Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Caught Lying Again...
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 10:10:26 AM2/28/17
to
Ben Holmes:
>> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
David Von Pein:
> Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".
>
> Can you do that, Ben?
This is a perfect example... you see, I *DID* answer that question... but you won't find the answer on David's website, HE SIMPLY LIED BY OMISSION.
DAVID VON PEIN IS A PROVEN LIAR!
Tell us David, why did you fail to include my answer?
>> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
David Von Pein:
> Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".
>
> Can you do that, Ben?
This is a perfect example... you see, I *DID* answer that question... but you won't find the answer on David's website, HE SIMPLY LIED BY OMISSION.
DAVID VON PEIN IS A PROVEN LIAR!
Tell us David, why did you fail to include my answer?
lazu...@gmail.com
Feb 28, 2017, 11:47:35 AM2/28/17
to
David Von Pein
Feb 28, 2017, 12:07:46 PM2/28/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 1:45:01 PM2/28/17
to
If you want to run from my responses, I'll post 'em again as time permits.
And not at your demand...
Message has been deleted
David Von Pein
Feb 28, 2017, 2:23:21 PM2/28/17
to
But I can guarantee one thing --- Whatever that WC evidence is that Ben says he has cited previously does NOT "prove" what Ben thinks it "proves". THAT is a certainty. Because NOTHING that Ben cites as "proof" is really "proof" at all. Just look at the goofy way he's trweating Oswald's POSITIVE NAA cheek cast test result. He thinks a POSITIVE reaction to the ONLY TWO ITEMS being tested for indicates PROOF that Oswald didn't fire a rifle.
Talk about brazen goofiness and total denial. Ben, as usual, is displaying both.
And, btw, I noticed yesterday that Ben tried to pull this same kind of crap with Jean Davison in the summer of 2002 too. Jean correctly was pointing out to Holmes that Oswald tested POSITIVE on his NAA cheek test, but Ben argued and argued with her....just like he's doing now with me, 15 years later. Same crackpot CT argument; just a different decade.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/pASOdfOqR3w/cQ_N1CluFGcJ
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 2:40:19 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Ben Holmes:
> > > > >> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > >
> > > > > Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you do that, Ben?
> > > >
> > > > This is a perfect example... you see, I *DID* answer that question... but you won't find the answer on David's website, HE SIMPLY LIED BY OMISSION.
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN IS A PROVEN LIAR!
> > > >
> > > > Tell us David, why did you fail to include my answer?
> > >
> > > Please cite it again from the WCR or the WC's 26 volumes. I must have missed it.
> >
> > Nope. *YOU* cite the thread... and you'll see my response that *YOU DIDN'T ANSWER*.
> >
> > If you want to run from my responses, I'll post 'em again as time permits.
> >
> > And not at your demand...
>
> Okay. Whatever. I really couldn't care less. I was just giving you a chance to post it here for clarity. But, as always, Ben wants to play his little games.
No, you want to avoid the fact that you REFUSED TO ANSWER when I posted it, and then waste my time.
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:45:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:10:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Ben Holmes:
> > > > >> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > >
> > > > > Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you do that, Ben?
> > > >
> > > > This is a perfect example... you see, I *DID* answer that question... but you won't find the answer on David's website, HE SIMPLY LIED BY OMISSION.
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN IS A PROVEN LIAR!
> > > >
> > > > Tell us David, why did you fail to include my answer?
> > >
> > > Please cite it again from the WCR or the WC's 26 volumes. I must have missed it.
> >
> > Nope. *YOU* cite the thread... and you'll see my response that *YOU DIDN'T ANSWER*.
> >
> > If you want to run from my responses, I'll post 'em again as time permits.
> >
> > And not at your demand...
>
> Okay. Whatever. I really couldn't care less. I was just giving you a chance to post it here for clarity. But, as always, Ben wants to play his little games.
YOU LIED, and you know you lied. I did indeed respond, as I invariably do - and you ran, as you invariably end up doing.
Now you'll undoubtedly post my refusal to re-quote the post you ran from, while refusing to quote this.
You're quite the dishonest coward.
> But I can guarantee one thing --- Whatever that WC evidence is that Ben says he has cited previously does NOT "prove" what Ben thinks it "proves".
This is the sort of argument that only kooks make.
Real men deal with evidence, citation, and logical argument.
>THAT is a certainty. Because NOTHING that Ben cites as "proof" is really "proof" at all. Just look at the goofy way he's trweating Oswald's POSITIVE NAA cheek cast test result. He thinks a POSITIVE reaction to the ONLY TWO ITEMS being tested for indicates PROOF that Oswald didn't fire a rifle.
I've not even *started* on more advanced material related to this test - material you've NEVER mentioned. (and probably don't know.)
If you're deathly afraid of debate on this issue, why are you declaring victory?
> Talk about brazen goofiness and total denial. Ben, as usual, is displaying both.
