't a trial.
"Court of law" evidence would ordinarily be evidence submitted to court.
>It's someone
>using research and evidence to come to a conclusion that anyone in
>this forum would hope to be in a court of law deciding it's
>worthiness.
So I can claim whatever I want to be "Court of law evidence".
>> >> >> >You must either go to the evidence
>> >> >> >definition I cited by the dictionary and change it to the general
>> >> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be off. =
>=3DA0 Is
>> >> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and the
>> >> >> >correctness of evidence? =3DA0 Now, please, stop playing run and h=
>ide
>> >> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>> >> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good" evide=
>nce, d=3D
>> >> >oes
>> >> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>>
>> >> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>>
>> >Yep,
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>Not end of story. You're using the word evidence in any way a LNT'er
>would be using it, or someone that would be using it incorrectly.
Cite, and show how it's different from the definition of the term.
>Rather unworthy to cite a definition of evidence and be on the wrong
>side of it's evaluation, don't you think?
>
>> >just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
>> >or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>>
>> >> >It's not bona fide, and will not
>> >> >be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
>>
>> >>It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no claim=
> that it
>> >> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other similar =
>claims.
>>
>> >Yes it does,
>>
>> You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the term that
>> requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any=
> other
>> similar claims.
>>
>Being admissable in a court of law requires that it be scrutinized.
>That's what we do here, scrutinize. If you take the side of evidence
>that a LNT'er takes, which you do, then you will be called on it.
There's no need to lie about the facts. Conspiracy has been overwhelmingly
proven.
>> Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turns out to =
>be
>> fabricated or lies.
>>
>And so do people in these forums.
So you admit it. Good for you!
>They put for evidence that is
>debated and deemed unworthy, like your stance on LHO being the owner
>of CE-139 and using 'his' ammunition of CE-399. You need to prove it,
>not hide behind words of dictionaries on evidence.
Tell that to John Armstrong.
>> Very few people go to court and say "Yes your Honor, I committed the murd=
>er, may
>> I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evidence that =
>turns
>> out to be less than accurate.
>>
>That's why they have a trial. They weigh evidence at trials. We
>weigh evidence here.
And yet, there's "evidence" to weigh. It doesn't have to be proven correct
before it's called "evidence".
John Armstrong clearly recognizes that.
>> >if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
>> >compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>>
>> >Snip all the deceptive dancings by Ben Holmes on his childish rantings
>> >on evidence.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>Coward and deceptive 'CT'er' aren't you? I am sure you will come up
>with some future gems like evidence is a LNT'ers best friend, won't
>you?
>
>CJ
Evidence has *NEVER* been the friend to LNT'ers.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <18b7d720-d45d-4cf3-80df-8da847a3d...@i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip old stuff)
> >> >YOU are the ONE lacking ANY courage Ben! =A0YOU said there is evidnece
> >> >showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon, but all you have done is
> >> >RUN from citing it!
>
> >> Cite *what*, Robsie?
>
> >> If you cannot cite for what you consider "evidence" to be, don't you think is
> >> slightly presumptuous to demand that someone else cite?
>
> >> >=3D93My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that
> >> >Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
> >> >irrefutable.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/10/10)
>
> >> >Too bad I found this quote, huh?
>
> >> Why is it "too bad"?
>
> >It shows what YOU call evidence!
>
> How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
Why can't YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists?? YOU are running and
everyone sees this liar.
Coward, aren't you?
> >I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
> >DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
>
> Feel free to define it.
Feel free to cite the EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS! YOUR cowardly
behavior is noted for all to see.
“Most LNT'ers do. Amazing, the power we seem to hold over you guys.
Stopping you from supporting your own assertions.” (Ben Holmes—2/1/06)
Exactly!
> >> It's still perfectly accurate.
>
> >> >=3D93Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor have I *EVER*
> >> >claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The BY
> >> >photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***=3D94 (Ben
> >> >Holmes=3D9712/21/09)
>
> >> Yep... still a perfectly true statement - one that you cannot refute.
>
> >> >This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
> >> >photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! =A0NONE of the BY photos have ever
> >> >been shown to be real! =A0They have too many issues with them!
(Snip CJ paranoia stuff)
> >> >> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
>
> >> >> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
> >> >> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragmenti=
> >ng
> >> >> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered we=
> >apo=3D
> >> >ns
> >> >> >> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
> >> >> >> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>
> >> >> >> >> >CJ
>
> >> I wonder why Robsie refuses to label Armstrong a liar?
>
> I wonder why Robsie is running from this question?
I would wonder why Ben is RUNNING FROM HIS OWN WORDS, BUT THEN I
REMEMBERED HE DOES THIS ALL THE TIME! He is using the old LNer trick
of blaming others for why HE can't cite what he claims exists.
He is such a coward and a liar.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 16, 3:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <18b7d720-d45d-4cf3-80df-8da847a3d...@i39g2000yqm.googlegroups=>> >> >YOU are the ONE lacking ANY courage Ben! =3DA0YOU said there is evidn=
>ece
>> >> >showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon, but all you have done is
>> >> >RUN from citing it!
>>
>> >> Cite *what*, Robsie?
>>
>hink is
>> >> slightly presumptuous to demand that someone else cite?
>>
>t
>> >> >Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
>>
>> >> >Too bad I found this quote, huh?
>>
>> >> Why is it "too bad"?
>>
>> >It shows what YOU call evidence!
>>
>> How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
>
>Why can't YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists?? YOU are running and
>everyone sees this liar.
>
>Coward, aren't you?
How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
>> >I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
>> >DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
>>
>> Feel free to define it.
>
>Feel free to cite the EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS! YOUR cowardly
>behavior is noted for all to see.
Don't worry stupid... I'm sure that everyone is noticing that you continue to
refuse to define what *you* call "evidence".
>> >> It's still perfectly accurate.
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor have I *=
>EVER*
>> >> >claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The BY
>> >> >photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***=3D3D94=
> (Ben
>> >> >Holmes=3D3D9712/21/09)
>>
>> >> Yep... still a perfectly true statement - one that you cannot refute.
>>
>> >> >This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
>> >> >photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! =3DA0NONE of the BY photos have ev=
>er
>> >> >been shown to be real! =3DA0They have too many issues with them!
>
>(Snip CJ paranoia stuff)
>
>> >> >> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
>> >> >> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fragme=
>nti=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powered=
> we=3D
>> >apo=3D3D
>> >> >ns
>> >> >> >> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowball
>> >> >> >> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> I wonder why Robsie refuses to label Armstrong a liar?
I wonder why Robsie is running from this question?
curtjester1
> In article <78a6346c-3dbd-4d0d-98bc-477fb28fb...@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still running circles with a definition without participating in a
discussion or relevant evidence to support a theory. CT'ers don't
need to run, they produce their evidentiary side.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 16, 4:32=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <78a6346c-3dbd-4d0d-98bc-477fb28fb...@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 4:01=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <b207978a-19e2-464e-a7f2-f0982b736...@f29g2000yqa.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidence term
>> >> >purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
>> >> >defintion I gave in evidence and what is appropo for this newsgroup.
>>
>> >> >> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>urt
>> >> >> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>>
>> >> >> Nor can you, stupid.
>>
>> >> >Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>>
>d
>>
>> >> Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>>
>> >Of course not, avoiding ad hominem, there isn't a trial.
>>
>> "Court of law" evidence would ordinarily be evidence submitted to court.
>>
>> >It's someone
>> >using research and evidence to come to a conclusion that anyone in
>> >this forum would hope to be in a court of law deciding it's
>> >worthiness.
>>
>> So I can claim whatever I want to be "Court of law evidence".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >You must either go to the evidence
>al
>> >> >> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be of=
>f. =3D
>> >=3D3DA0 Is
>> >> >> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence and t=
>he
>> >> >> >> >correctness of evidence? =3D3DA0 Now, please, stop playing run =
>and h=3D
>> >ide
>> >> >> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO to
>> >> >> >> >CE-139.
>>
>ide=3D
>> >nce, d=3D3D
>> >> >> >oes
>> >> >> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >> >> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>>
>> >> >> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>>
>> >> >Yep,
>>
>> >> End of story.
>>
>> >would be using it, or someone that would be using it incorrectly.
>>
>> Cite, and show how it's different from the definition of the term.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Rather unworthy to cite a definition of evidence and be on the wrong
>> >side of it's evaluation, don't you think?
>>
>> >> >just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
>> >> >or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>>
>> >> >> >It's not bona fide, and will not
>> >> >> >be acceptable as bona fide if it were contested by a court of law.
>>
>aim=3D
>> > that it
>> >> >> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other simil=
>ar =3D
>> >claims.
>>
>> >> >Yes it does,
>>
>> >> You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the term th=
>at
>> >> requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or =
>any=3D
>> > other
>> >> similar claims.
>>
>> >Being admissable in a court of law requires that it be scrutinized.
>> >that a LNT'er takes, which you do, then you will be called on it.
>>
>y
>> proven.
>>
>> >> Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turns out =
>to =3D
>> >be
>> >> fabricated or lies.
>>
>> >And so do people in these forums.
>>
>> So you admit it. Good for you!
>>
>> >They put for evidence that is
>> >debated and deemed unworthy, like your stance on LHO being the owner
>> >not hide behind words of dictionaries on evidence.
>>
>> Tell that to John Armstrong.
>>
>urd=3D
>> >er, may
>> >> I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evidence th=
>at =3D
>> >turns
>> >> out to be less than accurate.
>>
>> >weigh evidence here.
>>
>> And yet, there's "evidence" to weigh. It doesn't have to be proven correc=
>t
>> before it's called "evidence".
>>
>> John Armstrong clearly recognizes that.
>>
>> >> >if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
>> >> >compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>>
>s
>> >> >on evidence.
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>> >with some future gems like evidence is a LNT'ers best friend, won't
>> >you?
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Evidence has *NEVER* been the friend to LNT'ers.
>>
>discussion or relevant evidence to support a theory. CT'ers don't
>need to run, they produce their evidentiary side.
>
>CJ
Indeed, they don't. So why not explain why your good buddy refuses to define his
terms, or produce evidence to support his positions? Or explain why you
contradict the clear words of John Armstrong, yet refuse to label him a liar...
even though he holds the same position that I do.
Or, you could simply run again...
Ben Holmes
Repost... dead silence from the kook...
Ben Holmes
Repost... the kook couldn't respond...
In article <f58e4968-7789-4169...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 11, 1:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9c912787-6e06-43d0-828b-ba6f2ea23...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>(snip old stuff)
>
>> >> >> >> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which came =
>wit=3D
>> >h a
>> >> >> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So what is your point?
>>
>> >> >> >> >MY point is this, LHO did NOT own any 40" Carcano (I believe he=
> ow=3D
>> >ned
>> >> >> >> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ordere=
>d a=3D
>> > 36=3D3D
>> >> >"
>> >> >> >> >Carbine.
>>
>> >> >> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an MC i=
>s
>> >> >> >> denied by you, eh?
>>
>> >> >> >So we have gone from CE-139 to "a" Carcano to NOW ANY Carcano by B=
>en!=3D
>> >!
>> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions=
> & =3D
>> >claims.
>>
>> >> >YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. =3DA0The FACT is the evidence=
> the
>> >> >WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
>>
>> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & =
>claims.
>>
>> >YOU claimed LHO OWNED CE-139 Ben, why are YOU running from supporting
>> >that claim?
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>
>Parroting and running from YOUR own claims is noted by the lurkers
>Ben. They see YOU make claims and can't back them up. They also see
>YOU are afraid of the evidence in this case because YOU said there was
>evidence showing LHO owned CE-139 yet you RUN FROM LISTING IT!
Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
Stop whining and accept it.
>=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
>CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
Yep... still untrue.
>> >> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-1=
>39,
>> >> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3D3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, but i=
>t has
>> >> >> >remained the same.
>>
>> >> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Osw=
>ald
>> >> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>>
>> >> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
>> >> >the shells on a board. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
>ed
>> >> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FO=
>R
>> >> >US!
