David Von Pein Accepts That There Was A Conspiracy!!!

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!

Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.

Say it ain't so, David!

[David Von Pein]

Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).

Good gosh, what a creep Holmes is. I can hardly believe that even Holmes, as big of a prick as we all know he is, would stoop so low. But he has.

Let's now have a look at the full quote of mine that Holmes has decided to chop up and mangle....

"Now he [Ben Holmes] demands that I cite that the NAA cheek test shows "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever! Not once. And neither did the WC or FBI agent Gallagher or anyone else connected with the Warren Commission. Just the opposite, in fact, as deceitful Holmes knows. Once again, just read Page 562 of the Warren Report for proof that the WC never maintained that the NAA tests were indicative of LHO's guilt. You'd think there would be a few CTers who just might want to give the WC a couple of bonus points for their honesty exhibited there on Page 562. But nooooo. Never would a CTer do that. Right, Ben?" -- DVP; 2/21/17

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:16:55 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).

Tut tut tut... I quoted EXACTLY.

I find it amusing that you snipped the content... so here it is again:

David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!

Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.

Say it ain't so, David!

> Good gosh, what a creep Holmes is. I can hardly believe that even &*Holmes*, as big of a prick as we all know he is, would stoopp so low. But he has.


I've quoted you EXACTLY - and you lied. Of course, ad hominem is simply an admission that you KNOW you lost...

I keep schooling you on that simple fact, and you just keep right on admitting that you've lost.

Why is that, David?

> Let's now have a look at the full quote of mine that Holmes has decided to chop up and mangle....
>

> "Now he [Ben Holmes] demands that I cite that the NAA cheek test shows "THAT OSWALD FIRED A RIFLE" WHICH IS SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER CONTENDED OR MAINTAINED--EVER! Not once. And neither did the WC or FBI agent Gallagher or anyone else connected with the Warren Commission. Just the opposite, in fact, as deceitful Holmes knows. Once again, just read Page 562 of the Warren Report for proof that the WC never maintained that the NAA tests were indicative of LHO's guilt. You'd think there would be a few CTers who just might want to give the WC a couple of bonus points for their honesty exhibited there on Page 562. But nooooo. Never would a CTer do that. Right, Ben?" -- DVP; 2/21/17

I capitalized the statement you claim I "mangled" and "changed".

Strangely enough, I quoted you EXACTLY and PRECISELY.


> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

You see? The EXACT statement I quoted in contained in your statement.

EXACTLY AS POSTED - with not a SINGLE word changed or altered.

So tell us David - why does this upset you?

You aren't proud of the statements you make?

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> >
> > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> >
> > Say it ain't so, David!
>
> Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).

He didn`t change your words like he did with me, he quoted you out of context. His quote should have been...

"...that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!"

The ellipsis lets the reader know content was omitted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:36:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > >
> > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > >
> > > Say it ain't so, David!
> >
> > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
>

> He didn`t change your words...

Then why don't you call out David for his lie?

He claimed I "changed" and "mangled" his quote.

That makes David a liar.

Why are you afraid to tell David that?

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > >
> > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > >
> > > Say it ain't so, David!
> >
> > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
>
> He didn`t change your words like he did with me, he quoted you out of context. His quote should have been...
>
> "...that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!"
>
> The ellipsis lets the reader know content was omitted.
>

Yes, you're correct, Bud. He didn't actually insert NEW words into my quote, but the end result of what he did by quoting me entirely out of context is just as bad as what he's been doing when he plays around with your quotes --- he's being deliberately deceptive and he's intentionally misleading people.

But apparently Holmes couldn't care less about how it makes him look when he utilizes such underhanded tactics. In fact, he seems kind of PROUD of himself when he does such slimy things.

Yuck! What a creep. Why do we even keep talking to him? I think I'm about done with him. How about you, Bud?

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:39:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:36:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > > >
> > > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > > >
> > > > Say it ain't so, David!
> > >
> > > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
> >
> > He didn`t change your words...
>
> Then why don't you call out David for his lie?

He was essentially right, you were being a scumbag.

[David Von Pein]

You did "mangle" the quote. Without a doubt. Even without changing any words, you mangled it badly. THAT was my point, you idiot. And you know it. (Or do you REALLY think that I don't think Oswald fired a rifle on Nov. 22? Get real.)

