Demonstration Of "Dud's" Ignorance & Cowardice...

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein sputtered: "Does the average researcher just simply
ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and
every bit of hard evidence supports it),

I pointed out that this is simply untrue. CE399, for example, is
incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's
lone guilt."

"Dud" immediately whined "Empty claim" - meaning that I cannot support
such a statement.

Yet it is SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE.

A single bullet, even if it were granted for the sake of argument that
it had been fired by Oswald at the President - has absolutely
*NOTHING* to say about others who fired in Dealey Plaza.

Just as it says nothing about their existence, it likewise says
nothing about their non-existence.

So no matter *HOW* "Dud" tries to defend the assertion that the hard
evidence of CE399 supports "Oswald's lone guilt" - he can't do it.

Indeed, he's not even tried.

Mark? Why did you let this lie of "Dud's" pass without comment?

Conan the Snipper? Why did you let this lie of "Dud's" pass without
comment?

Chucky Cheese? Why did you let this lie of "Dud's" pass without
comment?

Why are their *NO* honest defenders of the Warren Commission?

Why all the lies? Why all the cowardice?

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> David Von Pein sputtered: "Does the average researcher just simply
> ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and
> every bit of hard evidence supports it),
>
> I pointed out that this is simply untrue. CE399, for example, is
> incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's
> lone guilt."
>
> "Dud" immediately whined "Empty claim" - meaning that I cannot support
> such a statement.

> Yet it is SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE.

Yes, no and maybe, lurkers. My answer was the result of not reading closely enough, but Ben`s argument is weak, as I`ll explain.

> A single bullet, even if it were granted for the sake of argument that
> it had been fired by Oswald at the President - has absolutely
> *NOTHING* to say about others who fired in Dealey Plaza.

Actually it does, lurkers. A bullet from Oswald`s rifle is supportive of Oswald being a lone shooter, in that another shooter is an unnecessary complication to explain the event, and Occam warned against such things. So, although it doesn`t rule out other shooters or establish Oswald as a lone shooter, it is in fact indicative.

I`ll quote Jay Windley (JayUtah) on this...

"For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot be observed even though his equations produce the same results as Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be correct given the current set of observations."

Likewise, a lone shooter (Oswald) is more likely than multiple shooters, and the single bullet fired from Oswald`s rifle is supportive of his lone guilt. A bullet from a different rifle would likely necessitate another shooter.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> David Von Pein sputtered: "Does the average researcher just simply
>> ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and
>> every bit of hard evidence supports it),
>>
>> I pointed out that this is simply untrue. CE399, for example, is
>> incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's
>> lone guilt."
>>
>> "Dud" immediately whined "Empty claim" - meaning that I cannot support
>> such a statement.
>
>> Yet it is SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE.
>

> Yes, no and maybe...


This is so silly that it needs no comment.

>> A single bullet, even if it were granted for the sake of argument that
>> it had been fired by Oswald at the President - has absolutely
>> *NOTHING* to say about others who fired in Dealey Plaza.
>
> Actually it does, lurkers. A bullet from Oswald`s rifle is
> supportive of Oswald being a lone shooter, in that another shooter is
> an unnecessary complication to explain the event, and Occam warned
> against such things. So, although it doesn`t rule out other shooters
> or establish Oswald as a lone shooter, it is in fact indicative.

A "lone gunman" does *NOT* explain the event. There's EVIDENCE of
other shooting locations.

Evidence you've lied about in the past, and have recently refused to
even speak about.

So what is it about the PHYSICAL EXISTENCE of CE399, even given the
presumption that it was fired at JFK by Oswald on 11/22/63 - proves
that there were no other shooters?

You see, I'm even *GIVING* you half of your needed proof. Because, of
course the physical existance of CE399 no more proves Oswald guilty
than it does Santa Claus.

> I`ll quote Jay Windley (JayUtah) on this...

Jay Windley is a coward who will *NEVER* appear in this forum and
debate the evidence in this case against a knowledgeable critic.

