Anthony Marsh - PROVEN Liar...

[Ben Holmes]

>> Whaley "identified" both of LHO's jackets as garments which he was wearing
>> in the cab. I believe Whaley also said that LHO was wearing that shirt.
>> Yes, a much-too-obliging witness....
>>
>> dcw
>>
>
>Please quote where Whaley said TWO coats.

Easily done, and Anthony Marsh KNOWS THIS TO BE A FACT!

*******************************************************
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the
shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
*******************************************************

Now, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE for Anthony Marsh not to know that Whaley
testified that Oswald was wearing two jackets... this has been
discussed and posted and talked about for decades.

Yet misleadingly, he tries to imply that Donald Willis wasn't merely
stating acknowledged fact.

ANTHONY MARSH IS A PROVEN LIAR.

And no-one in the censored forum will point this out. It will only be
pointed out in a public forum where Tony is afraid to post.

[Bud]

Actually I just saw that this morning and I was going to provide the quote by Whaley but I didn`t have time to look it up.

But...

This gives insight into the silly games these retards play. Whaley did indeed say Oswald was wearing two jackets...

Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

Mr. BALL. Wait a minute, we have got the shirt which you have identified as the rust brown shirt with the gold stripe in it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket--
Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.
Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

But earlier in his testimony he mentioned only one...

Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.

The retards focus on the one and ignore the other. They do this because they are playing silly games with the deaths of these men. They want to pretend Oswald didn`t ride in Whaleys cab so they focus on the wrong thing, and look at that wrong thing incorrectly. Here is Whaley`s handwritten affidavit...

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/m1/1/zoom/?q=whaley&resolution=2&lat=2887.5&lon=750

Note the description Whaley gave at the bottom...

5 foot eight, slender, brown shirt with white stripes, bracelet on his left wrist.

Now look at this photo of Oswald...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DUxpqVhGnRc/U3ASV6gh2zI/AAAAAAAAMek/BG5uXXsByfE/s1600/Collage+966.jpg

5 foot eight, slender, wearing a brown shirt with white striping, bracelet on his left wrist.

Tell me that these retards aren`t just playing silly games with the deaths of these men, lurkers.

> It will only be
> pointed out in a public forum where Tony is afraid to post.

I will point out to the lurkers that Ben and dw are merely retards playing silly games with the deaths of these men in this forum. They want to pretend that Oswald got in a car like a Dallas cop said, so they are trying to contrive reasons to disregard stronger and better evidence that he didn`t. All part of this stupid hobby they enjoy. They latch onto irrelevancies in order to disregard witnesses who relate things they don`t like. You saw Ben do it with the "Marina said she locked Lee in the bathroom" issue. They think this gives them an excuse to disregard everything the witness said that goes against their silly ideas. Basically they are retarded.

[donald willis]

> The retards ((Bud is projecting here!))

focus on the one and ignore the other. They do this because they are playing silly games with the deaths of these men. They want to pretend Oswald didn`t ride in Whaleys cab so they focus on the wrong thing, and look at that wrong thing incorrectly. Here is Whaley`s handwritten affidavit...
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/m1/1/zoom/?q=whaley&resolution=2&lat=2887.5&lon=750
>
> Note the description Whaley gave at the bottom...
>
> 5 foot eight, slender, brown shirt with white stripes, bracelet on his left wrist.
>

Bud, Bud! It's not just that Whaley's description of Oswald's clothing changes from affidavit to testimony to another part of his testimony. It's the state of mind which Whaley's all-too-strong embrace of every clothing exhibit he is shown indicates. He wants to say what he THINKS the legal eagles want to hear. Pic of jacket. Oh yes that one. Pic of another jacket. Oh that one too, yes.

Further, if Whaley here exhibits over-eagerness to help the "prosecution", that suggests that his ORIGINAL description of Oswald's clothing might also have been a product of eagerness to help. Oh, the guy I saw on the news? Yes, that might have been him. The guy in this photo with the shirt & bracelet. Yes, I think that was him. Yes, now that I SEE the bracelet, I remember it.