>>
>> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> >> everyone else does.
>>
>> >YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
>> >yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
>> >YOU! How come liar?
>>
>> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> everyone else does.
>
>YOU claimed it existed, so WHY IS MY DEFINITION IMPORTANT OR
>RELEVANT?? IF you think there is evidence, and YOU do, then list it.
Why can't you define the term What is it about dictionaries that frightens you
so much? Were you beaten as a child with a Webster's?
>The lurkers see YOUR cowardice for what it really is Ben, DISHONESTY.
Nah... many lurkers *know* that I'm simply telling the truth, and lurkers
unfamiliar with the evidence can learn it on their own.
For me to be "dishonest," there'd have to be *NO* evidence.
>> >Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
>> >evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! =A0Since
>> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>>
>> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>
>Why CAN'T YOU LIST THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??
Because I have no idea what you're asking for.
>Why do you have to make up silly games IF you are telling the truth?
Why are you so afraid to be specific?
>> >> >So you run and make claims that I have NOT cited when YOU made the
>> >> >claim! =3DA0Here is one example again!
>>
>> >> >=3D3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous call=
>er to=3D
>> >ld
>> >> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop=
>.
>> >> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
>> >> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
>> >> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
>> >> >showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named
>> >> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
>> >> >remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not*
>> >> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drilling o=
>f
>> >> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
>> >> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
>> >> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
>> >> >referenced ***Oswald's MC.*** The question that this incident clearly
>> >> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D3D94 (B=
>en
>> >> >Holmes=3D3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>>
>> >> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>>
>> >> Yep... JFK really *did* die on 11/22/63 - and none of your whining is
>> >> going to change that fact.
>>
>> >But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
>>
>> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
>
>LOL!! HE says JFK never lived and I'm the kook! LOL!! ALL LNers like
>Ben use "transference" to save themselves!
And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
<snipped>
Ben Holmes
Repost... another post that the kook refuses to respond to.
In article <32eaaa70-10ac-42eb...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 12, 9:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9514bd87-1b5c-4a4e-8a32-0bf40f38f...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>(snip old stuff)
>
>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> But since no-one knows what *YOU* define evidence as, it c=
>ann=3D
>> >ot =3D3D
>> >> >be =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >pro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >duced.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YOUR =
>cla=3D
>> >im!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation & q=
>uot=3D
>> >es.
>>
>> >> >> >> >YOU lie about doing this,
>>
>> >> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
>> >> >> >> >say the M-C found in the TSBD was "Oswald's rifle", but to date=
> yo=3D
>> >u
>> >> >> >> >have offered NO evdience.
>>
>> >> >> >> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>>
>> >> >> >Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
>>
>> >> >> Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
>>
>> >> >NO you lie as YOU said there was evidence showing LHO owned CE-139,
>>
>> >> There is. Based on the ordinary meaning of the word.
>>
>> >Then list it!
>>
>> Nope. I only deal in evidence.
>
>LOL!! YOU don't deal in evidence as YOU never cite any!
>
>> When you can cite for the meaning of the term - a cite I can accept,
>> then I'll be happy to list the evidence.
>
>This is the most lame excuse you have ever used. YOU are pathetic and
>everyone sees this. YOU said there is evidence, so all you have to do
>is cite it. I have NOTHING to do with this Ben.
Then we won't see *YOU* asking in the future for information you refuse to
specify, right?
>> >List what YOU call evidence. This is a pathetic game
>> >Ben.
>>
>> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>
>Nah, YOU're simply too much of a liar and WC shill to cite it as YOU
>know it does NOT show what YOU claim!
Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>> >> >and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
>> >> >what evidence is!
>>
>> >> You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of =
>the=3D
>> > term.
>> >> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things t=
>o d=3D
>> >o than
>> >> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>>
>> >ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
>> >evidence. =A0We see Ben is a LNer for sure.
>>
>> >So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
>>
>> I rather doubt if there's very many lurkers that don't realize that
>> you're a kook.
>
>> >> >IF you don't know what it is,
>>
>> >> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>>
>> >Then cite the evidence YOU claim exists. =A0What do I have to do with
>> >YOUR claim?
>>
>> Until you can ask me for what *everyone* other than you considers
>> evidence, then I have no reason to provide it.
>
>YOU said the WC's evidence is OFFICIAL AND DEFINITIVE,
Nope. No such comment was ever made by me.
>thus citing has
>NOTHING to do with me Ben. Why are you sooooo afraid to cite YOUR own
>evidence?
Cite *what*?
>> When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word *THAT YOU'RE
>> WILLING TO ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list
>> the evidence that Oswald owned CE-139.
>
>This is really pathetic. A LNer like Ben is AFRAID TO CITE WC
>EVIDENCE! The LNers have hit rock bottom!
Still no cite.
>> You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.
>
>> >> >why did YOU say there
>> >> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>>
>> >> I said it because it's true.
>>
>> >Then cite it. =A0But the coward won't.
>>
>> I'd be happy to cite the evidence.
>
>> >> >=3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
>ed
>> >> >CE-139.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> Yep... still untrue.
>>
>> >Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
>>
>> Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.
>
>*MY* understanding has NO bearing or relevance on this Ben,
So you're asking for something you don't understand?
>the WC
>gave us evidence and you said some of it shows LHO owned CE-139. NOW
>all you have to do is cite this part of it.
>
>But you won't because YOU are a liar.
So what does not being able to cite for your kooky definition of the word
"evidence" make you?
>> >> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>>
>> >> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
>> >> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>>
>> >> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note th=
>at =3D
>> >you
>> >> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>>
>> >I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
>> >YOUR claims all the time?
>>
>> If you weren't such a kook, and I thought it were a worthwhile project, one
>> could easily compile a list of claims you've made.
>
>Go ahead and I'm sure we would see YOU ORIGINATED THE CLAIM!
Feel free to locate where *I* claimed that the Death Certificate said anything
at all about "high-velocity" bullet to the head.
But you can't. You *ORIGINATED* that claim - one that was a lie.
>YOU
>think when someone challenges you on YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND UNPROVEN
>CLAIM that is a NEW claim!
>
>YOU are a distoter and a liar.
Can you cite for it?
>> >> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
>> >> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on her=
>e
>> >> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =3D3DA0YOU said you like t=
>o edu=3D
>> >cate
>> >> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" t=
>o
>> >> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>>
>> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as th=
>ey
>> >> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>>
>> >> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
>> >> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>>
>> >> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>>
>> >The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
>>
>> Cite *WHAT*???
>
>Still running, huh?? Still no cite....
Cite *WHAT*???
>> You use the word "evidence", but you don't mean what everyone else means =
>when
>> *THEY* say the word.
>
>> So what is it that you want me to cite?
>
>> >> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
>> >> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>>
>> >> You see?!
>>
>> >List what you claim is the evidence.
>>
>> 1. "Evidence"
>> 2. "More Evidence"
>> 3. "Additional Evidence"
>> 4. And last, but not least: "Evidence".
>
>WHERE IS YOUR WC EVIDENCE BEN??
There it was, directly above. I've defined the word "evidence" to mean the word
"evidence", and "WC" evidence is the same as "Chunky Peanut Butter" evidence.
It's all "evidence"
Of course, if you ask me to cite for it, I'll be as completely unable to as you
have.
>> And according to *MY* redefinition of what the term "evidence" means, I'm
>> perfectly correct.
>
>> >Why are you playing games liar
>> >if YOU speak the truth?
>>
>> >(snip old stuff)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You made the counter-claim, and as usual, you refuse to cite.
>>
>> >> >> >> >LOL!! Please explain to this guy that a counter claim does NOT
>> >> >> >> >constitute a NEW claim when the first claim was NEVER PROVEN!
>>
>> >> >> >> Still no cite.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >But YOU said he was in Mexico City due to OVERWHELMING ev=
>ide=3D
>> >nce=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >remember! =3D3D3D3D3DA0Why did they send the real LHO and=
> an i=3D
>> >mpost=3D3D
>> >> >er????
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One=
> do=3D
>> >es =3D3D
>> >> >not
>> >> >> >> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Still NO explanation, just more running.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >> >> >This reminds me of this comment BY YOU!
>>
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D3D93I could say what others have said in addressing them=
>, but=3D
>> > I'm =3D3D
>> >> >sure
>> >> >> >> >you'll just ignore it as you have everyone else.=3D3D3D3D94 (Jo=
>hnBL)
>>
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D3D93That's a common refrain heard many times... 'Others =
>have =3D
>> >alrea=3D3D
>> >> >dy
>> >> >> >> >answered this'. Yet for some strange reason, no LNT'er ever *ci=
>tes=3D
>> >*
>> >> >> >> >these previous discussions.=3D3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D3D3D972/=
>1/06)
>>
>> >> >> >> >Why can't YOU cite this previous time?
>>
>> >> >> >> You've already quoted it, so you clearly have it in your folder =
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > great
>> >> >> >> truths told by myself...
>>
>> >> >> >I quoted your comment about LHO going and being impersonated, but =
>I
>> >> >> >can't quote you telling us why BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE!
>>
>> >> >> Yep. I also said he was impersonated while down there. One does not
>> >> >> preclude the other.
>>
>> >> >Why Ben?? Why do you RUN from telling us why the real LHO went when
>> >> >they were going to IMPERSONATE HIM TOO!
>>
>> >> It's questions like this that illustrate your lack of intelligence.
>>
>> >> Your question presumes that Oswald was only following directions.
>>
>> >What else does a low level intelligence agent do? =A0IF you are claiming
>> >he went to Mexico on his own free will you need to start citing for
>> >this.
>>
>> >But he won't.
>>
>> Give us a cite for your claim.
>
>> >> >> Proved it, too.
>>
>> >> >> >> ****************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>> >> >*
>> >> >> >> Tis simple... he went to Mexico. The evidence is quite overwhelm=
>ing=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> >> He was *also* impersonated there. (Ben Holmes 1/28/09)
>>
>> >> >Yes, but he will never tell us why the real LHO had to go so they
>> >> >could IMPERSONATE him too!
>>
>> >> He didn't "have" to go. Why can't you stick to the known historical fa=
>cts?
>>
>> >IF he did NOT have to go, why did he go then??? =A0Why did they
>> >impersonate him when he went according to you?
>>
>> You don't *have* to post here. Why do you post here? Why is a perverted k=
>ook
>> impersonating you so well that no-one can tell who's who?
>
>> >> >> >> ****************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>> >> >*
>>
>> >> >> >> Stupid, aren't you? I *TOLD* you this before.
>>
>> >> >> >No crap Sherlock, my question was WHY was he sent IF they were goi=
>ng
>> >> >> >to impersonate him too! =3D3DA0Why not just use an imposter and sa=
>ve th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >trouble?? YOU have NEVER answered this question to date. =3D3DA0YO=
>U run=3D
>> > from
>> >> >> >it as usual.
>>
>> >> >> How could someone have "sent" him, stupid? He wasn't the chosen "pa=
>tsy=3D
>> >"...
>> >> >> according to your flawed theory.
>>
>> >> >YOU like to lie about other poeoples' words, don't you sicko?? =3DA0I
>> >> >believe he never went, but IF he was sent, and I doubt it, it could
>> >> >have been for any number of reasons. =3DA0YOU are the one that claims
>> >> >every move he made for months (maybe years) tie him to the JFK murder=
>,
>> >> >not me.
>>
>> >> >Why order him to go if they were going to impersonate him too Ben?
>>
>> >> Who said he was "ordered?"
>>
>> >Explain why else he allegedly went then.
>>
>> Why can't you answer the question? It was a simple one. Who said he was
>> "ordered?"
>
>> >> >Why can't YOU answer ANY QUESTIONS??
>>
>> >> When are you going to stop molesting children?
>>
>> My guess is that Robsie's answer is "never".
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <5e5faa10-dde1-4953-94d4-e68b63480...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Run Satanist, run!
> >> >I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
> >> >DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
>
> >> Feel free to define it.