> "For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory
> of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are
> caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot
> be observed even though his equations produce the same results as
> Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It
> doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a
> whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be
> correct given the current set of observations."
>
> Likewise, a lone shooter (Oswald) is more likely than multiple
> shooters, and the single bullet fired from Oswald`s rifle is
> supportive of his lone guilt. A bullet from a different rifle would
> likely necessitate another shooter.

So World War II was fought between Lewis Puller and Saburo Sakai?

After all, no need to bring in more shooters, you only need two ...

Of course, we'll probably need a couple more for the European front,
right?

>> Just as it says nothing about their existence, it likewise says
>> nothing about their non-existence.
>>
>> So no matter *HOW* "Dud" tries to defend the assertion that the hard
>> evidence of CE399 supports "Oswald's lone guilt" - he can't do it.
>>
>> Indeed, he's not even tried.

Now "Dud" has tried, and failed miserably...

Indeed, his attempt has been HIGHLY speculative, and involved a great
deal of information implied, but not given by the fact of CE399.

[Bud]

There is evidence there was a dog in the limo, lurkers. There is evidence of mermaids. There is evidence of bigfoot. The word "evidence" doesn`t make it so.

Look, if I`m in a room, and that room has a closet with a door, and I hear a knocking on that closet door, is that evidence that someone is inside? It might be, it might not be. If I open the door, and someone is there, then the knocking was evidence that someone was inside. If I open the door and there is nobody there, is the knocking still evidence that someone was inside?

Let Ben make a positive case that there was more than one shooter. Lets see if he can make a compelling case that has the power to persuade, rather than an endless series of empty claims.

> Evidence you've lied about in the past, and have recently refused to
> even speak about.
>
> So what is it about the PHYSICAL EXISTENCE of CE399, even given the
> presumption that it was fired at JFK by Oswald on 11/22/63 - proves
> that there were no other shooters?
>
> You see, I'm even *GIVING* you half of your needed proof. Because, of
> course the physical existance of CE399 no more proves Oswald guilty
> than it does Santa Claus.
>
>
> > I`ll quote Jay Windley (JayUtah) on this...
>
> Jay Windley is a coward who will *NEVER* appear in this forum and
> debate the evidence in this case against a knowledgeable critic.

The is no reason to believe Jay Windley knows about this place, lurkers. Even less reason to think he would lower himself to engage a scumbag like Ben Holmes.

And when Ben says "knowledgeable critic" he mean conspiracy retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> > "For example, Einstein described space-time in the special theory
> > of relativity. Lorentz had theorized that space-time fluctuations are
> > caused by motion through the "ether". However, Lorentz's ether cannot
> > be observed even though his equations produce the same results as
> > Einstein's, so it represents an unnecessarily complicated model. It
> > doesn't prove Einstein right and Lorentz wrong, but because there's a
> > whole lot less baggage to Einstein's model, it's more likely to be
> > correct given the current set of observations."
> >
> > Likewise, a lone shooter (Oswald) is more likely than multiple
> > shooters, and the single bullet fired from Oswald`s rifle is
> > supportive of his lone guilt. A bullet from a different rifle would
> > likely necessitate another shooter.
>
>
> So World War II was fought between Lewis Puller and Saburo Sakai?

Ben really should embarrass himself with these pitiful attempts at thinking, lurkers. He is comparing a known event with an unsubstantiated claim.

> After all, no need to bring in more shooters, you only need two ...

Ben doesn`t even understand Occam`s Razor, lurkers. It is a tool to help problem solve theories. If historians had a dispute about what occurred during a certain event during WWII, and one side had a simple theory and the other side had a complex one, Occam`s Razor merely says that the simpler one is more likely to be correct.

> Of course, we'll probably need a couple more for the European front,
> right?
>
>
> >> Just as it says nothing about their existence, it likewise says
> >> nothing about their non-existence.
> >>
> >> So no matter *HOW* "Dud" tries to defend the assertion that the hard
> >> evidence of CE399 supports "Oswald's lone guilt" - he can't do it.
> >>
> >> Indeed, he's not even tried.
>
>
> Now "Dud" has tried, and failed miserably...

Ben never even touched the argument, lurkers. The principle of Occam`s Razor says the simpler explanation is the one more likely to be correct.