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > > >
> > > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > > >
> > > > Say it ain't so, David!
> > >
> > > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
> >
> > He didn`t change your words like he did with me, he quoted you out of context. His quote should have been...
> >
> > "...that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!"
> >
> > The ellipsis lets the reader know content was omitted.
> >
>
> Yes, you're correct, Bud. He didn't actually insert NEW words into my quote, but the end result of what he did by quoting me entirely out of context is just as bad as what he's been doing when he plays around with your quotes --- he's being deliberately deceptive and he's intentionally misleading people.

No doubt. Earlier he squawked about me using this...

"...I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points..."

I used the ellipsis to show that content was omitted, but I was addressing a full thought.

> But apparently Holmes couldn't care less about how it makes him look when he utilizes such underhanded tactics. In fact, he seems kind of PROUD of himself when he does such slimy things.

The self righteous always feel justified.

> Yuck! What a creep. Why do we even keep talking to him? I think I'm about done with him. How about you, Bud?

No, I don`t take him seriously. He thinks he is forcing us to face unpleasant truths but the fact is that these exchanges show more about conspiracy retards than it does about us.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:50:05 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Say it ain't so, David!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
> > >
> > > He didn`t change your words like he did with me, he quoted you out of context. His quote should have been...
> > >
> > > "...that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!"
> > >
> > > The ellipsis lets the reader know content was omitted.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you're correct, Bud. He didn't actually insert NEW words into my quote, but the end result of what he did by quoting me entirely out of context is just as bad as what he's been doing when he plays around with your quotes --- he's being deliberately deceptive and he's intentionally misleading people.
>
> No doubt. Earlier he squawked about me using this...
>
> "...I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points..."
>
> I used the ellipsis to show that content was omitted, but I was addressing a full thought.
>
> > But apparently Holmes couldn't care less about how it makes him look when he utilizes such underhanded tactics. In fact, he seems kind of PROUD of himself when he does such slimy things.
>
> The self righteous always feel justified.
>
> > Yuck! What a creep. Why do we even keep talking to him? I think I'm about done with him. How about you, Bud?
>
> No, I don`t take him seriously. He thinks he is forcing us to face unpleasant truths but the fact is that these exchanges show more about conspiracy retards than it does about us.
>

Amen.

[David Von Pein]

In addition....

We can absolutely KNOW from the title of this useless thread that Holmes' sole intent of the thread was a desire to MISLEAD PEOPLE AND TO TELL A LIE. The title tells the obvious lie that Ben wanted to convey....

"David Von Pein Accepts That There Was A Conspiracy!!!"

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:54:39 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:39:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:36:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Say it ain't so, David!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
> > >
> > > He didn`t change your words...
> >
> > Then why don't you call out David for his lie?
> >
> > He claimed I "changed" and "mangled" his quote.
> >
>
> You did "mangle" the quote.

You're lying again, David.

I changed not a SINGLE WORD.

You owe me an apology for your lies.

[Bud]

What you wrote in the header was a lie.

[David Von Pein]

Absolutely incredible. Ben totally mangles and distorts a quote of mine by chopping off some words...and yet he thinks *I* owe *HIM* an apology.

Somebody pinch me. This is too unbelievable and outrageous---even for Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:32:59 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 2:07:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:54:39 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:39:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:36:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > David Von Pein: "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, most readers of the lies and misrepresentations that David is constantly spewing online would be shocked to hear that he doesn't believe that Oswald fired a rifle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Say it ain't so, David!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, good! Holmes is doing that "scumbag" thing that Bud has been referring to for the last several days -- i.e., Ben is changing around a person's quotes again to meet his CT needs (like he's been doing with Bud's quotes for several days now).
> > > > >
> > > > > He didn`t change your words...
> > > >
> > > > Then why don't you call out David for his lie?
> > > >
> > > > He claimed I "changed" and "mangled" his quote.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You did "mangle" the quote.
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> > I changed not a SINGLE WORD.
> >
> > You owe me an apology for your lies.
>
> Absolutely incredible.

Indeed it is... that someone who claims to be "honest" can be so incredibly dishonest.

I changed not a SINGLE WORD. You owe me an apology.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You owe me an apology.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're ready for a rubber room if you truly believe that.

[David Von Pein]

Let me ask you this, Ben....

Do you think this title that you used for this worthless forum thread is an *accurate* and *truthful* statement?....

[quote on...]

David Von Pein Accepts That There Was A Conspiracy!!!

[quote off]

[Ben Holmes]

You blatantly lied and stated that I'd "changed" your words... you're a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

I supported it with the PRECISE AND EXACT WORDING FROM YOU.