>
> >Feel free to cite the EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS! YOUR cowardly
> >behavior is noted for all to see.
>
> Don't worry stupid... I'm sure that everyone is noticing that you continue to
> refuse to define what *you* call "evidence".
WHY ARE YOU BLAMING ME FOR WHY YOU CAN'T CITE SATANIST?
YOUR question is addressed to CJ and I don't answer CJ paranoia stuff.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <3be931c9-b8f7-4190-a8f0-3b0011c3c...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Or explain why he won't cite evidence he claims exists?? Or why he
edits out my questions about his Satanic rituals?
> Or, you could simply run again...
YOU're the sick runner Ben.
curtjester1
> In article <3be931c9-b8f7-4190-a8f0-3b0011c3c...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Because we know what evidence is and what is needed to support it
here. Still trying to find out why CE-139 and CE-399 are hard to
support by evidence without getting hung up on the word evidence?
> contradict the clear words of John Armstrong, yet refuse to label him a liar...
> even though he holds the same position that I do.
>
You could use the same thing for any author, or hide from it more
clearly, as you're doing. CT authors generally give many views,
especially WC or LNT views, then use 'better evidence' to make their
points. Why can't you?
> Or, you could simply run again...
>
We don't run, we confront. Still trying to support the theory that
LHO fired shots from CE-139 using his CE-399 ammo?
CJ
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com
> Repost... dead silence from the kook...
>
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 12, 6:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <38b03e3d-79a5-4d22-bf20-6f195427b...@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >(snip old stuff)
>
> >>>> >CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence that
> >> >> >shows LHO owned CE-139!
>
> >> >> CJ had no problem citing for the meaning of the term. Why do you have =
> >suc=3D
> >> >h a
> >> >> hard time defining your use of the language?
>
> >> >CJ has NOTHING to do with this Ben.
>
> >(snip CJ paranoia stuff)
>
> >> >YOU understand the defintion of
> >> >the word, according to you, and YOU said there is evidence.
>
> >> According to the dictionary meaning of the word, there *IS* evidence.
> >> You've lied.
>
> >LOL!! He can't list any evidence so it is my fault!!
>
> I can't list any *what*?
Evidence Ben, YOU said it exists, yet you won't cite it. NOW that is
a coward!
> You use the same word, but it doesn't mean the same thing.
Why does that matter liar?? YOU said it exists so cite what you claim
is evidence. ONLY LNers use this pathetic tactic and you have shown
us you are a LNer.
> >LOL!! Why can't
> >YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists???
>
> I can cite EVIDENCE that I "claim" exists...
Yet you don't, how come?
> But there's no reason to cite what
> *YOU* call "evidence". You refuse to cite for the term.
YOU would be citing what YOU call evidence Ben. I would have NOTHING
to do with it. YOUR tactic is pathetic, but what else can you expect
from a LNer?
> >What are you AFRAID OF COWARD?
>
> That's a simple question you should be asking yourself. Why are you so afraid of
> the dictionary?
LOL!! The dictionary is NOT the topic, YOUR claim that evidence exists
showing LHO owned CE-139 is!
Why are you such a coward?
> >> >Yet we
> >> >see you are TOO COWARDLY to list it for us, how come?
>
> >> List what?
>
> >The evidence YOU say exists.
>
> Oh, I can list what *EVERYONE ELSE* defines as "evidence".
Then go ahead, that is what I have been asking for. But you won't
because you are a liar and a coward.
> I'm still waiting for you to define the word that *YOU* are dishonestly using.
Of course you are as all liars and cowards use this tactic.
> >> You can't explain what you want me to list.
>
> >The evidence YOU claim exists.
>
> You're rather thick-headed, aren't you?
YOU claim there is evidence and YET YOU won't cite it. YOU seem to be
the one that is "thick-headed", NOT me.
> You use the word "evidence", but it's not the same thing as when everyone else
> uses the term.
What does my usuage have to do with this when YOU SAID THERE IS
EVIDENCE?
Why are you so cowardly?
> So explain to me just what you want me to list.
What YOU CLAIM exists! Why do you play such sad games?
> >I have NOTHING to do with this Ben and
> >the lurkers see this! YOU have repeatedly said there is evidence
> >showing LHO owned CE-139 so you have claimed there is evidence. NOW
> >backed into a corner he wants to BLAME ME when he said it exists and
> >can't cite it!
>
> I'll be *HAPPY* to cite the evidence... you see, it *DOES* exist.
Then cite it, why all the games?
> But whatever *YOU* mean by "evidence", who knows whether it exists or not? You
> refuse to define it.
I have NOTHING to do with this, YOU just said again it does exists so
CITE IT! But the coward won't.
> >YOU think there is evidence, so cite it for the lurkers.
>
> Any lurkers dieing to know can email me.
LOL! HOW pathetic is this???? LOL!!
> >> >> >=3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
> >ed
> >> >> >CE-139.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>
> >> >> >=3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/4/10)
>
> >> >> Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that LHO=
> > ow=3D
> >> >ned
> >> >> C-139.
>
> >> >He says it again, but he won't list it!
>
> >> List *WHAT*, moron?
>
> >THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS. Cite it for us. But he won't as he
> >NEVER cites evidence when he claims it exists.
>
> >He's a liar. Still no cite....
DEAD SILENCE.
> >> >> >This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! =3DA0Why can't he list it
> >> >> >then??
>
> >> >> I *do* understand what evidence is.
>
> >> >> I use it in the same way that most people do
>
> >> >Then why can't YOU list it for us?
>
> >> List *WHAT*, kook?
>
> >Denial won't save you Ben. IF you had any credibility left, and I
> >don't see how you could, you have used it up here. YOU clearly think
> >there is evidence showing LHO owned CE-139, yet you are TOO AFRAID TO
> >CITE IT!
>
> >Still no cite....
>
> I can't cite what I don't know you're asking for.
I have NOTHING to do with this as YOU said there is evidence and YOU
did NOT ask for my opinion BEFORE YOU SAID THAT!
> I can only cite for what *I've* asserted exists.
Go ahead then, cite it!
> >> >> - but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitable
> >> >> meaning to the term...
>
> >> >YOU are employing the favorite trick of LNers...you are blaming the
> >> >other person for why YOU can't cite!
>
> >> You virtually never cite for anything... rather hypocritical of you, isn'=
> >t it?
>
> >Changing the topic won't save you Ben. YOU claimed evidence existed
> >and NOW you refuse to cite it.
>
> >Still no cite...
>
> You mean "citing" isn't the topic???
Still no cite...
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Still no cite....
> So tell us kook, why do you virtually never cite for anything?
Still no cite...
> Why do you refuse
> to cite for your wacky re-definition of the term "evidence?"
Still no cite....
> >> >> you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
> >> >> facts are quite different.
>
> >> >The facts are exactly as I say
>
> >> Uncited.
>
> >The ONLY one NOT citing it is YOU and the lurkers see this clearly.
>
> >Cat got your balls?
>
> Still uncited.
YOU have still NOT cited it...good of you to admit it.
> >> >and the lurkers are getting a taste of
> >> >this here as you run from listing the evidence you claim exists.
>
> >> Listing *what*?
>
> >Still no cite...
>
> Yep... and there won't be until you describe what it is you want me to cite.
What YOU claimed existed. Why all the games Ben?
> >> >> So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - ther=
> >e's no
> >> >> reason to provide you with "evidence".
>
> >> >YOU are a coward and a LNer. =A0ONLY LNers use this tactic. =A0Real CTer=
> >s
> >> >don't have to.
>
> >> Kook, aren't you?
>
> >Still no cite....he is in full run mode as he KNOWS HE LIED WHEN HE
> >SAID LHO OWNED CE-139!
>
> Evidence exists.
Sure it does, that is WHY YOU CAN'T CITE IT!
Still no cite...
> >> >> >He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
> >> >> >save himself. =3DA0Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won't li=
> >st
> >> >> >it. =3DA0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
>
> >> >> There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide the
> >> >> evidence...
>
> >> >YOU can't provide it!
>
> >> Provide *what*, kook?
>
> >Still no cite...
>
> Still no cite...
Still no cite....
> >> >> even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
> >> >> word "evidence".
>
> >> >I do,
>
> >> No Robsie, you provably do not.
>
> >What does MY definition of evidence have to do WITH YOU TOTAL
> >INABILITY TO CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??? YOUR silly games
> >are seen for what they are liar.
>
> You use the same word, but you don't mean the same thing when you use it.
YOU said it existed, you never consulted with me, so why bring me up
now?
Liar and coward, aren't you?
Still no cite....
> >> You insist on defining it in a manner that is
> >> inconsistent with it's real meaning, and you can't cite for a definition.
>
> >YOU said evidence exists,
>
> Indeed, using the normal citable definition of the word, evidence *does* exists
> that shows that Oswald owned CE-139. That's merely a fact of history.
Then cite it coward! But he won't.
> Whether "evidence", in your meaning of the word, exists or not is unknown,
> because you refuse to define it. And from what little we've seen of your
> understanding of the word, it's drastically different from the normal dictionary
> meaning.
YOUR silly game is seen for what it really is, YOUR lie that LHO owned
CE-139!
YOU are a WC shill and this proves it!
Still no cite....
> >and yet you won't list it because I will
> >show it is NOT evidence SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM!
>
> Can't be done.
Then cite it. But he won't.
Still no cite...
> >That is why he is
> >afraid to list it as it will show what a liar he is. Of course his
> >utter refusal to even cite it is showing this too!
>
> >IF the Prosecution took Ben's view they would NEVER present ANY
> >evidence because those dasterdly defense guys WON'T AGREE WITH IT!
>
> No stupid, the court would never allow it in - in the first place - because it
> wouldn't be "evidence" (that is, under *your* evident definition of the word)
Run Ben, run! YOU have to lie about our most basic laws to make your
points...
Still no cites...
> >> >but I am NOT a liar who claims there is a LINK to a rifle there
> >> >is NO link to. =A0The WC's evidence does NOT link LHO to CE-139, ONLY a
> >> >lying WC shill would claim so.
>
> >> And yet, there *IS* evidence supporting this - despite your whining and l=
> >ies.
>
> >Still no cite though, how come liar?
Still no cite....
> >I guess I can use this excuse to him in the future too, huh?? YOU
> >don't agree with me so why cite it since you don't agree with me!
> >LOL!!
>
> >Ben is a cheap con man who can't defend his own words!
>
> Still no cite though, how come liar?
I would bet because YOU are a liar and a coward is WHY YOU have NOT
cited anything!
robcap...@netscape.com
> Repost... the kook couldn't respond...
>
YOU said it exists, and yet YOU won't cite it. Coward, aren't you?
> >=93YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
> >CE-139.=94 (Robert)
>
> >=93Untrue.=94 (Ben Holmes=972/4/10)
>
> Yep... still untrue.
Yet you can't cite anything that shows it is untrue, huh?
Liar, aren't you?
> >> >> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned CE-1=
> >39,
> >> >> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3D3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, but i=
> >t has
> >> >> >> >remained the same.
>
> >> >> >> My historically correct statement that there *IS* evidence that Osw=
> >ald
> >> >> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>
> >> >> >YOU are NOTHING but a cheap con man who yells while he moves around
> >> >> >the shells on a board. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
> >ed
> >> >> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING FO=
> >R
> >> >> >US!
>
> >> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
> >> >> everyone else does.
>
> >> >YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
> >> >yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
> >> >YOU! How come liar?
>
> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
> >> everyone else does.
>
> >YOU claimed it existed, so WHY IS MY DEFINITION IMPORTANT OR
> >RELEVANT?? IF you think there is evidence, and YOU do, then list it.
>
> Why can't you define the term
My definition is not relevant, you said all of the WC's stuff is
evidence so simply cite it. But he won't because he is a liar and a
coward.
> What is it about dictionaries that frightens you
> so much? Were you beaten as a child with a Webster's?
YOU seem to be the one that can't live his life without consulting a
dictionary every two minutes. Why can't YOU support your claim with
cites???