No, the foregoing is not directly on record. But, indirectly, it is. We have seen that, anything that he is shown, Whaley puts it on the Oswald doll. He just gave away the game when, at the hearings, Whaley was shown too much....

dcw

> Now look at this photo of Oswald...
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DUxpqVhGnRc/U3ASV6gh2zI/AAAAAAAAMek/BG5uXXsByfE/s1600/Collage+966.jpg
>
> 5 foot eight, slender, wearing a brown shirt with white striping, bracelet on his left wrist.
>

>CUT scrofulous nonsense

[Bud]

Then go with the description he gave before they started showing him clothing.

> He wants to say what he THINKS the legal eagles want to hear. Pic of jacket. Oh yes that one. Pic of another jacket. Oh that one too, yes.
>
> Further, if Whaley here exhibits over-eagerness to help the "prosecution", that suggests that his ORIGINAL description of Oswald's clothing might also have been a product of eagerness to help. Oh, the guy I saw on the news? Yes, that might have been him. The guy in this photo with the shirt & bracelet. Yes, I think that was him. Yes, now that I SEE the bracelet, I remember it.
>
> No, the foregoing is not directly on record. But, indirectly, it is.

It exists only in your imagination. And that is your problem, you are trying to support fantastic ideas with nothing more than retard figuring.

The whole world wasn`t out to get Oswald. He was just guilty.

[donald willis]

It exists in Whaley's testimony. Learn how to read witnesses' testimony--suggestible witnesses like Whaley, McWatters, Brennan, Edwards. You can almost hear their brains going, "Gee. Is that what they want? Okay, I'll go with that...." Brennan and Whaley no doubt got *help* with their affidavits, too, though it's not on record.

dcw

[Bud]

Are you sure that not just the voices in your head?

> Brennan and Whaley no doubt got *help* with their affidavits, too, though it's not on record.

Yes, the whole world was out to make Oswald look guilty.

[donald willis]

The whole world looks forward to your explanation re how Whaley ended up putting two coats and two shirts on Oswald!

dcw

[Bud]

I have no ideas that require an explanation.

[David Von Pein]

If the document linked below is an affidavit written in William W. Whaley's very own handwriting, then Mr. Whaley had two drastically different styles of handwriting for sure---because this rather sloppy writing....

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/m1/1/zoom/?q=whaley&resolution=2&lat=2887.5&lon=750

....sure doesn't resemble this extremely neat and tidy writing which we find on Whaley's taxicab trip sheet and his very neat signature found on his typewritten 11/23/63 affidavit....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html#William-Whaley-Handwriting

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9DEzRlDyAlE/Tvw__tpBKLI/AAAAAAAABzM/aSzgKugTqUQ/s1500-h/William-Whaley-Affidavit.gif

I guess it's *possible* those two seemingly different writing styles were written by the same person, but they look mighty different to me (just from a "very neat" vs. "kind of sloppy" standpoint).

But I'm certainly no "handwriting expert", so I couldn't testify in court that the two completely different ways of writing a Capital N that we find in the two documents above were written by different people. Maybe Whaley just got a little sloppy at times with his writing, and only made things extremely neat for his trip sheets and his signature. ~shrug~

Any thoughts, Bud? Could it be that Whaley dictated his statement to somebody else, and the other person wrote it down in longhand before it was typed up at the Sheriff's Office? I didn't think that was how affidavits were done, though. I always thought (or assumed) the handwritten versions were, in fact, always in the writing of the person giving the statement. But maybe not all of them were done that way. I don't really know. Does anyone here know for sure?