You then lied and claimed I'd changed your words.

You're a proven liar, David.

It sure would be nice if you were honest enough to admit it. But that's the problem with liars, they simply aren't honest.

Such as when you lied and claimed that Guinn had tested Mannlicher Carcano shooters and come up negative 7 out of 8 times...

YOU KNOW THE TRUTH - yet you lied about it.

Why does the "truth" need a liar to support it?

Why are you lying to defend what you believe is the "truth?"

Why can't truth alone support the "truth?"

[Jason Burke]

Is Holmes *actually* retarded?

Or just really, really stupid?

[David Von Pein]

Jason,

There's something definitely wrong with Ben. One or two people at Amazon were telling me years ago (before Ben got himself banished from posting at Amazon) how they also thought Ben was mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. And after seeing his behavior in this thread (and others), I'm beginning to think those Amazon posters might be correct. This type of behavior can't possibly be "normal".

It's obvious that Ben has no shame. He'll mangle and distort people's quotes (as I proved in this thread, which he started just in order to start up a blatant LIE about me), and yet he turns around and calls ME the "liar" for pointing out his outrageous behavior and HIS lie.

I have no idea why I am still responding to that pathetic person named Ben. I really don't. I should probably go to a shrink with Ben for just reading his junk--and for wasting my time responding to it.

Maybe it's like a train wreck or a car crash on I-70 --- it's a mess, but you can't help but slow down and look at it. And Ben's a real mess alright. I've never seen anything like it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> Jason,
>
> There's something definitely wrong with Ben.

Yep... I'm an honest person in the middle of a pack of liars. Indeed, the fact that you're posting to Jason will tell lurkers all they need to know... people can indeed be judged by the company they keep.

It's amusing that critics can be very harsh indeed to other critics when they're wrong - but believers step very lightly indeed, if at all, when another believer is dead wrong.

>One or two people at Amazon were telling me years ago (before Ben got himself banished from posting at Amazon)

Dare you tell the reason why?

>how they also thought Ben was mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. And after seeing his behavior in this thread (and others), I'm beginning to think those Amazon posters might be correct. This type of behavior can't possibly be "normal".

Of course, arguments like this simply show that you understand quite well that you've lost.

I keep providing citations, evidence, and logical argument; and you keep insisting that those who do are "mentally ill."

You lied BLATANTLY about Guinn's tests, and what they showed. He was quite clearly demonstrating the poor reliability of the paraffin test in comparison to his NAA tests.

YOU COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED THAT FACT - and indeed, still refuse to publicly acknowledge it.

So you use ad hominem to replace the truth you can't face.

> It's obvious that Ben has no shame. He'll mangle and distort people's quotes (as I proved in this thread, which he started just in order to start up a blatant LIE about me), and yet he turns around and calls ME the "liar" for pointing out his outrageous behavior and HIS lie.

Indeed, I do EXACTLY what believers do - and they get outraged that anyone would dare follow their lead.

Tell us David, do *YOU* think it honest to imply that a person hasn't answered a question you've asked?

I know the reason you don't want to answer it, because the moment you do, I'm going to cite exactly where in your website you've done EXACTLY this.

Why does the "truth" need non-stop constant lies to support it?

> I have no idea why I am still responding to that pathetic person named Ben. I really don't.

Because you want to have a good feeling about your "honesty"... but it's becoming more and more difficult as I point out your lies, and you can't defend 'em.

I rather suspect that like Henry Sienzant, you'll soon refuse to respond to anything I write... which is perfectly fine. I'll continue to post your lies and prove 'em to be - you seem to think you can post lies on your websites with no consequences... I'm here to tell you that's not going to happen.

> I should probably go to a shrink with Ben for just reading his junk--and for wasting my time responding to it.

No David, you're *NOT* responding... you're reacting.

If you were *RESPONDING*, you'd be retracting the lies I point out.

Interestingly, believers virtually never post evidence that favors their belief - they are always simply reacting to what critics post.

If critics disappeared, believers wouldn't know what to do... but the same isn't true if believers disappeared, I could easily continue to write posts detailing the lies of the Warren Commission, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, and others... for many years to come.

> Maybe it's like a train wreck or a car crash on I-70 --- it's a mess, but you can't help but slow down and look at it. And Ben's a real mess alright. I've never seen anything like it.

The truth must look that way to a thoroughly dishonest person, I wouldn't know...

What I do know is that you'll NEVER publicly state what Guinn said about his NAA tests in relation to the paraffin tests...