> >The lurkers see YOUR cowardice for what it really is Ben, DISHONESTY.
>
> Nah... many lurkers *know* that I'm simply telling the truth, and lurkers
> unfamiliar with the evidence can learn it on their own.
More lies won't save you Ben. IF you thought what you type you would
have cited it already.
> For me to be "dishonest," there'd have to be *NO* evidence.
Obviously there is NONE as you have CITED NONE!
> >> >Since I am "so different" according to you in terms of how I view
> >> >evidence it ONLY makes it words for you NOT to list anything! =A0Since
> >> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>
> >> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>
> >Why CAN'T YOU LIST THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??
>
> Because I have no idea what you're asking for.
What you said exists. Just how dense are you?
Still no cite...
> >Why do you have to make up silly games IF you are telling the truth?
>
> Why are you so afraid to be specific?
YOU were the one that claimed it existed, so you must know what *IT*
is, right?
Still no cite....
LOL!! Why would I try to "refute" the ravings of a lunatic like you?
> <snipped>
“My! The trolls are in full retreat! John flatly refuses to even try
anymore, and other LNT'ers take his lead.” (Ben Holmes—1/28/10)
robcap...@netscape.com
> Repost... another post that the kook refuses to respond to.
Why bother really?? He claims evidence exists but he won't cite it. He
is in full retreat mode.
> In article <32eaaa70-10ac-42eb-80a1-5055cbafd...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
Dead silence.
> >> When you can cite for the meaning of the term - a cite I can accept,
> >> then I'll be happy to list the evidence.
>
> >This is the most lame excuse you have ever used. YOU are pathetic and
> >everyone sees this. YOU said there is evidence, so all you have to do
> >is cite it. I have NOTHING to do with this Ben.
>
> Then we won't see *YOU* asking in the future for information you refuse to
> specify, right?
So sad to see someone serve the dark side like this. He lost his way
a long time ago I'm sure.
> >> >List what YOU call evidence. This is a pathetic game
> >> >Ben.
>
> >> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>
> >Nah, YOU're simply too much of a liar and WC shill to cite it as YOU
> >know it does NOT show what YOU claim!
>
> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
Parroting shows you are a liar.
> >> >> >and to date all we get is a PATHETIC game by you to make me define
> >> >> >what evidence is!
>
> >> >> You've demonstrated that you don't hold the ordinary understanding of =
> >the=3D
> >> > term.
> >> >> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better things t=
> >o d=3D
> >> >o than
> >> >> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>
> >> >ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
> >> >evidence. =A0We see Ben is a LNer for sure.
>
> >> >So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
>
> >> I rather doubt if there's very many lurkers that don't realize that
> >> you're a kook.
>
> >> >> >IF you don't know what it is,
>
> >> >> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>
> >> >Then cite the evidence YOU claim exists. =A0What do I have to do with
> >> >YOUR claim?
>
> >> Until you can ask me for what *everyone* other than you considers
> >> evidence, then I have no reason to provide it.
>
> >YOU said the WC's evidence is OFFICIAL AND DEFINITIVE,
>
> Nope. No such comment was ever made by me.
What is this?
“One has DEFINITIVE evidence - an inventory sheet, the other is
subjective.” (Ben Holmes)
“Please! Ben is saying the WC's "evidence" is "DEFINITIVE" folks,
remember that one! All the major points are hardly subjective in terms
of the photos, they are quite clear they are fakes. Nice try at
dodging the main points you CAN'T discuss.” (Robert)
I knew he would lie about this one at some point.
> >thus citing has
> >NOTHING to do with me Ben. Why are you sooooo afraid to cite YOUR own
> >evidence?
>
> Cite *what*?
Still no cite...
> >> When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word *THAT YOU'RE
> >> WILLING TO ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list
> >> the evidence that Oswald owned CE-139.
>
> >This is really pathetic. A LNer like Ben is AFRAID TO CITE WC
> >EVIDENCE! The LNers have hit rock bottom!
>
> Still no cite.
Ben still refuses to support his claim with a cite...
> >> You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.
>
> >> >> >why did YOU say there
> >> >> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>
> >> >> I said it because it's true.
>
> >> >Then cite it. =A0But the coward won't.
>
> >> I'd be happy to cite the evidence.
>
> >> >> >=3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO ever own=
> >ed
> >> >> >CE-139.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>
> >> >> >=3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D972/4/10)
>
> >> >> Yep... still untrue.
>
> >> >Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
>
> >> Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.
>
> >*MY* understanding has NO bearing or relevance on this Ben,
>
> So you're asking for something you don't understand?
I'm asking for something YOU claimed existed liar.
> >the WC
> >gave us evidence and you said some of it shows LHO owned CE-139. NOW
> >all you have to do is cite this part of it.
>
> >But you won't because YOU are a liar.
>
> So what does not being able to cite for your kooky definition of the word
> "evidence" make you?
YOU said it exists and made NO mention of my "definition" until it was
time to cite it! YOU are a liar and we all know it.
Thanks for proving it yet again!
> >> >> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>
> >> >> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
> >> >> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>
> >> >> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note th=
> >at =3D
> >> >you
> >> >> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>
> >> >I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
> >> >YOUR claims all the time?
>
> >> If you weren't such a kook, and I thought it were a worthwhile project, one
> >> could easily compile a list of claims you've made.
>
> >Go ahead and I'm sure we would see YOU ORIGINATED THE CLAIM!
>
> Feel free to locate where *I* claimed that the Death Certificate said anything
> at all about "high-velocity" bullet to the head.
NO you said it listed a musket ball.
> But you can't. You *ORIGINATED* that claim - one that was a lie.
Too bad you never proved it was a lie, huh?
> >YOU
> >think when someone challenges you on YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND UNPROVEN
> >CLAIM that is a NEW claim!
>
> >YOU are a distoter and a liar.
>
> Can you cite for it?
We KNOW YOU CAN'T!
> >> >> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
> >> >> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on her=
> >e
> >> >> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =3D3DA0YOU said you like t=
> >o edu=3D
> >> >cate
> >> >> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board" t=
> >o
> >> >> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my fault!
>
> >> >> >> >LOL!!
>
> >> >> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as th=
> >ey
> >> >> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>
> >> >> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
> >> >> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>
> >> >> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>
> >> >The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
>
> >> Cite *WHAT*???
>
> >Still running, huh?? Still no cite....
>
> Cite *WHAT*???
Still no cite despite words like these!
“Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that
LHO owned C-139.” (Ben Holmes—2/12/10)
> >> You use the word "evidence", but you don't mean what everyone else means =
> >when
> >> *THEY* say the word.
>
> >> So what is it that you want me to cite?
>
> >> >> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
> >> >> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>
> >> >> You see?!
>
> >> >List what you claim is the evidence.
>
> >> 1. "Evidence"
> >> 2. "More Evidence"
> >> 3. "Additional Evidence"
> >> 4. And last, but not least: "Evidence".
>
> >WHERE IS YOUR WC EVIDENCE BEN??
>
> There it was, directly above. I've defined the word "evidence" to mean the word
> "evidence", and "WC" evidence is the same as "Chunky Peanut Butter" evidence.
> It's all "evidence"
Yet you CAN'T CITE IT FOR US, how come?
> Of course, if you ask me to cite for it, I'll be as completely unable to as you
> have.
Still no cite...
(snip old stuff)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 17, 10:02=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <5e5faa10-dde1-4953-94d4-e68b63480...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 3:57=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <18b7d720-d45d-4cf3-80df-8da847a3d...@i39g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D>> >> >> >YOU are the ONE lacking ANY courage Ben! =3D3DA0YOU said there is =
>evidn=3D
>> >ece
>> >> >> >showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon, but all you have done=
> is
>> >> >> >RUN from citing it!
>>
>> >> >> Cite *what*, Robsie?
>>
>u t=3D
>> >hink is
>> >> >> slightly presumptuous to demand that someone else cite?
>>
>e tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >Oswald owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is
>>
>> >> >> >Too bad I found this quote, huh?
>>
>> >> >> Why is it "too bad"?
>>
>> >> >It shows what YOU call evidence!
>>
>> >> How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
>>
>> >Why can't YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists?? YOU are running and
>> >everyone sees this liar.
>>
>> >Coward, aren't you?
>>
>> How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
How does stating that there *IS* evidence define the term "evidence"?
>> >> >I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
>> >> >DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
>>
>> >> Feel free to define it.
>>
>> >Feel free to cite the EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS! =A0YOUR cowardly
>> >behavior is noted for all to see.
>>
>> Don't worry stupid... I'm sure that everyone is noticing that you
>> continue to refuse to define what *you* call "evidence".
Don't worry stupid... I'm sure that everyone is noticing that you continue to
refuse to define what *you* call "evidence".
>> >> >> It's still perfectly accurate.
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93Then explain the photo of Oswald holding a rifle. Nor hav=
>e I *=3D
>> >EVER*
>> >> >> >claimed that there's "proof", only that there's evidence. ***The B=
>Y
>> >> >> >photo is clearly evidence to support Oswald owning a rifle.***=3D3=
>D3D94=3D
>> > (Ben
>> >> >> >Holmes=3D3D3D9712/21/09)
>>
>> >> >> Yep... still a perfectly true statement - one that you cannot refut=
>e.
>>
>> >> >> >This is why HE lies about CE-133A being GENUINE so he can us this
>> >> >> >photo as a CATCH-ALL for his lies! =3D3DA0NONE of the BY photos ha=
>ve ev=3D
>> >er
>> >> >> >been shown to be real! =3D3DA0They have too many issues with them!
>>
>> >(Snip CJ paranoia stuff)
>>
>> >> >> >> Don't you just hate it when I use your own references against yo=
>u?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >that LHO killed JFK with a high powered
>> >> >> >> >> >> >weapon and missile, which I believe has no widespread fra=
>gme=3D
>> >nti=3D3D
>> >> >ng
>> >> >> >> >> >> >power, and assign the murder of JFK leaving out high powe=
>red=3D
>> > we=3D3D
>> >> >apo=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ns
>> >> >> >> >> >> >from a GK area that would more than likely have the snowb=
>all
>> >> >> >> >> >> >fragmentation effect that was found in JFK's head region?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> I wonder why Robsie refuses to label Armstrong a liar?
>>
>> =A0I wonder why Robsie is running from this question?
>
>YOUR question is addressed to CJ and I don't answer CJ paranoia stuff.
I wonder why Robsie is running from the question addressed to him?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 17, 10:18=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3be931c9-b8f7-4190-a8f0-3b0011c3c...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 4:32=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <78a6346c-3dbd-4d0d-98bc-477fb28fb...@w31g2000yqk.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <b207978a-19e2-464e-a7f2-f0982b736...@f29g2000yqa.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidence t=
>erm
>> >> >> >purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
>p.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
> co=3D
>> >urt
>> >> >> >> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>>
>> >> >> >> Nor can you, stupid.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>>
>bad=3D
>> >d
>>
>> >> >> Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>>
>> >> >Of course not, avoiding ad hominem, there isn't a trial.
>>
>t.
>>
>> >> >It's someone
>> >> >using research and evidence to come to a conclusion that anyone in
>> >> >this forum would hope to be in a court of law deciding it's
>> >> >worthiness.
>>
>> >> So I can claim whatever I want to be "Court of law evidence".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >You must either go to the evidence
>ner=3D
>> >al
>> >> >> >> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be=
> of=3D
>> >f. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D3DA0 Is
>> >> >> >> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence an=
>d t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> >> >> >correctness of evidence? =3D3D3DA0 Now, please, stop playing=
> run =3D
>> >and h=3D3D
>> >> >ide
>> >> >> >> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO =
>to
>> >> >> >> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good"=
> ev=3D
>> >ide=3D3D
>> >> >nce, d=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >oes
>> >> >> >> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >> >> >> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>>
>> >> >> >Yep,
>>
>> >> >> End of story.
>>
>T'er
>> >> >would be using it, or someone that would be using it incorrectly.
>>
>> >> Cite, and show how it's different from the definition of the term.