BTW/FYI --- That handwritten statement by Whaley is NOT the complete affidavit. The last two sentences are missing (about Whaley identifying Oswald at a police line-up). But perhaps there is a "Page 2" attached to that handwritten version that Bud initially posted (although I can't find a Page 2). ~another shrug~

Maybe a hint that the handwritten document was written by someone other than Whaley himself is the fact that Whaley's last name is scratched out at the top of the document and then re-written to the right of the scratch-out. (Did Whaley forget how to spell his own name? I kinda doubt it.)

[David Von Pein]

Whaley Addendum (part of the same "Part 1016" page I linked earlier)....

Here's an interesting debate I had with some folks at Facebook a couple years ago (was it "Was" or was it "Wasn't"?):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html

[Bud]

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 6:07:41 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> If the document linked below is an affidavit written in William W. Whaley's very own handwriting, then Mr. Whaley had two drastically different styles of handwriting for sure---because this rather sloppy writing....
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/m1/1/zoom/?q=whaley&resolution=2&lat=2887.5&lon=750
>
> ....sure doesn't resemble this extremely neat and tidy writing which we find on Whaley's taxicab trip sheet and his very neat signature found on his typewritten 11/23/63 affidavit....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html#William-Whaley-Handwriting
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9DEzRlDyAlE/Tvw__tpBKLI/AAAAAAAABzM/aSzgKugTqUQ/s1500-h/William-Whaley-Affidavit.gif
>
> I guess it's *possible* those two seemingly different writing styles were written by the same person, but they look mighty different to me (just from a "very neat" vs. "kind of sloppy" standpoint).
>
> But I'm certainly no "handwriting expert", so I couldn't testify in court that the two completely different ways of writing a Capital N that we find in the two documents above were written by different people. Maybe Whaley just got a little sloppy at times with his writing, and only made things extremely neat for his trip sheets and his signature. ~shrug~
>
> Any thoughts, Bud? Could it be that Whaley dictated his statement to somebody else, and the other person wrote it down in longhand before it was typed up at the Sheriff's Office?

Since you brought it to my attention that would be my thinking also. Look in the upper right corner, it has the name E E Hardin (or something like). Likely this is the person who took the dictation. It seems unlikely that Whaley would misspell his own name, cross it out and then write it correctly.

> I didn't think that was how affidavits were done, though. I always thought (or assumed) the handwritten versions were, in fact, always in the writing of the person giving the statement.

That was my assumption also. But it doesn`t much matter, presumably the witness reads the content before signing it.

> But maybe not all of them were done that way. I don't really know. Does anyone here know for sure?
>
> BTW/FYI --- That handwritten statement by Whaley is NOT the complete affidavit. The last two sentences are missing (about Whaley identifying Oswald at a police line-up). But perhaps there is a "Page 2" attached to that handwritten version that Bud initially posted (although I can't find a Page 2). ~another shrug~

The lineup may have occurred after the initial affidavit was written and that information was added on. The affidavits are primarily so the investigators know what is going on, all the cops don`t talk to all the other cops. I expect they are for investigative purpose, but the tards use them as trial information or clues to suspicious behavior (any behavior that indicates Oswald`s guilt).

> Maybe a hint that the handwritten document was written by someone other than Whaley himself is the fact that Whaley's last name is scratched out at the top of the document and then re-written to the right of the scratch-out. (Did Whaley forget how to spell his own name? I kinda doubt it.)

Yah, I just mentioned that before I read down this far.

[donald willis]

That I can believe!

[Ben Holmes]

If I were you, David; I'd disappear again, and do it quickly... I'm
putting the finishing touches on a refutation of one of your website
posts, and will begin posting the series of 20 refutations in the next
week or so.

It would be *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to refute what I state, and you'll
undoubtedly run away like you always have in the past... but it would
appear more natural if you hadn't been posting here for a time.

Fair warning!

[Bud]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 11:12:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:45:35 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Whaley Addendum (part of the same "Part 1016" page I linked earlier)....
> >
> >Here's an interesting debate I had with some folks at Facebook a couple years ago (was it "Was" or was it "Wasn't"?):
> >
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html
>
>
> If I were you, David; I'd disappear again, and do it quickly... I'm
> putting the finishing touches on a refutation of one of your website
> posts, and will begin posting the series of 20 refutations in the next
> week or so.