For if you did, it would further undermine the lie you told.

(And *STILL* haven't admitted or retracted...)

[David Von Pein]

The NAA tests that have been done definitely have a better standard for "reliability" than the Paraffin/Nitrate tests. (That is to say, when a person who we positively know fired a gun is then subjected to such an NAA test, the results will be positive, rather than negative, which is what you'd normally expect the result to be.)

But when have I ever DISPUTED that basic fact, Ben? When? Can you cite me arguing with that data? And can you cite me saying that Dr. Guinn was some kind of liar regarding the NAA tests or his paraffin tests?

You're CREATING an argument that has never existed as far as I am concerned, because I've never had any problem with Dr. Guinn's tests. And his NAA tests don't do anything to undermine the WC either---because, like it or not, Oswald tested POSITIVE on his NAA cheek test too. You just refuse to admit that fact.

Plus, let me stress again, that I have NEVER utilized the Paraffin or NAA tests to try and "PROVE" Oswald's guilt. In fact, in 2007 when I wrote my review for Vince Bugliosi's book, I criticized Vince for including the paraffin test as his 41st item on his 53-item list of things that point toward LHO's guilt, because I don't think the paraffin test belongs on such a list at all. And I said so years ago in this review....

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:22:20 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 5:10:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Jason,
> > >
> > > There's something definitely wrong with Ben.
> >
> > Yep... I'm an honest person in the middle of a pack of liars. Indeed, the fact that you're posting to Jason will tell lurkers all they need to know... people can indeed be judged by the company they keep.
> >
> > It's amusing that critics can be very harsh indeed to other critics when they're wrong - but believers step very lightly indeed, if at all, when another believer is dead wrong.
> >
> >
> > >One or two people at Amazon were telling me years ago (before Ben got himself banished from posting at Amazon)
> >
> > Dare you tell the reason why?
> >
> > >how they also thought Ben was mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. And after seeing his behavior in this thread (and others), I'm beginning to think those Amazon posters might be correct. This type of behavior can't possibly be "normal".
> >
> > Of course, arguments like this simply show that you understand quite well that you've lost.
> >
> > I keep providing citations, evidence, and logical argument; and you keep insisting that those who do are "mentally ill."
> >
> > You lied BLATANTLY about Guinn's tests, and what they showed. He was quite clearly demonstrating the poor reliability of the paraffin test in comparison to his NAA tests.
> >
> > YOU COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED THAT FACT - and indeed, still refuse to publicly acknowledge it.
> >
> > So you use ad hominem to replace the truth you can't face.
> >
> >
> > > It's obvious that Ben has no shame. He'll mangle and distort people's quotes (as I proved in this thread, which he started just in order to start up a blatant LIE about me), and yet he turns around and calls ME the "liar" for pointing out his outrageous behavior and HIS lie.
> >
> > Indeed, I do EXACTLY what believers do - and they get outraged that anyone would dare follow their lead.
> >
> > Tell us David, do *YOU* think it honest to imply that a person hasn't answered a question you've asked?

Dead silence... Cat got your tongue, David?

> > I know the reason you don't want to answer it, because the moment you do, I'm going to cite exactly where in your website you've done EXACTLY this.
> >
> > Why does the "truth" need non-stop constant lies to support it?

A question frequently asked... but NEVER answered by believers...

> > > I have no idea why I am still responding to that pathetic person named Ben. I really don't.
> >
> > Because you want to have a good feeling about your "honesty"... but it's becoming more and more difficult as I point out your lies, and you can't defend 'em.

No comment, eh David?

> > I rather suspect that like Henry Sienzant, you'll soon refuse to respond to anything I write... which is perfectly fine. I'll continue to post your lies and prove 'em to be - you seem to think you can post lies on your websites with no consequences... I'm here to tell you that's not going to happen.

My crystal ball is speaking... you'd better listen!

> > > I should probably go to a shrink with Ben for just reading his junk--and for wasting my time responding to it.
> >
> >
> > No David, you're *NOT* responding... you're reacting.
> >
> > If you were *RESPONDING*, you'd be retracting the lies I point out.

Yet clearly aren't honest enough to do so...

Particularly your lie about Guinn's tests...