> Indeed, his attempt has been HIGHLY speculative, and involved a great
> deal of information implied, but not given by the fact of CE399.

If Ben could produce evidence that makes a single shooter impossible than the idea of a second shooter would have to be accepted, lurkers. But if a second shooter isn`t necessary, then there is no real reason the idea should be entertained.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:46:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> David Von Pein sputtered: "Does the average researcher just simply
>> >> ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and
>> >> every bit of hard evidence supports it),
>> >>
>> >> I pointed out that this is simply untrue. CE399, for example, is
>> >> incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's
>> >> lone guilt."
>> >>
>> >> "Dud" immediately whined "Empty claim" - meaning that I cannot support
>> >> such a statement.
>> >
>> >> Yet it is SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE.
>> >
>> > Yes, no and maybe...
>>
>>
>> This is so silly that it needs no comment.

I see that "Dud" was afraid to defend this indefensible statement of
his.

>> >> A single bullet, even if it were granted for the sake of argument that
>> >> it had been fired by Oswald at the President - has absolutely
>> >> *NOTHING* to say about others who fired in Dealey Plaza.
>> >
>> > Actually it does, lurkers. A bullet from Oswald`s rifle is
>> > supportive of Oswald being a lone shooter, in that another shooter is
>> > an unnecessary complication to explain the event, and Occam warned
>> > against such things. So, although it doesn`t rule out other shooters
>> > or establish Oswald as a lone shooter, it is in fact indicative.
>>
>> A "lone gunman" does *NOT* explain the event. There's EVIDENCE of
>> other shooting locations.
>

> There is evidence there was a dog in the limo...

Yep... indeed there was.

We know *what* it was that caused a witness to think she saw a dog. In
other words, THIS EVIDENCE ACTUALLY EXISTED.

Likewise, there's EVIDENCE of other shooting locations - a fact... A
**FACT** ... which "Dud" has previously denied.

So a "lone gunman" simply cannot explain the facts, AS WE KNOW THEM...
and cannot therefore be an example of Occam's Razor.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:55:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:46:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> David Von Pein sputtered: "Does the average researcher just simply
> >> >> ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and
> >> >> every bit of hard evidence supports it),
> >> >>
> >> >> I pointed out that this is simply untrue. CE399, for example, is
> >> >> incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's
> >> >> lone guilt."
> >> >>
> >> >> "Dud" immediately whined "Empty claim" - meaning that I cannot support
> >> >> such a statement.
> >> >
> >> >> Yet it is SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, no and maybe...
> >>
> >>
> >> This is so silly that it needs no comment.
>
>
> I see that "Dud" was afraid to defend this indefensible statement of
> his.

Ben cuts and runs from the point I made then pretends he wants to engage on the point he cut and ran from, lurkers. If Ben wants to engage on ideas he really has to grow a pair. And get smarter.

> >> >> A single bullet, even if it were granted for the sake of argument that
> >> >> it had been fired by Oswald at the President - has absolutely
> >> >> *NOTHING* to say about others who fired in Dealey Plaza.
> >> >
> >> > Actually it does, lurkers. A bullet from Oswald`s rifle is
> >> > supportive of Oswald being a lone shooter, in that another shooter is
> >> > an unnecessary complication to explain the event, and Occam warned
> >> > against such things. So, although it doesn`t rule out other shooters
> >> > or establish Oswald as a lone shooter, it is in fact indicative.
> >>
> >> A "lone gunman" does *NOT* explain the event. There's EVIDENCE of
> >> other shooting locations.
> >
> > There is evidence there was a dog in the limo...
>
> Yep... indeed there was.
>
> We know *what* it was that caused a witness to think she saw a dog. In
> other words, THIS EVIDENCE ACTUALLY EXISTED.

So Ben believes that evidence can point to an untruth, lurkers. Can Ben point to a definition for "evidence" that says "that which indicates something that is untrue"?

> Likewise, there's EVIDENCE of other shooting locations - a fact... A
> **FACT** ... which "Dud" has previously denied.

Let Ben produce a definition for "evidence" that say "that which indicates something that is untrue" and I will agree with him, lurkers.