>>
>> >> >Rather unworthy to cite a definition of evidence and be on the wrong
>> >> >side of it's evaluation, don't you think?
>>
>> >> >> >just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
>> >> >> >or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>>
>> >> >> >> >It's not bona fide, and will not
>aw.
>>
>> >> >> >>It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no=
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> > that it
>> >> >> >> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other si=
>mil=3D
>> >ar =3D3D
>> >> >claims.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes it does,
>>
>> >> >> You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the term=
> th=3D
>> >at
>> >> >> requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, =
>or =3D
>> >any=3D3D
>> >> > other
>> >> >> similar claims.
>>
>> >> >Being admissable in a court of law requires that it be scrutinized.
>ence
>> >> >that a LNT'er takes, which you do, then you will be called on it.
>>
>ngl=3D
>> >y
>> >> proven.
>>
>> >> >> Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turns o=
>ut =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >be
>> >> >> fabricated or lies.
>>
>> >> >And so do people in these forums.
>>
>> >> So you admit it. Good for you!
>>
>> >> >They put for evidence that is
>> >> >debated and deemed unworthy, like your stance on LHO being the owner
>e it,
>> >> >not hide behind words of dictionaries on evidence.
>>
>> >> Tell that to John Armstrong.
>>
>e m=3D
>> >urd=3D3D
>> >> >er, may
>> >> >> I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evidence=
> th=3D
>> >at =3D3D
>> >> >turns
>> >> >> out to be less than accurate.
>>
>=3DA0We
>> >> >weigh evidence here.
>>
>> >> And yet, there's "evidence" to weigh. It doesn't have to be proven cor=
>rec=3D
>> >t
>> >> before it's called "evidence".
>>
>> >> John Armstrong clearly recognizes that.
>>
>> >> >> >if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
>> >> >> >compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>>
>ing=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >on evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>e up
>> >> >with some future gems like evidence is a LNT'ers best friend, won't
>> >> >you?
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Evidence has *NEVER* been the friend to LNT'ers.
>>
>> >Still running circles with a definition without participating in a
>> >need to run, they produce their evidentiary side.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>ine his
>> terms, or produce evidence to support his positions? Or explain why you
>iar...
>> even though he holds the same position that I do.
>
>Or explain why he won't cite evidence he claims exists??
Cite *what*?
You keep asking me to cite, but you won't define what it is you want me to cite.
>> Or, you could simply run again...
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 17, 10:18=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3be931c9-b8f7-4190-a8f0-3b0011c3c...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >On Feb 16, 4:32=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <78a6346c-3dbd-4d0d-98bc-477fb28fb...@w31g2000yqk.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <b207978a-19e2-464e-a7f2-f0982b736...@f29g2000yqa.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidence t=
>erm
>> >> >> >purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of law
>p.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
> co=3D
>> >urt
>> >> >> >> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>>
>> >> >> >> Nor can you, stupid.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>>
>bad=3D
>> >d
>>
>> >> >> Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>>
>> >> >Of course not, avoiding ad hominem, there isn't a trial.
>>
>t.
>>
>> >> >It's someone
>> >> >using research and evidence to come to a conclusion that anyone in
>> >> >this forum would hope to be in a court of law deciding it's
>> >> >worthiness.
>>
>> >> So I can claim whatever I want to be "Court of law evidence".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >You must either go to the evidence
>ner=3D
>> >al
>> >> >> >> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to be=
> of=3D
>> >f. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D3DA0 Is
>> >> >> >> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence an=
>d t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> >> >> >correctness of evidence? =3D3D3DA0 Now, please, stop playing=
> run =3D
>> >and h=3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties LHO =
>to
>> >> >> >> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "good"=
> ev=3D
>> >ide=3D3D
>> >> >nce, d=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >> >> >> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >> So you admit that there's evidence. Just as John Armstrong does.
>>
>> >> >> >Yep,
>>
>> >> >> End of story.
>>
>T'er
>> >> >would be using it, or someone that would be using it incorrectly.
>>
>> >> Cite, and show how it's different from the definition of the term.
>>
>> >> >Rather unworthy to cite a definition of evidence and be on the wrong
>> >> >side of it's evaluation, don't you think?
>>
>> >> >> >just as I admit your a kook, and use Armstrong for distancing LHO
>> >> >> >or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>>
>> >> >> >> >It's not bona fide, and will not
>aw.
>>
>> >> >> >>It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes no=
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> > that it
>> >> >> >> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other si=
>mil=3D
>> >ar =3D3D
>> >> >claims.
>>
>> >> >> >Yes it does,
>>
>> >> >> You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the term=
> th=3D
>> >at
>> >> >> requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, =
>or =3D
>> >any=3D3D
>> >> > other
>> >> >> similar claims.
>>
>> >> >Being admissable in a court of law requires that it be scrutinized.
>ence
>> >> >that a LNT'er takes, which you do, then you will be called on it.
>>
>ngl=3D
>> >y
>> >> proven.
>>
>> >> >> Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turns o=
>ut =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >> fabricated or lies.
>>
>> >> >And so do people in these forums.
>>
>> >> So you admit it. Good for you!
>>
>> >> >They put for evidence that is
>> >> >debated and deemed unworthy, like your stance on LHO being the owner
>> >> >not hide behind words of dictionaries on evidence.
>>
>> >> Tell that to John Armstrong.
>>
>e m=3D
>> >urd=3D3D
>> >> >er, may
>> >> >> I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evidence=
> th=3D
>> >at =3D3D
>> >> >turns
>> >> >> out to be less than accurate.
>>
>=3DA0We
>> >> >weigh evidence here.
>>
>> >> And yet, there's "evidence" to weigh. It doesn't have to be proven cor=
>rec=3D
>> >t
>> >> before it's called "evidence".
>>
>> >> John Armstrong clearly recognizes that.
>>
>> >> >> >if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
>> >> >> >compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>>
>ing=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >on evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>e up
>> >> >with some future gems like evidence is a LNT'ers best friend, won't
>> >> >you?
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Evidence has *NEVER* been the friend to LNT'ers.
>>
>> >Still running circles with a definition without participating in a
>> >need to run, they produce their evidentiary side.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>ine his
>> terms, or produce evidence to support his positions? Or explain why you
>
>Because we know what evidence is
No stupid, we *DON'T*.
Merely using the same word, when it's crystal clear that the same meaning is
*NOT MEANT* - demonstrates that we *DON'T* know what "evidence" is.
>and what is needed to support it
>here. Still trying to find out why CE-139 and CE-399 are hard to
>support by evidence without getting hung up on the word evidence?
Who's "hung up?" Robsie refuses to define it. No need for me to spend any time
at all posting evidence when Robsie will then turn around and assert that I've
provided no evidence.
He's done it repeatedly before, and I feel no need to continue doing so.
>> contradict the clear words of John Armstrong, yet refuse to label
>> him a liar... even though he holds the same position that I do.
>>
>You could use the same thing for any author, or hide from it more
>clearly, as you're doing. CT authors generally give many views,
>especially WC or LNT views, then use 'better evidence' to make their
>points. Why can't you?
Evaded, didn't you?
You assert that I'm wrong when I state that there's evidence to this point, yet
you *REFUSE* to do the same to a favorite author of yours.
That's hypocritical, and demonstrates how you treat the evidence in this case.
>> Or, you could simply run again...
>>
>We don't run, we confront.
So tell us about John Armstrong... why is he lying about there being any
evidence to tie CE-139 to Oswald?
>Still trying to support the theory that
>LHO fired shots from CE-139 using his CE-399 ammo?
Is this your theory?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 17, 10:21=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Repost... dead silence from the kook...
>>
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 6:52=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <38b03e3d-79a5-4d22-bf20-6f195427b...@d37g2000yqa.googlegro=
>ups=3D>> >>>> >CJ, don't fall for his PATHETIC game. HE said there is evidence tha=
>t
>> >> >> >shows LHO owned CE-139!
>>
>ve =3D
>> >suc=3D3D
>> >> >h a
>> >> >> hard time defining your use of the language?
>>
>> >> >CJ has NOTHING to do with this Ben.
>>
>> >(snip CJ paranoia stuff)
>>
>> >> >YOU understand the defintion of
>> >> >the word, according to you, and YOU said there is evidence.
>>
>> >> According to the dictionary meaning of the word, there *IS* evidence.
>> >> You've lied.
>>
>> >LOL!! He can't list any evidence so it is my fault!!
>>
>> I can't list any *what*?
>
>Evidence Ben, YOU said it exists, yet you won't cite it. NOW that is
>a coward!
What's the meaning of the word "evidence", as you use it?
>> You use the same word, but it doesn't mean the same thing.
>
>Why does that matter liar??
In a nutshell, there it is.
>> >LOL!! Why can't
>> >YOU cite the evidence YOU claim exists???
>>
>> I can cite EVIDENCE that I "claim" exists...
>
>Yet you don't, how come?
Because you'll simply deny that I've cited evidence, as you've repeatedly done
in the past.
Now, why are you so afraid to cite the meaning of a word?
>> But there's no reason to cite what
>> *YOU* call "evidence". You refuse to cite for the term.
>
>YOU would be citing what YOU call evidence Ben. I would have NOTHING
>to do with it. YOUR tactic is pathetic, but what else can you expect
>from a LNer?
You have *everything* to do with it... it's your request.
>> >What are you AFRAID OF COWARD?
>>
>> That's a simple question you should be asking yourself. Why are you
>> so afraid of the dictionary?
>
>LOL!! The dictionary is NOT the topic, YOUR claim that evidence exists
>showing LHO owned CE-139 is!
>
>Why are you such a coward?
That's a simple question you should be asking yourself. Why are you so afraid of
the dictionary?
>> >> >Yet we
>> >> >see you are TOO COWARDLY to list it for us, how come?
>>
>> >> List what?
>>
>> >The evidence YOU say exists.
>>
>> Oh, I can list what *EVERYONE ELSE* defines as "evidence".
Even "CJ" can do so - since it's listed in the pages surrounding pg 480 that I
cited.
>> I'm still waiting for you to define the word that *YOU* are dishonestly
>> using.
And still waiting...
>> >> You can't explain what you want me to list.
>>
>> >The evidence YOU claim exists.
>>
>> You're rather thick-headed, aren't you?
>
>YOU claim there is evidence and YET YOU won't cite it. YOU seem to be
>the one that is "thick-headed", NOT me.
Why does a simple cite scare you so much?
>> You use the word "evidence", but it's not the same thing as when everyone
>> else uses the term.
>
>What does my usuage have to do with this when YOU SAID THERE IS
>EVIDENCE?
There is. There *PROVABLY* is.
>Why are you so cowardly?
A question you should ask yourself.
>> So explain to me just what you want me to list.
>
>What YOU CLAIM exists! Why do you play such sad games?
Nope... it's not a "claim". It's simple historical fact. Many CT authors accept
this fact. John Armstrong for one.
>> >I have NOTHING to do with this Ben and
>> >the lurkers see this! YOU have repeatedly said there is evidence
>> >showing LHO owned CE-139 so you have claimed there is evidence. NOW
>> >backed into a corner he wants to BLAME ME when he said it exists and
>> >can't cite it!
>>
>> I'll be *HAPPY* to cite the evidence... you see, it *DOES* exist.
>
>Then cite it, why all the games?
Already gave one cite. John Armstrong... pg 480, as I recall.
>> But whatever *YOU* mean by "evidence", who knows whether it exists or not?
>> You refuse to define it.
>
>I have NOTHING to do with this, YOU just said again it does exists so
>CITE IT! But the coward won't.
You're asking. You have *everything* to do with it. You need to pay the price
for your assertions.
>> >YOU think there is evidence, so cite it for the lurkers.
>>
>> Any lurkers dieing to know can email me.
>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3D3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO e=
>ver own=3D
>>> >ed
>> >> >> >CE-139.=3D3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> >> Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that =
>LHO=3D
>> > ow=3D3D
>> >> >ned
>> >> >> C-139.
>>
>> >> >He says it again, but he won't list it!