Watch as Ben does no real refutation, and the things that David wrote will be just as valid as before Ben addressed them, lurkers.

> It would be *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to refute what I state, and you'll
> undoubtedly run away like you always have in the past... but it would
> appear more natural if you hadn't been posting here for a time.
>
> Fair warning!

I can`t wait, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:38:33 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 12:39:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Whaley "identified" both of LHO's jackets as garments which he was wearing
>> >> in the cab. I believe Whaley also said that LHO was wearing that shirt.
>> >> Yes, a much-too-obliging witness....
>> >>
>> >> dcw
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please quote where Whaley said TWO coats.
>>
>> Easily done, and Anthony Marsh KNOWS THIS TO BE A FACT!
>>
>> *******************************************************
>> Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the
>> shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> Now, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE for Anthony Marsh not to know that Whaley
>> testified that Oswald was wearing two jackets... this has been
>> discussed and posted and talked about for decades.
>>
>> Yet misleadingly, he tries to imply that Donald Willis wasn't merely
>> stating acknowledged fact.
>>
>> ANTHONY MARSH IS A PROVEN LIAR.
>>
>> And no-one in the censored forum will point this out.
>
> Actually I just saw that this morning and I was going to provide
> the quote by Whaley but I didn`t have time to look it up.

It's amusing how often believers don't have the "time" to correct
other believers...

Anthony Marsh flat *LIED* - and "Dud" couldn't admit it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:53:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 11:12:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:45:35 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Whaley Addendum (part of the same "Part 1016" page I linked earlier)....
>> >
>> >Here's an interesting debate I had with some folks at Facebook a couple years ago (was it "Was" or was it "Wasn't"?):
>> >
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html
>>
>>
>> If I were you, David; I'd disappear again, and do it quickly... I'm
>> putting the finishing touches on a refutation of one of your website
>> posts, and will begin posting the series of 20 refutations in the next
>> week or so.
>
> Watch as Ben does no real refutation, and the things that David
> wrote will be just as valid as before Ben addressed them, lurkers.

Watch as David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to address my refutations in
this forum.

Watch as "Dud" ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to help David out by debating
any point I make.

>> It would be *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to refute what I state, and you'll
>> undoubtedly run away like you always have in the past... but it would
>> appear more natural if you hadn't been posting here for a time.
>>
>> Fair warning!
>
> I can`t wait, lurkers.

Sure you can... you're TERRIFIED of the evidence in this case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:56:59 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Of *course* you do. You believe that the Warren Commission got it
right, and that only one person assassinated the President.

Yet you RUN AWAY every time relevant evidence or logical argument
shows that conclusion to be highly unlikely.

[Bud]

How is Ben retarded, let me count the ways, lurkers. One, Tony Marsh is a conspiracy hobbyist like Ben. Two, my time is my own. Three, it isn`t my job to correct Tony Marsh every time he lies, that would be a full time job. Four, he didn`t really lie, he asked dw to support his claim. Five, I explained why I didn`t address the issue at the time, but since it was the truth and Ben hates the truth he didn`t accept it.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:53:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 11:12:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:45:35 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Whaley Addendum (part of the same "Part 1016" page I linked earlier)....
> >> >
> >> >Here's an interesting debate I had with some folks at Facebook a couple years ago (was it "Was" or was it "Wasn't"?):
> >> >
> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html
> >>
> >>
> >> If I were you, David; I'd disappear again, and do it quickly... I'm
> >> putting the finishing touches on a refutation of one of your website
> >> posts, and will begin posting the series of 20 refutations in the next
> >> week or so.
> >
> > Watch as Ben does no real refutation, and the things that David
> > wrote will be just as valid as before Ben addressed them, lurkers.
>
> Watch as David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to address my refutations in
> this forum.