And calling it a fact, or a **FACT** is begging the question.

> So a "lone gunman" simply cannot explain the facts,

Other gunman have not been proven any more than a dog in the limo has been proven, lurkers.

People saying they thought shots came from a location can exist *without* a gunman being at the location they indicated.

> AS WE KNOW THEM...
> and cannot therefore be an example of Occam's Razor.

Did you see Ben present something that showed a single shooter can`t account for this event, lurkers? I know you didn`t. Occam`s Razor is a friend to the LNer position, and no friend to the retards. They love fantastic complexity.

[David Von Pein]

BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):

CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?

CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.

Now, you can start pretending that some *other* person used Oswald's gun to shoot Kennedy. But that argument has always gone nowhere for CTers, and everybody knows it's just another in a series of cop-out arguments utilized by desperate conspiracy theorists like Mr. Stump Holmes.

But to say (as The Stump did) that Commission Exhibit No. 399 "doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt" is just plain wrong---and stupid, since we know that the one and only person in the world who was the owner of the rifle that fired that bullet was a person named Lee H. Oswald.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:11:16 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>
> CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
>
> CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.

I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn`t rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:17:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:11:16 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
> >
> > CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
> >
> > Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
> >
> > CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.
>
> I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn`t rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.
>

Sure, that's obvious, but Ben phrased it this way --- "CE399...doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt". He isolated JUST CE399 and then claimed that that ONE piece of evidence, by itself, doesn't support Oswald's sole guilt. But, in actuality, as I pointed out above (and so did you), that bullet definitely does support ONLY Oswald's guilt and nobody else's.

So Ben, as usual, is dead wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:11:15 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>
>CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER
> person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace?
> Donald Trump?

It doesn't support *ANYONE'S* "guilt" - indeed, you cannot even show
that the bullet was fired on 11/22/63.

If you cannot show a firm chain of custody back to who found the
bullet, then you *CERTAINLY* can't show, on the basis of CE399, who
fired it.

What are you going to do, put CE399 on the witness stand?

> CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle

So far so good...

> owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Didn't take you long, did it?

This is an empty claim on your part, and you know quite well the
evidence AGAINST Oswald owning a rifle - you simply ignore anything
you don't want to hear.

> It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun.

Unless you can prove the rifle's ownership, *THEN* put the rifle in
the hands of a particular person, *THEN* have a valid chain of custody
for the bullet, it doesn't prove what you so desperately want it to
prove.

> It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun.

Nope.

> Hence, that piece of evidence *does*
> support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.

Nope. You lose.

> Now, you can start pretending that some *other* person used Oswald's
> gun to shoot Kennedy. But that argument has always gone nowhere for
> CTers, and everybody knows it's just another in a series of cop-out
> arguments utilized by desperate conspiracy theorists like Mr. Stump
> Holmes.

Clearly, you've adopted the Chucky Cheese standard... simply assert
something in conformance with the Warren Commission, and it's "true."

As I've stated, I now simply copy the tactics of believers.

So it's clear that the rifle DID NOT belong to Oswald.

It's now *YOUR* burden to prove your case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:55:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:17:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:11:16 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>> >
>> > CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
>> >
>> >
>> > DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>> >
>> > Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
>> >
>> > CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.
>>
>> I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn`t rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.
>>
>

> Sure, that's obvious, but Ben phrased it this way ---
>"CE399...doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt". He isolated JUST CE399

You're a liar, David.

Here's the relevant statement I made: "I pointed out that this is
simply untrue. CE399, for example, is incontrovertably "hard evidence"

... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt.""

Now, any *HONEST* person knows that I simply picked one example out of
many possible examples.

I didn't "isolate" CE399... I used it as merely *ONE* example.

The autopsy photographs & X-rays - INDISPUTABLY "hard evidence" ...
would be another example that fails to do what *YOU* claimed it did.

The two shells originally found in the TSBD would be another example.

The unknown fingerprint found on the sniper's nest box is another good
example.

I can go on and on... you simply LIED when you claimed "Does the

average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that
supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence supports
it)"

Every bit of "hard evidence" does *NOT* support Oswald's guilt, and
CERTAINLY never supported a lone gunman.