>>
>> >> List *WHAT*, moron?
>>
>> >THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS. Cite it for us. But he won't as he
>> >NEVER cites evidence when he claims it exists.
>>
>> >He's a liar. Still no cite....
List *WHAT*, moron?
>> >> >> >This means HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT EVIDENCE IS! =3D3DA0Why can't he li=
>st it
>> >> >> >then??
>>
>> >> >> I *do* understand what evidence is.
>>
>> >> >> I use it in the same way that most people do
>>
>> >> >Then why can't YOU list it for us?
>>
>> >> List *WHAT*, kook?
>>
>> >Denial won't save you Ben. IF you had any credibility left, and I
>> >don't see how you could, you have used it up here. YOU clearly think
>> >there is evidence showing LHO owned CE-139, yet you are TOO AFRAID TO
>> >CITE IT!
>>
>> >Still no cite....
>>
>> I can't cite what I don't know you're asking for.
>
>I have NOTHING to do with this as YOU said there is evidence and YOU
>did NOT ask for my opinion BEFORE YOU SAID THAT!
We've played this game before... remember Mexico? Where you continued to assert
that I lied, and had provided *no* evidence?
This time, you'll define the term, and the evidence I cite will conform to that
definition.
>> I can only cite for what *I've* asserted exists.
>
>Go ahead then, cite it!
I know what it is. If *you* want to know, you'll have to specify what it is you
want to know.
>> >> >> - but you've consistently given a completely different, and uncitab=
>le
>> >> >> meaning to the term...
>>
>> >> >YOU are employing the favorite trick of LNers...you are blaming the
>> >> >other person for why YOU can't cite!
>>
>> >> You virtually never cite for anything... rather hypocritical of you, i=
>sn'=3D
>> >t it?
>>
>> >Changing the topic won't save you Ben. YOU claimed evidence existed
>> >and NOW you refuse to cite it.
>>
>> >Still no cite...
>>
>> You mean "citing" isn't the topic???
>
>Still no cite...
You mean "citing" isn't the topic???
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>Still no cite....
Took the words right out of my mouth...
>> So tell us kook, why do you virtually never cite for anything?
>
>Still no cite...
Yep... still no cite...
>> Why do you refuse
>> to cite for your wacky re-definition of the term "evidence?"
>
>Still no cite....
You should know, you've not provided it.
>> >> >> you've frequently asserted that I've provided no evidence, when the
>> >> >> facts are quite different.
>>
>> >> >The facts are exactly as I say
>>
>> >> Uncited.
>>
>> >The ONLY one NOT citing it is YOU and the lurkers see this clearly.
>>
>> >Cat got your balls?
>>
>> Still uncited.
And *STILL* uncited.
>> >> >and the lurkers are getting a taste of
>> >> >this here as you run from listing the evidence you claim exists.
>>
>> >> Listing *what*?
>>
>> >Still no cite...
>>
>> Yep... and there won't be until you describe what it is you want me to cite.
>
>What YOU claimed existed. Why all the games Ben?
Still no cite.
>> >> >> So until you define the term in a way that *YOU* will adhere to - t=
>her=3D
>> >e's no
>> >> >> reason to provide you with "evidence".
>>
>> >> >YOU are a coward and a LNer. =3DA0ONLY LNers use this tactic. =3DA0Re=
>al CTer=3D
>> >s
>> >> >don't have to.
>>
>> >> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>> >Still no cite....he is in full run mode as he KNOWS HE LIED WHEN HE
>> >SAID LHO OWNED CE-139!
>>
>> Evidence exists.
>
>Sure it does, that is WHY YOU CAN'T CITE IT!
Oh, but I can. Indeed, I've already given one cite to "CJ".
Still no cite...
>> >> >> >He is RUNNING from his lie and NOW is using a "dictionary game" to
>> >> >> >save himself. =3D3DA0Lurkers--he cliamed there is evidence and won=
>'t li=3D
>> >st
>> >> >> >it. =3D3DA0That tells us all we need to know about his claim!
>>
>> >> >> There isn't any frequent poster to this forum that cannot provide t=
>he
>> >> >> evidence...
>>
>> >> >YOU can't provide it!
>>
>> >> Provide *what*, kook?
>>
>> >Still no cite...
>>
>> Still no cite...
Still no cite....
>> >> >> even *you* could were you honest and understood the meaning of the
>> >> >> word "evidence".
>>
>> >> >I do,
>>
>> >> No Robsie, you provably do not.
>>
>> >What does MY definition of evidence have to do WITH YOU TOTAL
>> >INABILITY TO CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??? YOUR silly games
>> >are seen for what they are liar.
>>
>> You use the same word, but you don't mean the same thing when you use it.
>
>YOU said it existed, you never consulted with me, so why bring me up
>now?
Because you've played this game before. Remember Mexico City?
>> >> You insist on defining it in a manner that is
>> >> inconsistent with it's real meaning, and you can't cite for a definiti=
>on.
>>
>> >YOU said evidence exists,
>>
>> Indeed, using the normal citable definition of the word, evidence *does* =
>exists
>> that shows that Oswald owned CE-139. That's merely a fact of history.
>
>Then cite it coward! But he won't.
Already have.
>> Whether "evidence", in your meaning of the word, exists or not is unknown=
>,
>> because you refuse to define it. And from what little we've seen of your
>> understanding of the word, it's drastically different from the normal dic=
>tionary
>> meaning.
>
>> >and yet you won't list it because I will
>> >show it is NOT evidence SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM!
>>
>> Can't be done.
>
>> >That is why he is
>> >afraid to list it as it will show what a liar he is. Of course his
>> >utter refusal to even cite it is showing this too!
>>
>> >IF the Prosecution took Ben's view they would NEVER present ANY
>> >evidence because those dasterdly defense guys WON'T AGREE WITH IT!
>>
>> No stupid, the court would never allow it in - in the first place - becau=
>se it
>> wouldn't be "evidence" (that is, under *your* evident definition of the w=
>ord)
>
>> >> >but I am NOT a liar who claims there is a LINK to a rifle there
>> >> >is NO link to. =3DA0The WC's evidence does NOT link LHO to CE-139, ON=
>LY a
>> >> >lying WC shill would claim so.
>>
>> >> And yet, there *IS* evidence supporting this - despite your whining an=
>d l=3D
>> >ies.
>>
>> >Still no cite though, how come liar?
>
>> >I guess I can use this excuse to him in the future too, huh?? YOU
>> >don't agree with me so why cite it since you don't agree with me!
>> >LOL!!
>>
>> >Ben is a cheap con man who can't defend his own words!
>>
>> Still no cite though, how come liar?
curtjester1
> In article <2ed26d8d-5f5f-417f-a5a9-569683867...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
you don't cite for it in issues.
> >and what is needed to support it
> >here. Still trying to find out why CE-139 and CE-399 are hard to
> >support by evidence without getting hung up on the word evidence?
>
> Who's "hung up?" Robsie refuses to define it. No need for me to spend any time
> at all posting evidence when Robsie will then turn around and assert that I've
> provided no evidence.
>
There is a need for you to post evidence. It's called credibility and
has nothing to do with personality.
> He's done it repeatedly before, and I feel no need to continue doing so.
>
> >> contradict the clear words of John Armstrong, yet refuse to label
> >> him a liar... even though he holds the same position that I do.
>
> >You could use the same thing for any author, or hide from it more
> >clearly, as you're doing. CT authors generally give many views,
> >especially WC or LNT views, then use 'better evidence' to make their
> >points. Why can't you?
>
> Evaded, didn't you?
>
I cited about an issue. You evade issues, especially like CE-139 and
CE-399 by not citing for them. Instead you hide behind the word
evidence, so you can still 'evade'. You evade, by claiming issues are
not important until definitions are. Silly for this newgroup. Sounds
like a youngster trying to argue with his Mom.
> You assert that I'm wrong when I state that there's evidence to this point, yet
> you *REFUSE* to do the same to a favorite author of yours.
>
We are not interested in what evidence you or other LNT'ers spout,
we're interested in the truth, and are willing to debate with cites to
support evidence in issues, like CE-139 and CE-399.
> That's hypocritical, and demonstrates how you treat the evidence in this case.
>
It's hypocritical that you will dodge and hide behind the word
evidence and not participate to support your assertions about an issue
of evidence.
> >> Or, you could simply run again...
>
> >We don't run, we confront.
>
> So tell us about John Armstrong... why is he lying about there being any
> evidence to tie CE-139 to Oswald?
>
He's not lying, he's supporting an issue. There is an missile in the
President's head by the evidence of X-ray. Do you espouse LNTism
because of this evidence?
> >Still trying to support the theory that
> >LHO fired shots from CE-139 using his CE-399 ammo?
>
> Is this your theory?
>
No, it's your unsupportive one. Am I right or wrong?
CJ
> >CJ
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 17, 10:22=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Repost... the kook couldn't respond...
>>
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 11, 1:57=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9c912787-6e06-43d0-828b-ba6f2ea23...@b2g2000yqi.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D>> >> >> >> >> >> Well if it could not have referenced Oswald's MC (which ca=
>me =3D
>> >wit=3D3D
>> >> >h a
>> >> >> >> >> >> scope mounted), then it wasn't Oswald, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> So what is your point?
>>
> he=3D
>> > ow=3D3D
>> >> >ned
>> >> >> >> >> >none) as the evidence the WC gave us shows he would have ord=
>ere=3D
>> >d a=3D3D
>> >> > 36=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >"
>> >> >> >> >> >Carbine.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So your claim that there's no evidence that Oswald owned an M=
>C i=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >> >> denied by you, eh?
>>
>y B=3D
>> >en!=3D3D
>> >> >!
>> >> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> >> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited asserti=
>ons=3D
>> > & =3D3D
>> >> >claims.
>>
>> >> >> >YOU made the UNSUPPORTED CLAIM, NOT me. =3D3DA0The FACT is the evi=
>dence=3D
>> > the
>> >> >> >WC gave us DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM YOU MADE!
>>
> & =3D
>> >claims.
>>
>> >> >that claim?
>>
>claims.
>>
>> >Parroting and running from YOUR own claims is noted by the lurkers
>> >Ben. They see YOU make claims and can't back them up. They also see
>> >YOU are afraid of the evidence in this case because YOU said there was
>> >evidence showing LHO owned CE-139 yet you RUN FROM LISTING IT!
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I'm not required to accept *YOUR* un-cited assertions & claims.
>> Stop whining and accept it.
>
>> >CE-139.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >=3D93Untrue.=3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D972/4/10)
>>
>> Yep... still untrue.
>
>> >> >> >> >MY claim was that there is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned C=
>E-1=3D
>> >39,
>> >> >> >> >it has NOT changed Ben. =3D3D3DA0YOU keep trying to change it, =
>but i=3D
>> >t has
>> >> >> >> >remained the same.
>>
>Osw=3D
>> >ald
>> >> >> >> owned an MC with the serial number of C2766 is irrefutable.
>>
>d
>> >> >> >the shells on a board. =3D3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO eve=
>r own=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >> >C2766 and you know it, that is WHY YOU ARE AFRAID TO LIST ANYTHING=
> FO=3D
>> >R
>> >> >> >US!
>>
>> >> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> >> >> everyone else does.
>>
>> >> >YOU claim LHO OWNED CE-139 and that there is evidence showing this,
>> >> >yet here we are weeks into this debate and we see NO evidence from
>> >> >YOU! How come liar?
>>
>> >> Then it's quite clear that you don't define "evidence" the same way
>> >> everyone else does.
>>
>> >YOU claimed it existed, so WHY IS MY DEFINITION IMPORTANT OR
>> >RELEVANT?? IF you think there is evidence, and YOU do, then list it.
>>
>> Why can't you define the term
>
>> so much? Were you beaten as a child with a Webster's?
>
>>
>> Nah... many lurkers *know* that I'm simply telling the truth, and lurkers
>> unfamiliar with the evidence can learn it on their own.
>
>
>
>nce
>> >> >you argue that MOST SEE IT "YOUR" WAY, why won't you list it then?