I know you won't answer - but I find it amusing to point out your lies.
> And, btw, I noticed yesterday that Ben tried to pull this same kind of crap with Jean Davison in the summer of 2002 too. Jean correctly was pointing out to Holmes that Oswald tested POSITIVE on his NAA cheek test,
> but Ben argued and argued with her....just like he's doing now with me, 15 years later. Same crackpot CT argument; just a different decade.
Jean has run away from every debate... just as you do.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/pASOdfOqR3w/cQ_N1CluFGcJ
Lurkers - be sure to look this up - you'll find that Jean ran from me in that thread too!
And she admitted that: "Ben, I didn't say "the test was positive," I said it was "positive FOR barium and antimony."
Something that David *STILL* refuses to do.
Run David... RUN!!!
David Von Pein
Feb 28, 2017, 2:45:39 PM2/28/17
to
Something that Ben still refuses to acknowledge.
SUCH AMAZING COWARDICE!
Why the AMAZING COWARDICE, Ben?
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 2:56:33 PM2/28/17
to
Lied, didn't you?
> Something that Ben still refuses to acknowledge.
You stated that Jean said "that Oswald tested POSITIVE on his NAA cheek test"... yet Jean herself posted "I didn't say "the test was positive,"".
So yes, I acknowledge that you're lying again.
>> SUCH AMAZING COWARDICE!
>
> Why the AMAZING COWARDICE, Ben?
Message has been deleted
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 3:18:19 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:05:56 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> Care to split any more hairs, Ben? (Geez Louise.)
Words mean things... that's what words do.
You lied, and I've schooled you on what you *could* have read and understood by yourself.
I note for the record that you've not publicly acknowledged that Jean did exactly what you do - run away.
Tell us David, why do I constantly have to correct you on evidence or testimony, or even forum posts?
> BTW / FWIW....
>
> On February 27, 2017, I was looking through some of Jean Davison's old Internet forum posts and noticed the following comments that she made in 2002 while responding to something Ben Holmes said. I had not read this specific post of Jean's prior to 2/27/17, although that post is in the very same forum thread which contains Jean's comments that I cited earlier on this webpage. And I was pleased to find these words being written by Jean Davison, a person whose opinions I respect more than just about anybody else I can think of, because they are words that almost perfectly match the comments I made when arguing with various conspiracy believers about the very same subject years later:
>
> Jean's Quote:
Nope.
If you want to quote Jean, you'll have to quote my answer to Jean too.
Now tell us David, why do you keep refusing to publicly acknowledge what a "control" is in relationship to the NAA testing?
Is it ignorance or cowardice?
Words mean things... that's what words do.
You lied, and I've schooled you on what you *could* have read and understood by yourself.
I note for the record that you've not publicly acknowledged that Jean did exactly what you do - run away.
Tell us David, why do I constantly have to correct you on evidence or testimony, or even forum posts?
> BTW / FWIW....
>
> On February 27, 2017, I was looking through some of Jean Davison's old Internet forum posts and noticed the following comments that she made in 2002 while responding to something Ben Holmes said. I had not read this specific post of Jean's prior to 2/27/17, although that post is in the very same forum thread which contains Jean's comments that I cited earlier on this webpage. And I was pleased to find these words being written by Jean Davison, a person whose opinions I respect more than just about anybody else I can think of, because they are words that almost perfectly match the comments I made when arguing with various conspiracy believers about the very same subject years later:
>
> Jean's Quote:
Nope.
If you want to quote Jean, you'll have to quote my answer to Jean too.
Now tell us David, why do you keep refusing to publicly acknowledge what a "control" is in relationship to the NAA testing?
Is it ignorance or cowardice?
David Von Pein
Feb 28, 2017, 3:19:18 PM2/28/17
to
Care to split any more hairs, Ben? (Geez Louise.)
BTW / FWIW....
On February 27, 2017, I was looking through some of Jean Davison's old Internet forum posts and noticed the following comments that she made in 2002 while responding to something Ben Holmes said. I had not read this specific post of Jean's prior to 2/27/17...and I was pleased to find these words being written by Jean Davison, a person whose opinions I respect more than just about anybody else I can think of, because they are words that almost perfectly match the comments I made when arguing with various conspiracy believers about the very same subject years later:
Jean's Quote:
"For Pete's sake, Ben, I'm not arguing that the NA [Neutron Activation] test proved that Oswald fired a rifle, I'm saying that his face cast was *positive* for *barium and antimony*. The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive* for barium and antimony. The WC didn't regard this test as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither do I. I'm only saying that Weisberg may've gotten the results of these two different tests mixed up. The DPD did the traditional paraffin test and found no nitrates on Oswald's cheek cast (negative result). The FBI had an agent fire the M-C twice and also got no nitrates on the face (negative result) -- and this is what the WC reported. But when the same Oswald face cast was sent to the FBI and checked for barium and antimony the results were positive -- the two elements were THERE. What that actually *means* is another matter." -- Jean Davison; July 5, 2002
DVP's Quote:
"I'm merely pointing out to you [Sandy Larsen] that you are wrong when you utilize the word "NEGATIVE" when describing the results of Oswald's NAA/Barium/Antimony cast tests. Some of those elements WERE present on the casts. Therefore, the casts showed a POSITIVE result. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that that positive result is proof that Oswald shot JFK. In fact, in 2015, I specifically made this clear to conspiracy hobbyist Ben Holmes [when I said this:] "But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun."" -- DVP; April 25, 2016
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 3:23:20 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:19:18 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
[snipped]
Already answered above.