You're failing to support your claim.

> and then claimed that that ONE piece of evidence, by itself,

YOU'RE A GUTLESS LIAR, David... I gave it as simply *ONE* example out
of many... I just gave more examples...


> doesn't

> support Oswald's sole guilt. But, in actuality, as I pointed out

> above, that bullet definitely does support ONLY Oswald's guilt and
> nobody else's.


Nope. You're lying again, David.

You've not even shown that it was Oswald's rifle.

>So Ben, as usual, is dead wrong.

Nope. Time for you to run back to the censored forum, don't you think?

[David Von Pein]

You know darn well there's ample evidence to prove Oswald was the owner of Rifle C2766. Tons of it. The evidence could hardly be stronger, as I point out here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:14:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:55:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:17:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:11:16 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> > BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
> >> >
> >> > CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
> >> >
> >> > Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
> >> >
> >> > CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.
> >>
> >> I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn`t rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.
> >>
> >
> > Sure, that's obvious, but Ben phrased it this way ---
> >"CE399...doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt". He isolated JUST CE399
>
>
> You're a liar, David.
>
> Here's the relevant statement I made: "I pointed out that this is
> simply untrue. CE399, for example, is incontrovertably "hard evidence"
> ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt.""
>
> Now, any *HONEST* person knows that I simply picked one example out of
> many possible examples.
>
> I didn't "isolate" CE399... I used it as merely *ONE* example.
>

And you're wrong in saying that that one example [CE399] does not support Oswald's lone guilt....because it does JUST THAT. It supports the notion that the owner of the gun that fired that bullet was the lone shooter (especially after factoring in the fact that ALL of the other bullet fragments and shells ALSO came from the very same Carcano rifle that fired CE399).

(And you're wrong if you think the autopsy pictures & X-rays don't support Oswald's lone guilt as well....because those photos & X-rays most certainly DO support the notion of ONE SHOOTER firing from BEHIND....without doubt.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:20:00 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:14:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:55:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:17:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:11:16 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> >> > BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>> >> >
>> >> > CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
>> >> >
>> >> > CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.
>> >>
>> >> I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn`t rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sure, that's obvious, but Ben phrased it this way ---
>> >"CE399...doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt". He isolated JUST CE399
>>
>>
>> You're a liar, David.
>>
>> Here's the relevant statement I made: "I pointed out that this is
>> simply untrue. CE399, for example, is incontrovertably "hard evidence"
>> ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt.""
>>
>> Now, any *HONEST* person knows that I simply picked one example out of
>> many possible examples.
>>
>> I didn't "isolate" CE399... I used it as merely *ONE* example.

Notice that David "Stumpy" Pein refused to retract his blatant lie.


> And you're wrong in saying that one example does not support

> Oswald's lone guilt....because it does JUST THAT.

Nope. You're lying.

You're *IGNORING* every point I made against that idea, and simply
restating your lie.

>It supports the
> notion that the owner of the gun that fired that bullet was the lone
> shooter (especially after factoring in the fact that ALL of the other
> bullet fragments and shells ALSO came from the very same Carcano rifle
> that fired CE399).

Nope.


>Try again, Stump.


David "Stumpy" Pein loses again. I warned you that it was time to
slink back to the censored forum, you didn't take the hint.

>> The autopsy photographs & X-rays - INDISPUTABLY "hard evidence" ...
>> would be another example that fails to do what *YOU* claimed it did.

Dead silence... David "Stumpy" Pein has put on his running shoes, and
is demonstrating the cowardice that he's famous for.

>> The two shells originally found in the TSBD would be another example.

Crickets... David "Stumpy" Pein still running ...

>> The unknown fingerprint found on the sniper's nest box is another good
>> example.

David "Stumpy" Pein can't even *TRY* to make this one support his
"Oswald Did It Alone" theory...

>> I can go on and on... you simply LIED when you claimed "Does the
>> average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that
>> supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence supports
>> it)"
>>
>> Every bit of "hard evidence" does *NOT* support Oswald's guilt, and
>> CERTAINLY never supported a lone gunman.
>>
>> You're failing to support your claim.