>>
>> >> Why can't you list a definition of the term "evidence?"
>>
>> >Why CAN'T YOU LIST THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS??
>>
>> Because I have no idea what you're asking for.
>
>
>>
>> Why are you so afraid to be specific?
>
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D9342. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous=
> call=3D
>> >er to=3D3D
>> >> >ld
>> >> >> >the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports S=
>hop=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> >Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, =
>nor
>> >> >> >did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called.
>> >> >> >However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork
>ed
>> >> >> >"Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one (sic)
>ot*
>> >> >> >have been ***Oswald's rifle***... the ticket specified the drillin=
>g o=3D
>> >f
>> >> >> >*three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two*
>> >> >> >holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there
>> >> >> >were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have
>rly
>> >> >> >raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO?=3D3D3D=
>94 (B=3D
>> >en
>> >> >> >Holmes=3D3D3D972/5/10, Question 42)
>>
>> >> >> >Notice all the "Oswald's rifle" comments.
>>
>is
>> >> >> going to change that fact.
>>
>> >> >But YOU said he NEVER LIVED, RIGHT?
>>
>> >> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
>>
>> >LOL!! HE says JFK never lived and I'm the kook! LOL!! ALL LNers like
>> >Ben use "transference" to save themselves!
>>
>> And since you've never refuted that statement, you're a kook!!
<snipped>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Feb 17, 10:23=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Repost... another post that the kook refuses to respond to.
>
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 9:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9514bd87-1b5c-4a4e-8a32-0bf40f38f...@d27g2000yqf.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >(snip old stuff)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Certainly I can produce evidence.
>>
>t c=3D
>> >ann=3D3D
>> >> >ot =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >be =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >pro=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >duced.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Tsk, tsk, blaming me for YOUR utter failure to support YO=
>UR =3D
>> >cla=3D3D
>> >> >im!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Nah... I support my assertions all the time with citation =
>& q=3D
>> >uot=3D3D
>> >> >es.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >YOU lie about doing this,
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >but we see with this claim YOU don't. YOU
>ate=3D
>> > yo=3D3D
>> >> >u
>> >> >> >> >> >have offered NO evdience.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> What's the definition of "evidence", moron?
>>
>> >> >> >> >Why are YOU worried about MY definition??
>>
>> >> >> >> Because based on the standard definition, you lie.
>>
>,
>>
>> >> >> There is. Based on the ordinary meaning of the word.
>>
>> >> >Then list it!
>>
>> >> Nope. I only deal in evidence.
>>
>> >LOL!! YOU don't deal in evidence as YOU never cite any!
>
>> >> then I'll be happy to list the evidence.
>>
>> >This is the most lame excuse you have ever used. YOU are pathetic and
>> >everyone sees this. YOU said there is evidence, so all you have to do
>> >is cite it. I have NOTHING to do with this Ben.
>>
>> Then we won't see *YOU* asking in the future for information you refuse to
>> specify, right?
>
>> >> >Ben.
>>
>> >> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>>
>> >Nah, YOU're simply too much of a liar and WC shill to cite it as YOU
>> >know it does NOT show what YOU claim!
>>
>> Nah, you're simply too stupid to understand, that's all.
>
>> >> >> >what evidence is!
>>
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > term.
>> >> >> Until you can cite for the meaning of the word, I have better thing=
>s t=3D
>> >o d=3D3D
>> >> >o than
>> >> >> providing you with something you refuse to accept.
>>
>> >> >ONLY LNers blame the other person for their FAILURE to cite the
>>
>> >> >So much for "educating" the lurkers, huh?
>>
>> >> I rather doubt if there's very many lurkers that don't realize that
>> >> you're a kook.
>>
>> >> >> >IF you don't know what it is,
>>
>> >> >> I *do* know what "evidence" means... I've cited for it.
>>
>th
>> >> >YOUR claim?
>>
>> >> Until you can ask me for what *everyone* other than you considers
>> >> evidence, then I have no reason to provide it.
>>
>> >YOU said the WC's evidence is OFFICIAL AND DEFINITIVE,
>>
>> Nope. No such comment was ever made by me.
>
>What is this?
>
>subjective.=94 (Ben Holmes)
Stating that the DPD had objective and definitive evidence vs your subjective
opinion is hardly stating anything less than perfectly obvious.
It's a long way away from what you tried to claim I said.
Lied, didn't you?
>=93Please! Ben is saying the WC's "evidence" is "DEFINITIVE" folks,
You just keep doing stupid things, Robsie. Quoting the statement that you think
supports your wacky assertions is just another one of those stupid things you do
- for it allows others to see just how kooky you are.
>remember that one! All the major points are hardly subjective in terms
>of the photos,
The inventory of Oswald's possessions has nothing to do with the BY photos.
It merely demonstrates that a watch *was* found among Oswald's possessions, as
you and Jack White lied about.
>they are quite clear they are fakes. Nice try at
>dodging the main points you CAN'T discuss.=94 (Robert)
>
>> >thus citing has
>> >NOTHING to do with me Ben. Why are you sooooo afraid to cite YOUR own
>> >evidence?
>>
>> Cite *what*?
>
>> >> When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word *THAT YOU'RE
>> >> WILLING TO ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list
>> >> the evidence that Oswald owned CE-139.
>>
>> >This is really pathetic. A LNer like Ben is AFRAID TO CITE WC
>> >EVIDENCE! The LNers have hit rock bottom!
>>
>> Still no cite.
>
>> >> You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.
>>
>> >> >> >why did YOU say there
>> >> >> >was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged murder weapon again?
>>
>> >> >> I said it because it's true.
>>
>> >> >Then cite it. =3DA0But the coward won't.
>>
>> >> I'd be happy to cite the evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93YOU are a liar. =3D3DA0There is NO evidence showing LHO e=
>ver own=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >> >CE-139.=3D3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93Untrue.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes=3D3D3D972/4/10)
>>
>> >> >> Yep... still untrue.
>>
>> >> >Yet you can't defend this claim of yours, how come?
>>
>> >> Because you don't understand what "evidence" means.
>>
>> >*MY* understanding has NO bearing or relevance on this Ben,
>>
>> So you're asking for something you don't understand?
>
>> >the WC
>> >gave us evidence and you said some of it shows LHO owned CE-139. NOW
>> >all you have to do is cite this part of it.
>>
>> >But you won't because YOU are a liar.
>>
>> So what does not being able to cite for your kooky definition of the word
>> "evidence" make you?
>
>YOU said it exists and made NO mention of my "definition" until it was
>time to cite it! YOU are a liar and we all know it.
>
>Thanks for proving it yet again!
>
>
>> >> >> >> You refuse to cite anything that would contradict you.
>>
>> >> >> >YOU refuse to simply list the evidence YOU claim exists, what does
>> >> >> >that make you?? A liar and coward is a good start.
>>
>> >> >> Don't worry moron - lurkers aren't so stupid that they fail to note=
> th=3D
>> >at =3D3D
>> >> >you
>> >> >> refuse to cite for ANYTHING.
>>
>> >> >I am NOT making any claims Ben, why do YOU try and make me cite for
>> >> >YOUR claims all the time?
>>
>> >> If you weren't such a kook, and I thought it were a worthwhile project=
>, one
>> >> could easily compile a list of claims you've made.
>>
>> >Go ahead and I'm sure we would see YOU ORIGINATED THE CLAIM!
>>
>> Feel free to locate where *I* claimed that the Death Certificate said any=
>thing
>> at all about "high-velocity" bullet to the head.
>
>> But you can't. You *ORIGINATED* that claim - one that was a lie.
>
>> >YOU
>> >think when someone challenges you on YOUR UNSUPPORTED AND UNPROVEN
>> >CLAIM that is a NEW claim!
>>
>> >YOU are a distoter and a liar.
>>
>> Can you cite for it?
>
>> >> >> >> >YOU said the VAST MAJORITY
>> >> >> >> >see it YOUR way (and this is NO surprise since the majority on =
>her=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> >are LNers) in terms of evidence, right? =3D3D3DA0YOU said you l=
>ike t=3D
>> >o edu=3D3D
>> >> >cate
>> >> >> >> >the lurkers, right? YOU like to use others as a "sounding board=
>" t=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> >> >teach the lurkers, right? NOW all of a sudden it is all my faul=
>t!
>>
>> >> >> >> >LOL!!
>>
>> >> >> >> Those who refuse to cite demonstrate an inherent dishonesty - as=
> th=3D
>> >ey
>> >> >> >> refuse to be bound by any outside authority.
>>
>> >> >> >YOU just described yourself as YOU refuse to CITE THE EVIDENCE YOU
>> >> >> >CLAIM EXISTS.
>>
>> >> >> Cite what? What is it you want me to cite?
>>
>> >> >The evidence that shows LHO owned CE-139.
>>
>> >> Cite *WHAT*???
>>
>> >Still running, huh?? Still no cite....
>>
>> Cite *WHAT*???
>
>> >> You use the word "evidence", but you don't mean what everyone else mea=
>ns =3D
>> >when
>> >> *THEY* say the word.
>>
>> >> So what is it that you want me to cite?
>>
>> >> >> >YOU do this all the time too, YOU claim there is
>> >> >> >evidence and then you run from listing it!
>>
>> >> >> You see?!
>>
>> >> >List what you claim is the evidence.
>>
>> >> 1. "Evidence"
>> >> 2. "More Evidence"
>> >> 3. "Additional Evidence"
>> >> 4. And last, but not least: "Evidence".
>>
>> >WHERE IS YOUR WC EVIDENCE BEN??
>>
>> There it was, directly above. I've defined the word "evidence" to mean th=
>e word
>> "evidence", and "WC" evidence is the same as "Chunky Peanut Butter" evide=
>nce.
>> It's all "evidence"
>
>> Of course, if you ask me to cite for it, I'll be as completely unable to =
>as you
>> have.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Feb 17, 2:49=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2ed26d8d-5f5f-417f-a5a9-569683867...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 17, 10:18=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <3be931c9-b8f7-4190-a8f0-3b0011c3c...@d27g2000yqn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <78a6346c-3dbd-4d0d-98bc-477fb28fb...@w31g2000yqk.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>ote:
>> >> >> >> In article <b207978a-19e2-464e-a7f2-f0982b736...@f29g2000yqa.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >Snipped, childish dodgings by Ben Holmes that deal with evidenc=
>e t=3D
>> >erm
>> >> >> >> >purposefully and improperly used to detract from the court of l=
>aw
>> >> >> >> >defintion I gave in evidence and what is appropo for this newsg=
>rou=3D
>> >p.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The dictionary version works fine for me.
>>
>any=3D
>> > co=3D3D
>> >> >urt
>> >> >> >> >> >of law evidence to back up your assertions?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Nor can you, stupid.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yes, I can and did, and am doing so now, again.
>>
>5ab=3D
>> >bad=3D3D
>> >> >d
>>
>> >> >> >> Not a *single* court trial mentioned in that citation.
>>
>> >> >> >Of course not, avoiding ad hominem, there isn't a trial.
>>
>our=3D
>> >t.
>>
>> >> >> >It's someone
>> >> >> >using research and evidence to come to a conclusion that anyone in
>> >> >> >this forum would hope to be in a court of law deciding it's
>> >> >> >worthiness.
>>
>> >> >> So I can claim whatever I want to be "Court of law evidence".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >You must either go to the evidence
> ge=3D
>> >ner=3D3D
>> >> >al
>> >> >> >> >> >> >sense, and not the court of law sense or you are going to=
> be=3D
>> > of=3D3D
>> >> >f. =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D3DA0 Is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >this not a discussion group about the quality of evidence=
> an=3D
>> >d t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >> >> >> >correctness of evidence? =3D3D3D3DA0 Now, please, stop pl=
>aying=3D
>> > run =3D3D
>> >> >and h=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ide
>> >> >> >> >> >> >games, and provide us with some good evidence that ties L=
>HO =3D
>> >to
>> >> >> >> >> >> >CE-139.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> If, of course, you admit that there's a possibility of "go=
>od"=3D
>> > ev=3D3D
>> >> >ide=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >nce, d=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >oes
>> >> >> >> >> >> "bad evidence" exist?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >This case is full of bad evidence.