> > Interestingly, believers virtually never post evidence that favors their belief - they are always simply reacting to what critics post.
> >
> > If critics disappeared, believers wouldn't know what to do... but the same isn't true if believers disappeared, I could easily continue to write posts detailing the lies of the Warren Commission, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, and others... for many years to come.
> >
> >
> > > Maybe it's like a train wreck or a car crash on I-70 --- it's a mess, but you can't help but slow down and look at it. And Ben's a real mess alright. I've never seen anything like it.
> >
> > The truth must look that way to a thoroughly dishonest person, I wouldn't know...
> >
> > What I do know is that you'll NEVER publicly state what Guinn said about his NAA tests in relation to the paraffin tests...
> >
>
> The NAA tests that have been done definitely have a better standard for "reliability" than the Paraffin/Nitrate tests. (That is to say, when a person who we positively know fired a gun is then subjected to such an NAA test, the results will be positive, rather than negative, which is what you'd normally expect the result to be.)
>
> But when have I ever DISPUTED that basic fact, Ben? When?

I quoted you.

It's in a post that you didn't respond to the majority of the post.

You KNOW you've been nailed lying on your website.

You'll run from the questions IN THIS VERY POST that establish that you lied.

>Can you cite me arguing with that data?

Yep... already did today. You ran.

>And can you cite me saying that Dr. Guinn was some kind of liar regarding the NAA tests or his paraffin tests?

Non sequitur...

*YOU* lied about what Guinn said... YOU... ARE... THE... LIAR!

> You're CREATING an argument that has never existed as far as I am concerned, because I've never had any problem with Dr. Guinn's tests.

Then why did you lie about it?

> And his NAA tests don't do anything to undermine the WC either

WHAT A BLATANTLY STUPID LIE TO TELL!!!

And I can prove it with two simple questions:

What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?

What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?

You can't answer those two questions honestly - BECAUSE YOU'RE A GUTLESS LIAR!!! (and the honest answer to these two questions would prove it.)

>---because, like it or not, Oswald tested POSITIVE on his NAA cheek test too. You just refuse to admit that fact.

Then simply quote Gallagher stating that the test showed that Oswald had fired a rifle.

It's just that simple.

I keep saying it, and you keep running away... why is that, David?

Why are you so afraid of what the experts testified to to the Warren Commission?

> Plus, let me stress again, that I have NEVER utilized the Paraffin or NAA tests to try and "PROVE" Oswald's guilt.

You're lying again, David.

Indeed, YOU FLAT LIED ABOUT GUINN'S TESTS TO DO **PRECISELY** THAT!

Here's a quote of you doing exactly this: "And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's."

A lie so breathtaking in it's dishonesty that I was completely astounded that you could tell it.

MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!

ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!

(And you still refuse to acknowledge it.)

>In fact, in 2007 when I wrote my review for Vince Bugliosi's book, I criticized Vince for including the paraffin test as his 41st item on his 53-item list of things that point toward LHO's guilt, because I don't think the paraffin test belongs on such a list at all. And I said so years ago in this review....
>
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

The fact that you can't admit far more egregious lies on Bugliosi's part is telling...

> > For if you did, it would further undermine the lie you told.
> >
> > (And *STILL* haven't admitted or retracted...)

Still true...

[David Von Pein]

Amazing. I was merely citing a fact. And yet Ben thinks that fact is a "breathtaking lie". Go figure.

Just exactly what do you think is the LIE in my quote above about the "7 out of 8 tests"? You dispute that Guinn got 7 out of 8 NEGATIVE results when testing for NITRATES?

[Jason Burke]

On 2/23/2017 2:10 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Jason,
>>
>> There's something definitely wrong with Ben.
>
> Yep... I'm an honest person in the middle of a pack of liars. Indeed, the fact that you're posting to Jason will tell lurkers all they need to know... people can indeed be judged by the company they keep.
>
> It's amusing that critics can be very harsh indeed to other critics when they're wrong - but believers step very lightly indeed, if at all, when another believer is dead wrong.
>
>

Every lurker here (assuming there are any, Benny-Boy,) knows you're a
flat-out idiot - at best.

>> One or two people at Amazon were telling me years ago (before Ben got himself banished from posting at Amazon)
>
> Dare you tell the reason why?
>
>> how they also thought Ben was mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. And after seeing his behavior in this thread (and others), I'm beginning to think those Amazon posters might be correct. This type of behavior can't possibly be "normal".
>
> Of course, arguments like this simply show that you understand quite well that you've lost.
>
> I keep providing citations, evidence, and logical argument; and you keep insisting that those who do are "mentally ill."
>
> You lied BLATANTLY about Guinn's tests, and what they showed. He was quite clearly demonstrating the poor reliability of the paraffin test in comparison to his NAA tests.
>
> YOU COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED THAT FACT - and indeed, still refuse to publicly acknowledge it.
>
> So you use ad hominem to replace the truth you can't face.
>

Has you *whole* life been a failure, Benji?