And simply ignoring the burden of supporting your own lies only goes
to show what a coward you are.

>> > and then claimed that that ONE piece of evidence, by itself,
>>
>>
>> YOU'RE A GUTLESS LIAR, David... I gave it as simply *ONE* example out
>> of many... I just gave more examples...

Notice that David "Stumpy" Pein refused to retract his outrageous lie?

>> > doesn't
>> > support Oswald's sole guilt. But, in actuality, as I pointed out
>> > above, that bullet definitely does support ONLY Oswald's guilt and
>> > nobody else's.
>>
>>
>> Nope. You're lying again, David.
>>
>> You've not even shown that it was Oswald's rifle.

Anyone notice David "Stumpy" Pein silence here?

>> >So Ben, as usual, is dead wrong.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Time for you to run back to the censored forum, don't you think?

I warned you... now you're looking even *more* stupid than normal...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:14:53 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

Actually, no I don't. And you're too gutless to post your arguments
and citations *HERE* - because you know quite well how weak your case
actually is.

You learned your lesson over the money order, and it's lack of bank
endorsements...

> Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate
> the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?

Why would you refuse to post these "MANY things" right here, and stick
around to defend them?

I know why... you realize just how weak your case is, and you've long
ago realized that I know the case evidence far better than you do...
and you're deathly afraid of looking even more stupid than you do.

I told you it's your burden to prove your assertion that Oswald owned
a rifle... you've not even *TRIED* to do so. And *that* fact tells the
true story...

[Bud]

I know the answer to that one. Because they are playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:11:15 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
> >
> >CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
> >
> >
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
> >
> > Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER
> > person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace?
> > Donald Trump?
>
>
> It doesn't support *ANYONE'S* "guilt" - indeed, you cannot even show
> that the bullet was fired on 11/22/63.

This is why retards are never tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

> If you cannot show a firm chain of custody back to who found the
> bullet,

Who has ruled that there isn`t one, lurkers?

>then you *CERTAINLY* can't show, on the basis of CE399, who
> fired it.

We know it was fired from Oswald`s rifle and we know Oswald was shooting during the assassination, lurkers.

> What are you going to do, put CE399 on the witness stand?
>
>
> > CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle
>
> So far so good...
>
> > owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
>
> Didn't take you long, did it?
>
> This is an empty claim on your part, and you know quite well the
> evidence AGAINST Oswald owning a rifle - you simply ignore anything
> you don't want to hear.

Conspiracy retards look at the wrong things and then look at those wrong thing incorrectly. They feel everybody should do this.

> > It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun.
>
>
> Unless you can prove the rifle's ownership,

Done, lurkers.

> *THEN* put the rifle in
> the hands of a particular person,

Done, lurkers.

> *THEN* have a valid chain of custody
> for the bullet,

It is an empty claim that the chain of custody is invalid, lurkers.

> it doesn't prove what you so desperately want it to
> prove.

It does indeed help figure out what occurred, lurkers.

> > It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun.
>
>
> Nope.

It has been shown to be Oswald`s gun to my satisfaction, lurkers. A conspiracy retard doesn`t want to accept this, what could matter less?

> > Hence, that piece of evidence *does*
> > support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.
>
>
> Nope. You lose.

It has been shown to support Oswald`s guilt to my satisfaction, lurkers. A conspiracy retard doesn`t want to accept it, what could matter less?

> > Now, you can start pretending that some *other* person used Oswald's
> > gun to shoot Kennedy. But that argument has always gone nowhere for
> > CTers, and everybody knows it's just another in a series of cop-out
> > arguments utilized by desperate conspiracy theorists like Mr. Stump
> > Holmes.
>
> Clearly, you've adopted the Chucky Cheese standard... simply assert
> something in conformance with the Warren Commission, and it's "true."
>
> As I've stated, I now simply copy the tactics of believers.
>
> So it's clear that the rifle DID NOT belong to Oswald.
>
> It's now *YOUR* burden to prove your case.

It has been on the table for decades, lurkers.

[Bud]

Ot was endorsed by Kleins, lurkers. And the file locator number shows that it passed through the system.

> > Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate
> > the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?
>
> Why would you refuse to post these "MANY things" right here, and stick
> around to defend them?
>
> I know why... you realize just how weak your case is, and you've long
> ago realized that I know the case evidence far better than you do...
> and you're deathly afraid of looking even more stupid than you do.
>
> I told you it's your burden to prove your assertion that Oswald owned
> a rifle... you've not even *TRIED* to do so. And *that* fact tells the
> true story...

Weird that these retards would dispute such an obvious fact, isn`t it lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 06:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Looks like Chucky's afraid of the money order too!

>> > Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate
>> > the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?
>>
>> Why would you refuse to post these "MANY things" right here, and stick
>> around to defend them?
>>
>> I know why... you realize just how weak your case is, and you've long
>> ago realized that I know the case evidence far better than you do...
>> and you're deathly afraid of looking even more stupid than you do.
>>
>> I told you it's your burden to prove your assertion that Oswald owned
>> a rifle... you've not even *TRIED* to do so. And *that* fact tells the
>> true story...
>

> The burden that your hero Oswald owned the rifle was met beyond any
> reasonable doubt within the first few days after the assassination,
> and BENtarded is still scratching his head over it.

Nope.

YOUR burden to show that Oswald owned a rifle hasn't even *STARTED* to
be met.

It's your claim, it's your burden.

Go to it!


> Invoking Jay Utah again, but your burden is to produce an
> affirmative case that the rifle wasn't owned by your hero Oswald, it's
> not the other way around.


Invoking *YOU* - the standard is to merely assert a "fact" - then it's
up to YOU to prove it wrong.

************************************
>> The standard that *YOU'VE* adopted is to merely assert what the Warren
>> Commission said, then demand I prove otherwise.
>
> That is the standard, twerp.
************************************

Oswald never owned the Mannlicher Carcano.


>Five decades of this stuff, lurkers.

And yet, Chucky toils on, desperately trying to maintain his
self-respect in the face of his cowardice and lying...

[Bud]

It has been shown to our satisfaction, lurkers. A retard is unconvinced, what could matter less?

There is just too much in evidence to make any reasonable case that Oswald didn`t own that rifle.

> It's your claim, it's your burden.

The criteria is never "You have to convince a retard", lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:15:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:55:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:46:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> David Von Pein sputtered: "Does the average researcher just simply
>> >> >> ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and
>> >> >> every bit of hard evidence supports it),
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I pointed out that this is simply untrue. CE399, for example, is
>> >> >> incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's
>> >> >> lone guilt."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Dud" immediately whined "Empty claim" - meaning that I cannot support
>> >> >> such a statement.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yet it is SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, no and maybe...
>> >>
>> >> This is so silly that it needs no comment.
>>
>>
>> I see that "Dud" was afraid to defend this indefensible statement of
>> his.
>

> Ben cuts and runs ...

As everyone can see, it was "Dud" who cut and run.

Hence my statement that "Dud" was afraid to defend this indefensible
statement of his.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 16:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:11:16 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>>
>> CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>>
>> Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
>>
>> CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence *does* support *Oswald's* guilt and nobody else's.
>
> I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn`t rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.

It neither supports Oswald's guilt, nor his "lone" guilt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

And now we have "Dud" frightened of the money order too!

>> >> > Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate
>> >> > the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?
>> >>
>> >> Why would you refuse to post these "MANY things" right here, and stick
>> >> around to defend them?
>> >>
>> >> I know why... you realize just how weak your case is, and you've long
>> >> ago realized that I know the case evidence far better than you do...
>> >> and you're deathly afraid of looking even more stupid than you do.
>> >>
>> >> I told you it's your burden to prove your assertion that Oswald owned
>> >> a rifle... you've not even *TRIED* to do so. And *that* fact tells the
>> >> true story...
>> >
>> > The burden that your hero Oswald owned the rifle was met beyond any
>> > reasonable doubt within the first few days after the assassination,
>> > and BENtarded is still scratching his head over it.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> YOUR burden to show that Oswald owned a rifle hasn't even *STARTED* to
>> be met.
>

> It has been shown to our satisfaction...