Lurkers, Ben is only going to lie, and claim he is refuting these things.

> Watch as "Dud" ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to help David out by debating
> any point I make.

<snicker> Ben is a stump, he still doesn`t understand the process. He is claiming to be able to refute DVP`s assertions. That means when he is done, the things that DVP asserted will be shown to be untrue, because refute means "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove". So there should be nothing to debate, if Ben can establish his refutations. I don`t have to debate any point Ben makes, I only need to point out if and how he failed to refute DVP`s assertions.

> >> It would be *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to refute what I state, and you'll
> >> undoubtedly run away like you always have in the past... but it would
> >> appear more natural if you hadn't been posting here for a time.
> >>
> >> Fair warning!
> >
> > I can`t wait, lurkers.
>
> Sure you can... you're TERRIFIED of the evidence in this case.

It isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is the retards playing silly games with the evidence that is the problem, lurkers.

[Bud]

I have no ideas that require an explanation for why Whaley said Oswald was wearing two coats, lurkers. Neither did the Warren Commission. If dw has an idea to advance with this, let him try. And he has, he tried to support a fantastic idea with nothing. I pointed this out. This process has both of these retarded confused.

> Yet you RUN AWAY every time relevant evidence or logical argument
> shows that conclusion to be highly unlikely.

I wouldn`t let a retard decide what is relevant or logical, lurkers. If you do you will end up where they are, nowhere.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:34:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:53:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 11:12:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:45:35 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Whaley Addendum (part of the same "Part 1016" page I linked earlier)....
>> >> >
>> >> >Here's an interesting debate I had with some folks at Facebook a couple years ago (was it "Was" or was it "Wasn't"?):
>> >> >
>> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1016.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If I were you, David; I'd disappear again, and do it quickly... I'm
>> >> putting the finishing touches on a refutation of one of your website
>> >> posts, and will begin posting the series of 20 refutations in the next
>> >> week or so.
>> >
>> > Watch as Ben does no real refutation, and the things that David
>> > wrote will be just as valid as before Ben addressed them, lurkers.
>>
>> Watch as David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to address my refutations in
>> this forum.
>
> Lurkers, Ben is only going to lie, and claim he is refuting these things.

Remember the two predictions...

We'll quickly see which of the two is accurate.

And that "Dud" will refuse to acknowledge that fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:39:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


> I have no ideas that require an explanation...

What a SMELLY COWARD you are!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:20:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

One: My mental state has *NOTHING* to do with Anthony Marsh lying. Nor
is Anthony Marsh a "conspiracy hobbyist" - he's a liar like all
knowledgeable believers are. Indeed, the very fact that "Dud" can't
bring himself to acknowledge that Tony lied shows that "Dud" considers
Tony to be a believer like himself.

Two: "Dud's" time is certainly his own... but he's spent a great deal
of it refusing to state that Anthony Marsh lied. It's crystal clear
that he was pretending not to know what Whaley said - something that's
simply INCONCEIVABLE given how long Marsh has been posting on this
case.

Three: It isn't "Dud's" job to correct Marsh - but it *IS* my job to
point out the lies and hypocrisy that happen all the time on "Dud's"
side of the aisle.

Four: Yes "Dud" - Marsh really *DID* lie. This is a common tactic
among believers that has been noted before... they like to nitpick
well-known facts to evade debating the case evidence. "Dud" in fact is
a great proponent of this very tactic. "Dud" isn't stupid enough to
claim that Marsh really didn't know Whaley's testimony.

Five: Explanations are something that all people have...

However, the basic truth is still the same. Anthony Marsh *KNOWS FOR A
FACT* that Whaley testified to "Oswald" wearing two coats... and
pretended ignorance on this topic... implying that it wasn't true.

And "Dud" can't admit that.

[Bud]

That is the kind of retard figuring that is the direct result of Ben`s mental state, lurkers.