[snipped]
Already answered above.
Jason Burke
Feb 28, 2017, 3:27:07 PM2/28/17
to
David Von Pein
Feb 28, 2017, 3:49:35 PM2/28/17
to
So I had to fix up my revised version to make it more accurate....because, as you might know, I *hate* mistakes in my posts. (And I'd love to have an "Edit" button on these Usenet boards. Although I understand why that's not possible. But I hate not having one available, because I always find some typo later on.)
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 3:53:54 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:49:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Actually, Ben did already respond to my last post above. I deleted my original version of that post because it had a reference to something that only applies when reading that post on my website (where a version of it currently resides as well).
>
> So I had to fix up my revised version to make it more accurate....because, as you might know, I *hate* mistakes in my posts. (And I'd love to have an "Edit" button on these Usenet boards. Although I understand why that's not possible. But I hate not having one available, because I always find some typo later on.)
If you "hate" mistakes in your posts, when are you going to retract your lie about what Jean said?
>
> Actually, Ben did already respond to my last post above. I deleted my original version of that post because it had a reference to something that only applies when reading that post on my website (where a version of it currently resides as well).
>
> So I had to fix up my revised version to make it more accurate....because, as you might know, I *hate* mistakes in my posts. (And I'd love to have an "Edit" button on these Usenet boards. Although I understand why that's not possible. But I hate not having one available, because I always find some typo later on.)
David Von Pein
Feb 28, 2017, 4:45:57 PM2/28/17
to
Jean said:
"For Pete's sake, Ben, I'm not arguing that the NA test proved that Oswald fired a rifle, I'm saying that his face cast was *positive* for *barium and antimony*. The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive* for barium and antimony. The WC didn't regard this test as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither do I. .... When the same Oswald face cast was sent to the FBI and checked for barium and antimony the results were positive -- the two elements were THERE. What that actually *means* is another matter." -- Jean Davison; July 5, 2002
DVP said:
"I'm merely pointing out to you [Sandy Larsen] that you are wrong when you utilize the word "NEGATIVE" when describing the results of Oswald's NAA/Barium/Antimony cast tests. Some of those elements WERE present on the casts. Therefore, the casts showed a POSITIVE result. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that that positive result is proof that Oswald shot JFK. In fact, in 2015, I specifically made this clear to conspiracy hobbyist Ben Holmes [when I said this:] "But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun."" -- David Von Pein; April 25, 2016
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2017, 5:48:08 PM2/28/17
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:45:57 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:53:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:49:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, Ben did already respond to my last post above. I deleted my original version of that post because it had a reference to something that only applies when reading that post on my website (where a version of it currently resides as well).
> > >
> > > So I had to fix up my revised version to make it more accurate....because, as you might know, I *hate* mistakes in my posts. (And I'd love to have an "Edit" button on these Usenet boards. Although I understand why that's not possible. But I hate not having one available, because I always find some typo later on.)
> >
> > If you "hate" mistakes in your posts, when are you going to retract your lie about what Jean said?
>
> What Jean said in 2002 is precisely the same thing I have been saying to CTers in 2015, 2016, and now in 2017:
And, gutless coward that you are, you'll not post MY RESPONSE to Jean - which she ran from.
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:53:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:49:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, Ben did already respond to my last post above. I deleted my original version of that post because it had a reference to something that only applies when reading that post on my website (where a version of it currently resides as well).
> > >
> > > So I had to fix up my revised version to make it more accurate....because, as you might know, I *hate* mistakes in my posts. (And I'd love to have an "Edit" button on these Usenet boards. Although I understand why that's not possible. But I hate not having one available, because I always find some typo later on.)
> >
> > If you "hate" mistakes in your posts, when are you going to retract your lie about what Jean said?
>
> What Jean said in 2002 is precisely the same thing I have been saying to CTers in 2015, 2016, and now in 2017:
Just as *YOU* always end up running away.
You've refused to retract your lie about what Jean said...
You've refused to publicly state what a "control" is...
You've publicly refused to explain why Nicol is more credible than the FBI.
You've publicly refused to state whether I should take a paraffin test or an NAA test after I shoot you in the head with my M16A2...
The list goes on and on... you run from the very questions that would DEVASTATE your claims.
0 new messages