>
>> It's obvious that Ben has no shame. He'll mangle and distort people's quotes (as I proved in this thread, which he started just in order to start up a blatant LIE about me), and yet he turns around and calls ME the "liar" for pointing out his outrageous behavior and HIS lie.
>
> Indeed, I do EXACTLY what believers do - and they get outraged that anyone would dare follow their lead.
>
> Tell us David, do *YOU* think it honest to imply that a person hasn't answered a question you've asked?
>
> I know the reason you don't want to answer it, because the moment you do, I'm going to cite exactly where in your website you've done EXACTLY this.
>
> Why does the "truth" need non-stop constant lies to support it?
>

Yawn.

>
>> I have no idea why I am still responding to that pathetic person named Ben. I really don't.
>
> Because you want to have a good feeling about your "honesty"... but it's becoming more and more difficult as I point out your lies, and you can't defend 'em.
>
> I rather suspect that like Henry Sienzant, you'll soon refuse to respond to anything I write... which is perfectly fine. I'll continue to post your lies and prove 'em to be - you seem to think you can post lies on your websites with no consequences... I'm here to tell you that's not going to happen.
>
>
>> I should probably go to a shrink with Ben for just reading his junk--and for wasting my time responding to it.
>
>
> No David, you're *NOT* responding... you're reacting.
>
> If you were *RESPONDING*, you'd be retracting the lies I point out.
>
> Interestingly, believers virtually never post evidence that favors their belief - they are always simply reacting to what critics post.
>
> If critics disappeared, believers wouldn't know what to do... but the same isn't true if believers disappeared, I could easily continue to write posts detailing the lies of the Warren Commission, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, and others... for many years to come.
>
>

>> Maybe it's like a train wreck or a car crash on I-70 --- it's a mess, but you can't help but slow down and look at it. And Ben's a real mess alright.. I've never seen anything like it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 5:28:28 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 7:02:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:22:20 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 5:10:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:52:55 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > Jason,
> > > > >
> > > > > There's something definitely wrong with Ben.
> > > >
> > > > Yep... I'm an honest person in the middle of a pack of liars. Indeed, the fact that you're posting to Jason will tell lurkers all they need to know... people can indeed be judged by the company they keep.
> > > >
> > > > It's amusing that critics can be very harsh indeed to other critics when they're wrong - but believers step very lightly indeed, if at all, when another believer is dead wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >One or two people at Amazon were telling me years ago (before Ben got himself banished from posting at Amazon)
> > > >
> > > > Dare you tell the reason why?
> > > >
> > > > >how they also thought Ben was mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. And after seeing his behavior in this thread (and others), I'm beginning to think those Amazon posters might be correct. This type of behavior can't possibly be "normal".
> > > >
> > > > Of course, arguments like this simply show that you understand quite well that you've lost.
> > > >
> > > > I keep providing citations, evidence, and logical argument; and you keep insisting that those who do are "mentally ill."
> > > >
> > > > You lied BLATANTLY about Guinn's tests, and what they showed. He was quite clearly demonstrating the poor reliability of the paraffin test in comparison to his NAA tests.
> > > >
> > > > YOU COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED THAT FACT - and indeed, still refuse to publicly acknowledge it.
> > > >
> > > > So you use ad hominem to replace the truth you can't face.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It's obvious that Ben has no shame. He'll mangle and distort people's quotes (as I proved in this thread, which he started just in order to start up a blatant LIE about me), and yet he turns around and calls ME the "liar" for pointing out his outrageous behavior and HIS lie.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, I do EXACTLY what believers do - and they get outraged that anyone would dare follow their lead.
> > > >
> > > > Tell us David, do *YOU* think it honest to imply that a person hasn't answered a question you've asked?
> >
> >
> > Dead silence... Cat got your tongue, David?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I know the reason you don't want to answer it, because the moment you do, I'm going to cite exactly where in your website you've done EXACTLY this.
> > > >
> > > > Why does the "truth" need non-stop constant lies to support it?
> >
> >
> > A question frequently asked... but NEVER answered by believers...

Ducked yet again...

> > > > > I have no idea why I am still responding to that pathetic person named Ben. I really don't.
> > > >
> > > > Because you want to have a good feeling about your "honesty"... but it's becoming more and more difficult as I point out your lies, and you can't defend 'em.
> >
> >
> > No comment, eh David?