> Two: "Dud's" time is certainly his own... but he's spent a great deal
> of it refusing to state that Anthony Marsh lied. It's crystal clear
> that he was pretending not to know what Whaley said - something that's
> simply INCONCEIVABLE given how long Marsh has been posting on this
> case.

More retard figuring about Tony Marsh and myself, lurkers. Ben tries to make other people take ownership of his fucked up thought processes. Who cares what Ben finds INCONCEIVABLE? I would have thought it inconceivable that anyone could be as big an intellectual coward as Ben has shown himself to be, but there we have it.

> Three: It isn't "Dud's" job to correct Marsh - but it *IS* my job to
> point out the lies and hypocrisy that happen all the time on "Dud's"
> side of the aisle.

Ben is now showing he is too stupid to discern where the aisle is. He has made the declaration that Marsh is "believer" and doesn`t understand why such a declaration carries no weight.

> Four: Yes "Dud" - Marsh really *DID* lie. This is a common tactic
> among believers that has been noted before... they like to nitpick
> well-known facts to evade debating the case evidence. "Dud" in fact is
> a great proponent of this very tactic. "Dud" isn't stupid enough to
> claim that Marsh really didn't know Whaley's testimony.

Ben is always trying to shift the burden, lurkers. Let him show that Marsh was aware of this, and had it available in his memory at the time Marsh wrote his question about it.

> Five: Explanations are something that all people have...

Wrong, lurkers. There are a lot of things I have no explanation for. It boggles my mind that a person who show some semblance of intelligence can`t comprehend basic criminal investigation, for instance.

> However, the basic truth is still the same. Anthony Marsh *KNOWS FOR A
> FACT* that Whaley testified to "Oswald" wearing two coats... and
> pretended ignorance on this topic... implying that it wasn't true.

I thought it was more significant and relevant that conspiracy retards focus on this as if it is the most important thing Whaley said, lurkers. The retards look at the wrong things and look at them incorrectly and get mad when other people don`t.

[Bud]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:42:51 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

This is the idea that Ben was forced to run from, lurkers...

"I have no ideas that require an explanation for why Whaley said Oswald was wearing two coats, lurkers. Neither did the Warren Commission. If dw has an idea to advance with this, let him try. And he has, he tried to support a fantastic idea with nothing. I pointed this out. This process has both of these retarded confused."

Ben could not contest one word of what I wrote, lurkers. He is an intellectual coward who tries ad hominem in place of reasoned rebuttal.

[Bud]

Ben will refuse to acknowledge what the word "refute" means, lurkers.

[donald willis]

Prof. Marsh is a kind of gadfly for everyone. But he does seem to maintain that there was at least one shot from the knoll. Doesn't that make him a CT? Sort of?

dcw

[Ben Holmes]

Critics have no need to lie about the evidence... the evidence
SUPPORTS the fact of conspiracy in this case.

There are a number of so-called "critics" who quite successfully make
themselves look like fools and nuts. Which, of course, indicts *real*
critics.

Marsh made the claim that Dr. Humes burned his paperwork on
**SATURDAY** rather than Sunday - and then ran away when I pointed out
that he had zero evidence for such a claim. He ran from this group,
landed in the censored forum, where he is often defended by other
believers...

He's a 'pretend' CT'er...

He also claims that he's proven the authenticity of the extant
Zapruder film, yet runs away from any serious debate on the issue.

I don't accept half-truths, I find no need for them. Simply because
Marsh will occasionally post pro-critic statements doesn't place him
in the serious category of a fellow critic.