>>
>es.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yep,
>>
>> >> >> >> End of story.
>>
> a LN=3D
>> >T'er
>> >> >> >would be using it, or someone that would be using it incorrectly.
>>
>> >> >> Cite, and show how it's different from the definition of the term.
>>
>ng
>> >> >> >side of it's evaluation, don't you think?
>>
>HO
>> >> >> >> >or anyone from being evidentiaryly attached to CE-139
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >It's not bona fide, and will not
>f l=3D
>> >aw.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>It doesn't have to be, moron. The definition of evidence makes=
> no=3D
>> > cl=3D3D
>> >> >aim=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > that it
>> >> >> >> >> must be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correct, or any other=
> si=3D
>> >mil=3D3D
>> >> >ar =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >claims.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yes it does,
>>
>> >> >> >> You're a liar, stupid. You cannot cite *any* definition of the t=
>erm=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >at
>> >> >> >> requires "evidence" to be accurate, truthful, perceptive, correc=
>t, =3D
>> >or =3D3D
>> >> >any=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > other
>> >> >> >> similar claims.
>>
>> >> >> >Being admissable in a court of law requires that it be scrutinized=
>.
>> >> >> >That's what we do here, scrutinize. =3D3DA0If you take the side of=
> evid=3D
>> >ence
>> >> >> >that a LNT'er takes, which you do, then you will be called on it.
>>
>lmi=3D
>> >ngl=3D3D
>> >> >y
>> >> >> proven.
>>
>> >> >> >> Courts across the land EVERY SINGLE DAY admit evidence that turn=
>s o=3D
>> >ut =3D3D
>> >> >to =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >be
>> >> >> >> fabricated or lies.
>>
>> >> >> >And so do people in these forums.
>>
>> >> >> So you admit it. Good for you!
>>
>> >> >> >They put for evidence that is
>er
>> >> >> >of CE-139 and using 'his' ammunition of CE-399. =3D3DA0You need to=
> prov=3D
>> >e it,
>> >> >> >not hide behind words of dictionaries on evidence.
>>
>> >> >> Tell that to John Armstrong.
>>
> th=3D
>> >e m=3D3D
>> >> >urd=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >er, may
>> >> >> >> I be sentenced now?" They *often* submit false testimony & evide=
>nce=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >at =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >turns
>> >> >> >> out to be less than accurate.
>>
>s. =3D
>> >=3D3DA0We
>> >> >> >weigh evidence here.
>>
>> >> >> And yet, there's "evidence" to weigh. It doesn't have to be proven =
>cor=3D
>> >rec=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> before it's called "evidence".
>>
>> >> >> John Armstrong clearly recognizes that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >if it is to be debate worthy or hold up in court or be in
>> >> >> >> >compliance for issue debate in this newsgroup.
>>
>ant=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >on evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> >> Kook, aren't you?
>>
>l com=3D
>> >e up
>> >> >> >with some future gems like evidence is a LNT'ers best friend, won'=
>t
>> >> >> >you?
>>
>> >> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> >> Evidence has *NEVER* been the friend to LNT'ers.
>>
>> >> >Still running circles with a definition without participating in a
>t
>> >> >need to run, they produce their evidentiary side.
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>def=3D
>> >ine his
>> >> terms, or produce evidence to support his positions? Or explain why yo=
>u
>>
>> >Because we know what evidence is
>>
>> No stupid, we *DON'T*.
>>
> is
>> *NOT MEANT* - demonstrates that we *DON'T* know what "evidence" is.
>>
>I mean We as a collective body of CT'ers. Obviously you don't because
>you don't cite for it in issues.
Then once again, you're a liar. I was the *FIRST* to cite a dictionary reference
to the meaning of "evidence". You were *SECOND*.
>> >and what is needed to support it
>> >here. =A0 Still trying to find out why CE-139 and CE-399 are hard to
>> >support by evidence without getting hung up on the word evidence?
>>
>> Who's "hung up?" Robsie refuses to define it. No need for me to spend any=
> time
>> at all posting evidence when Robsie will then turn around and assert that=
> I've
>> provided no evidence.
>>
>There is a need for you to post evidence. It's called credibility and
>has nothing to do with personality.
Yes... let's examine "credibility". You've asserted that Robsie has a typical,
if court shaded understanding of the term, yet here's an early post by you:
Referring to Mexico City:
"No, the WC said that it was unprovable, and the CIA didn't just
casually say LHO wasn't down there either. Rob doesn't want to look
at evidence, never mind the proof. Evidence could be construed as
proof, therefore if he doesn't acknowledge the evidence, then he won't
be obligated for the proof! If he wasn't down there, there would have
been no shuffling around and disinforationalizing by the CIA personnel
down there, but there was!"
Here you are stating EXACTLY what I've said, yet just recently you denied this
point of view.
Who's "credible" on the meaning of "evidence"?
>> He's done it repeatedly before, and I feel no need to continue doing so.
>>
>> >> contradict the clear words of John Armstrong, yet refuse to label
>> >> him a liar... even though he holds the same position that I do.
>>
>> >You could use the same thing for any author, or hide from it more
>> >clearly, as you're doing. =A0CT authors generally give many views,
>> >especially WC or LNT views, then use 'better evidence' to make their
>> >points. =A0Why can't you?
>>
>> Evaded, didn't you?
>>
>I cited about an issue. You evade issues,
You're continuing to evade this issue. I've stated that there's evidence, you
claim that there's not... I've cited John Armstrong SAYING THE SAME THING,
you've run from it.
Were you not a hypocrite, you'd make the same assertions toward John Armstrong
as you're making to me.
>especially like CE-139 and
>CE-399 by not citing for them. Instead you hide behind the word
>evidence, so you can still 'evade'. You evade, by claiming issues are
>not important until definitions are. Silly for this newgroup. Sounds
>like a youngster trying to argue with his Mom.
And yet, you've previously made it clear that *YOU KNOW* Robsie's silly and
wacky understanding of the term "evidence".
>> You assert that I'm wrong when I state that there's evidence to this poin=
>t, yet
>> you *REFUSE* to do the same to a favorite author of yours.
>>
>We are not interested in what evidence you or other LNT'ers spout,
Only a kook would think so.
>we're interested in the truth, and are willing to debate with cites to
>support evidence in issues, like CE-139 and CE-399.
Okay. John Armstrong is the cite I gave you... you're familiar with his book,
you can pull the precise evidence from his discussion of them.
>> That's hypocritical, and demonstrates how you treat the evidence in this =
>case.
>>
>It's hypocritical that you will dodge and hide behind the word
>evidence and not participate to support your assertions about an issue
>of evidence.
And yet, you've previously shown that *YOU* are perfectly aware of Robsie's
kooky redefinition of the term.
>> >> Or, you could simply run again...
>>
>> >We don't run, we confront.
>>
>> So tell us about John Armstrong... why is he lying about there being any
>> evidence to tie CE-139 to Oswald?
>>
>He's not lying, he's supporting an issue.
Good. Then I'm "supporting an issue", and you have nothing further you can say
to me without indicting John Armstrong as well.
>There is an missile in the
>President's head by the evidence of X-ray. Do you espouse LNTism
>because of this evidence?
What's my stance, as documented by years of posting on this topic?
>> >Still trying to support the theory that
>> >LHO fired shots from CE-139 using his CE-399 ammo?
>>
>> Is this your theory?
>>
>No, it's your unsupportive one. Am I right or wrong?
Sounds like *you're* getting dangerously close to child molesting too.
Indeed, the very fact that you can even assert such a statement with a complete
absence of any evidence whatsoever illustrates how you handle evidence... to
wit, you don't need any. You simply support your faith.
curtjester1
> >> >> Evidence has *NEVER* been the friend to LNT'ers.
>
> >> >Still running circles with a definition without participating in a
> >> >discussion or relevant evidence to support a theory. =A0CT'ers don't
> >> >need to run, they produce their evidentiary side.
>
> >> >CJ
>
> >> Indeed, they don't. So why not explain why your good buddy refuses to def=
> >ine his
> >> terms, or produce evidence to support his positions? Or explain why you
>
> >Because we know what evidence is
>
> No stupid, we *DON'T*.
>
> Merely using the same word, when it's crystal clear that the same meaning is
> *NOT MEANT* - demonstrates that we *DON'T* know what "evidence" is.
>
WE don't as a group dwelve into psychobabble. WE discuss issues and
back them up, with what ever word anyone would want to put in there.
> >and what is needed to support it
> >here. Still trying to find out why CE-139 and CE-399 are hard to
> >support by evidence without getting hung up on the word evidence?
>
> Who's "hung up?" Robsie refuses to define it. No need for me to spend any time
> at all posting evidence when Robsie will then turn around and assert that I've
> provided no evidence.
>
YOU are the hungerupee. You seem to want to psychobabble and refuse
to back up your assertions on issues like CE-139 (rifle) and CE-399
(ammo).
> He's done it repeatedly before, and I feel no need to continue doing so.
>
Wahhhhhhhhhhh...Go cry about someone else please.
> >> contradict the clear words of John Armstrong, yet refuse to label
> >> him a liar... even though he holds the same position that I do.
>
> >You could use the same thing for any author, or hide from it more
> >clearly, as you're doing. CT authors generally give many views,
> >especially WC or LNT views, then use 'better evidence' to make their
> >points. Why can't you?
>
> Evaded, didn't you?
>
Still psychobabbling without getting into an issue?
> You assert that I'm wrong when I state that there's evidence to this point, yet
> you *REFUSE* to do the same to a favorite author of yours.
>
I view him as a mere author. I even disagree with him on a few
points. If you want to ask him about his statement, why don't you?
It has nothing to do with his incredible evidentiary trail of not only
not tying the evidence to anyone, but that it was actually fabricated
in order to do so. See, evidence can mean faulty, contrived, and in
all sorts of negative ways. Are you sure he is referring to bona
fide, good, evidence?
> That's hypocritical, and demonstrates how you treat the evidence in this case.
>
You are the ONLY hypocrite here claiming a CT status. You are not
treating evidence at all, by not discussing it or backing it up.
Psychobabbling over words only demonstrates your willingness to evade
and create strawmen for attacking. Nobody is fooled.
> >> Or, you could simply run again...
>
> >We don't run, we confront.
>
> So tell us about John Armstrong... why is he lying about there being any
> evidence to tie CE-139 to Oswald?
>
Ask him. Why did he switch then, and support in length about the
fabrication of evidence that had to be illegally inserted in order to
frame a suspect?
> >Still trying to support the theory that
> >LHO fired shots from CE-139 using his CE-399 ammo?
>
> Is this your theory?
>
Oh, I believe I have answered this. I must be a little behind. Oh
well, it still is worthy for showing up a timewaster.
The only theory that can be applied for that is you. WE have in this
thread have completely taken an opposing LNT'er side, and supported no
LHO being tied to CE-139 and CE-399.
CJ
> >CJ
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <9360ace2-a609-4867-aa47-51736dc16...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
YOU think evidence exists Ben, so ALL you have to do is CITE it, but
YOU are too much of a COWARD to do so!
> >> >> >I think you NEED TO LEARN WHAT THE
> >> >> >DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE IS, NOT me or CJ!
>
> >> >> Feel free to define it.
>
> >> >Feel free to cite the EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM EXISTS! =A0YOUR cowardly
> >> >behavior is noted for all to see.
>
> >> Don't worry stupid... I'm sure that everyone is noticing that you
> >> continue to refuse to define what *you* call "evidence".
>
> Don't worry stupid... I'm sure that everyone is noticing that you continue to
> refuse to define what *you* call "evidence".
What does *MY* definition have to do with YOUR ability to cite the
evidence YOU claim exists again? Coward, aren't you?
I wonder why Ben is running from citing the evidence he claims
exists?? I wonder why he is agreeing with the WC again?