*STILL* no comment, eh David?

> > > > I rather suspect that like Henry Sienzant, you'll soon refuse to respond to anything I write... which is perfectly fine. I'll continue to post your lies and prove 'em to be - you seem to think you can post lies on your websites with no consequences... I'm here to tell you that's not going to happen.
> >
> >
> > My crystal ball is speaking... you'd better listen!
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > I should probably go to a shrink with Ben for just reading his junk--and for wasting my time responding to it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No David, you're *NOT* responding... you're reacting.
> > > >
> > > > If you were *RESPONDING*, you'd be retracting the lies I point out.
> >
> >
> > Yet clearly aren't honest enough to do so...
> >
> > Particularly your lie about Guinn's tests...
> >
> >
> > > > Interestingly, believers virtually never post evidence that favors their belief - they are always simply reacting to what critics post.
> > > >
> > > > If critics disappeared, believers wouldn't know what to do... but the same isn't true if believers disappeared, I could easily continue to write posts detailing the lies of the Warren Commission, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, and others... for many years to come.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe it's like a train wreck or a car crash on I-70 --- it's a mess, but you can't help but slow down and look at it. And Ben's a real mess alright. I've never seen anything like it.
> > > >
> > > > The truth must look that way to a thoroughly dishonest person, I wouldn't know...
> > > >
> > > > What I do know is that you'll NEVER publicly state what Guinn said about his NAA tests in relation to the paraffin tests...
> > > >
> > >
> > > The NAA tests that have been done definitely have a better standard for "reliability" than the Paraffin/Nitrate tests. (That is to say, when a person who we positively know fired a gun is then subjected to such an NAA test, the results will be positive, rather than negative, which is what you'd normally expect the result to be.)
> > >
> > > But when have I ever DISPUTED that basic fact, Ben? When?
> >
> >
> > I quoted you.
> >
> > It's in a post that you didn't respond to the majority of the post.
> >
> > You KNOW you've been nailed lying on your website.
> >
> > You'll run from the questions IN THIS VERY POST that establish that you lied.

My crystal ball is still functioning perfectly... you did indeed run from the two questions that would prove that you lied.

Which, of course, proves that you lied - because there's no reason *NOT* to answer them if you were honest.

> > >Can you cite me arguing with that data?
> >
> >
> > Yep... already did today. You ran.

And ran again from *THIS* post!!!

What a yellow coward!

> > >And can you cite me saying that Dr. Guinn was some kind of liar regarding the NAA tests or his paraffin tests?
> >
> >
> > Non sequitur...
> >
> > *YOU* lied about what Guinn said... YOU... ARE... THE... LIAR!

And still lying...

> > > You're CREATING an argument that has never existed as far as I am concerned, because I've never had any problem with Dr. Guinn's tests.
> >
> >
> > Then why did you lie about it?

Crickets...

> > > And his NAA tests don't do anything to undermine the WC either
> >
> >
> > WHAT A BLATANTLY STUPID LIE TO TELL!!!

Crickets...

> > And I can prove it with two simple questions:
> >
> > What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?
> >
> > What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?

Notice that you refused to answer.

The two answers would PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that you're a liar... which is why you refused to answer.

Of course, in your refusal to answer, you've also proven that you lied. Because there's no reason for an honest man not to answer...

> > You can't answer those two questions honestly - BECAUSE YOU'RE A GUTLESS LIAR!!! (and the honest answer to these two questions would prove it.)

Yep... Gutless liar... and as I've pointed out before, a pervert as well.

> > >---because, like it or not, Oswald tested POSITIVE on his NAA cheek test too. You just refuse to admit that fact.
> >
> >
> > Then simply quote Gallagher stating that the test showed that Oswald had fired a rifle.
> >
> > It's just that simple.

Yet impossible for David to actually do...

> > I keep saying it, and you keep running away... why is that, David?
> >
> > Why are you so afraid of what the experts testified to to the Warren Commission?
> >
> >
> > > Plus, let me stress again, that I have NEVER utilized the Paraffin or NAA tests to try and "PROVE" Oswald's guilt.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> > Indeed, YOU FLAT LIED ABOUT GUINN'S TESTS TO DO **PRECISELY** THAT!
> >
> > Here's a quote of you doing exactly this: "And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's."
> >
> > A lie so breathtaking in it's dishonesty that I was completely astounded that you could tell it.
> >
>
> Amazing. I was merely citing a fact. And yet Ben thinks that fact is a "breathtaking lie". Go figure.