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 9:39:02 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Whaley "identified" both of LHO's jackets as garments which he was wearing
> >> in the cab. I believe Whaley also said that LHO was wearing that shirt.
> >> Yes, a much-too-obliging witness....
> >>
> >> dcw
> >>
> >
> >Please quote where Whaley said TWO coats.
>
> Easily done, and Anthony Marsh KNOWS THIS TO BE A FACT!
>
> *******************************************************
> Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the
> shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
> *******************************************************
>
> Now, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE for Anthony Marsh not to know that Whaley
> testified that Oswald was wearing two jackets... this has been
> discussed and posted and talked about for decades.
>
> Yet misleadingly, he tries to imply that Donald Willis wasn't merely
> stating acknowledged fact.
>

> ANTHONY MARSH IS A PROVEN LIAR. Yes he is absolutely awful. He just said " Ruby was not part of the Assassination plot" How the fucking hell would you ever know? Did Roselli,McClendon,Trafficante,Marcello tell you that?
>
> And no-one in the censored forum will point this out. It will only be
> pointed out in a public forum where Tony is afraid to post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:03:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Meriam Webster:
1 :to prove wrong by argument or evidence :show to be false or
erroneous
2 :to deny the truth or accuracy of - 'refuted the allegations'

Now that "Dud" has been proven wrong, watch as he refuses to retract
his false statement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> That is the kind of retard figuring...

And yet, "Dud" absolutely REFUSED to address the topic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:42:51 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:39:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I have no ideas that require an explanation...
>>
>> What a SMELLY COWARD you are!
>
> This is the idea that Ben was forced to run from, lurkers...
>
> "I have no ideas that require an explanation for why Whaley said
> Oswald was wearing two coats, lurkers. Neither did the Warren
> Commission. If dw has an idea to advance with this, let him try. And
> he has, he tried to support a fantastic idea with nothing. I pointed
> this out. This process has both of these retarded confused."
>
> Ben could not contest one word of what I wrote, lurkers. He is an
> intellectual coward who tries ad hominem in place of reasoned
> rebuttal.

Your cowardice when it comes to the evidence is already well
documented.

You merely illustrate your cowardice again.

[Bud]

It is true, as his supposed "refutations" of the things on Bugliosi`s have shown, lurkers.

[Bud]

And yet, Ben cut out and ran from where I did, lurkers.

[Bud]

Once more a conspiracy retard blames me for their inability to move an issue forward, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> And yet...

"Dud" absolutely REFUSED to address the topic.

Feel free to CUT AND PASTE any statements you think did.

But you won't.

You can't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:15:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> It is true...

Yes. I know. You've just been proven wrong.

And as predicted, you've refused to retract what is now a lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:18:54 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:24:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:42:51 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:39:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I have no ideas that require an explanation...
>> >>
>> >> What a SMELLY COWARD you are!
>> >
>> > This is the idea that Ben was forced to run from, lurkers...
>> >
>> > "I have no ideas that require an explanation for why Whaley said
>> > Oswald was wearing two coats, lurkers. Neither did the Warren
>> > Commission. If dw has an idea to advance with this, let him try. And
>> > he has, he tried to support a fantastic idea with nothing. I pointed
>> > this out. This process has both of these retarded confused."
>> >
>> > Ben could not contest one word of what I wrote, lurkers. He is an
>> > intellectual coward who tries ad hominem in place of reasoned
>> > rebuttal.
>>
>> Your cowardice when it comes to the evidence is already well
>> documented.
>
> Once more a conspiracy retard blames me for their inability to
> move an issue forward, lurkers.

I don't "blame" you for your cowardice & dishonesty...

I merely point it out.

If anyone's to blame, it's your parents.

[Bud]

Conspiracy retards have to advance their ideas and stop trying to shift the burden, lurkers.

[Bud]

Ben must run from every point I make, lurkers.

> And as predicted, you've refused to retract what is now a lie.

It is still the truth, lurkers. Ben believes he has refuted things he has not refuted. He has in the past, and will in the future, and citing the definition of the word will not matter if he doesn`t apply it correctly to what he actually does.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:07:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I *still* don't blaem you for your cowardice & dishonesty.

It's the only way that the Warren Commission Report can be propped
up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:07:43 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben must run ...

And yet, after being proven wrong... look who's running?