You're lying again, David.

The proof of that is demonstrated by your refusal to answer the questions.

I suspect that if I were standing behind you with a baseball bat, you'd suddenly figure out just what is wrong with your statement.

But absent an immediate physical punishment for your lie, you're going to pretend that you were telling the truth.

Yet you've PROVEN THAT YOU WEREN'T by your refusal to answer the two questions that pinpoint your lie.

> Just exactly what do you think is the LIE in my quote above about the "7 out of 8 tests"? You dispute that Guinn got 7 out of 8 NEGATIVE results when testing for NITRATES?

Oh, you're not *THAT* stupid... you know precisely what's wrong with your quote... that's why you refuse to answer the two questions that reveal your lie.

> > MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
> >
> > (And you still refuse to acknowledge it.)
> >
> > >In fact, in 2007 when I wrote my review for Vince Bugliosi's book, I criticized Vince for including the paraffin test as his 41st item on his 53-item list of things that point toward LHO's guilt, because I don't think the paraffin test belongs on such a list at all. And I said so years ago in this review....
> > >
> > > http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> > The fact that you can't admit far more egregious lies on Bugliosi's part is telling...

What? Did I use a word you can't figure out? Did I tell the truth so convincingly that you had no way to refute it?

Or was it just your ordinary garden-variety cowardice that acted up again?

> > > > For if you did, it would further undermine the lie you told.
> > > >
> > > > (And *STILL* haven't admitted or retracted...)
> >
> > Still true...

I daresay you don't have any mirrors in your house.

[David Von Pein]

Bump.....to re-emphasize the kind of slimy prick Ben Holmes (aka: "judos...") truly is. This thread is the kind of deception that Holmes is capable of. Isn't he special?

[Jason Burke]

On 7/8/2021 8:52 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Bump.....to re-emphasize the kind of slimy prick Ben Holmes (aka: "judos...") truly is. This thread is the kind of deception that Holmes is capable of. Isn't he special?
>

Bummer that most of his dough goes to bribing the Encino cops.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 10:52:40 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> Bump.....to re-emphasize the kind of slimy prick Ben Holmes (aka: "judos...") truly is. This thread is the kind of deception that Holmes is capable of. Isn't he special?

I think he's actually at the end of his rope. Holmes is now essentially Oswald after returning from Mexico City: discouraged and defeated. Should our tiny investigoogler stumble upon the news that some political figure is going to be parading past his Judo club, look for for Benny to finish his manifesto (historic diary) and climb a bell tower somewhere to take aim and fire.

[John Corbett]

Look what he has left for teammates. McClung and the Airline Seat are just bat shit crazy. healy is a chronic drunk. Don is just not very bright. No wonder he's feeling despair. And he deserves it.

[Jason Burke]

But he's soooo close to breaking this thing wide open.
I miss Cinque.

[Ben Holmes]

Nothing "bumped."

Nothing to answer...

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:


> I think he's actually at the end of his rope.

Rest of your logical fallacy deleted... nothing to respond to.

[Chuck Schuyler]

So you are at the end of your rope?

[Bud]

Being forced to continuously display his cowardice, dishonesty and poor thinking is getting to him.

[Jason Burke]

He's just hoping there's a little girl (or boy, whatever), there.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think he's actually at the end of his rope.
>
>> Rest of your logical fallacy deleted... nothing to respond to.
>
>So you are at the end of your rope?

What rope is that?

Why are you afraid of the evidence in this case? Why are logical
fallacies all you want to post?

[Bud]

Ironic.

>Why are logical
> fallacies all you want to post?

Very Ironic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think he's actually at the end of his rope.
>>>
>>>> Rest of your logical fallacy deleted... nothing to respond to.
>>>
>>>So you are at the end of your rope?
>>
>> What rope is that?
>>
>> Why are you afraid of the evidence in this case?
>
> Ironic.
>

>> hy are logical
>> fallacies all you want to post?
>
> Very Ironic.

Watch folks, as Chickenshit runs again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:14:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 3:12:09 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 1:26:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:21:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think he's actually at the end of his rope.
>>
>>> Rest of your logical fallacy deleted... nothing to respond to.
>>
>> So you are at the end of your rope?
>

> Being forced...

You couldn't "force* me to piss on your grave.

After I got out of the Corps, I swore I'd never stand in line again.