Ah! A new "standard" from believers... it need only be "shown to their
satisfaction."

Good.

Because the fact that Oswald did *NOT* own a rifle has been quite
adequately shown to *MY* satisfaction.

End of story...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:03:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

>> Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that
>> indicate the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald?
>> Why?
>
> I know the answer to that one. Because they are playing silly
> games with the deaths of these men.

According to the standard set by Chucky, and not repudiated by you or
any other believer, it's clear that you've not proved that Oswald
owned a Mannlicher Carcano.

Get to it stumpy!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:08:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ot was endorsed by Kleins...

Nope. That's just silly.

You're now claiming that a bank paid the money order without
documenting that they paid it.

How many times do you suppose the same money order, WITHOUT AN
ENDORSEMENT, could be passed to the teller to have cashed?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 02:04:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:11:15 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >BEN (STUMP) HOLMES SAID (INCREDIBLY):
>> >
>> >CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
>> >
>> >
>> >DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>> >
>> > Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt, you stump. What OTHER
>> > person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace?
>> > Donald Trump?
>>
>>
>> It doesn't support *ANYONE'S* "guilt" - indeed, you cannot even show
>> that the bullet was fired on 11/22/63.
>
> This is why retards are never tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

No, it takes a real *genius* like stumpy here to look at a bullet with
no chain of custody, and pretend that it proves who fired it, and
when.

[Bud]

Ben cuts and runs from my arguments and then asks to see my arguments, lurkers. He is truly retarded.

[Bud]

By making points Ben will ultimately run from, lurkers.

>
>
>
> >> >> > Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate
> >> >> > the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would you refuse to post these "MANY things" right here, and stick
> >> >> around to defend them?
> >> >>
> >> >> I know why... you realize just how weak your case is, and you've long
> >> >> ago realized that I know the case evidence far better than you do...
> >> >> and you're deathly afraid of looking even more stupid than you do.
> >> >>
> >> >> I told you it's your burden to prove your assertion that Oswald owned
> >> >> a rifle... you've not even *TRIED* to do so. And *that* fact tells the
> >> >> true story...
> >> >
> >> > The burden that your hero Oswald owned the rifle was met beyond any
> >> > reasonable doubt within the first few days after the assassination,
> >> > and BENtarded is still scratching his head over it.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> YOUR burden to show that Oswald owned a rifle hasn't even *STARTED* to
> >> be met.
> >
> > It has been shown to our satisfaction...
>
> Ah! A new "standard" from believers... it need only be "shown to their
> satisfaction."
>
> Good.
>
> Because the fact that Oswald did *NOT* own a rifle has been quite
> adequately shown to *MY* satisfaction.

Why would this retard think I wouldn`t be fine with this, lurkers?

> End of story...

[Bud]

I was claiming it was endorsed by Kleins. The payee endorses the money order. Kleins was the payee.

> How many times do you suppose the same money order, WITHOUT AN
> ENDORSEMENT, could be passed to the teller to have cashed?

The file locator number shows the money order passed through the system, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:26:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Any time you're ready to document your assertions, feel free.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:24:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben cuts and runs...

Still no support for your claim...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

ROTFLMAO!!!

Why did Kleins bother shipping rifles? They could have just printed up
checks and "endorsed" them...

[Bud]

No counter argument, lurkers.

> Why did Kleins bother shipping rifles?

No counter argument, lurkers.

>They could have just printed up
> checks and "endorsed" them...

No counter argument, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

The moron doesn't see the counter argument.

So I'll drive the point home, why were the employees & owners of
Kleins not taking home a million or two every year?

All they needed was their "Kleins" stamp... what was stopping them
from being a billionaire company???

(Watch "Dud" run now...)

[Bud]

There was none, lurkers.

> So I'll drive the point home, why were the employees & owners of
> Kleins not taking home a million or two every year?

Because not enough people were sending them checks and money orders to endorse, lurkers.

> All they needed was their "Kleins" stamp... what was stopping them
> from being a billionaire company???

Does Ben think you can stamp any piece of paper with an endorsement stamp and make it worth something?

> (Watch "Dud" run now...)

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> There was none that I could see.

Yep. What I said...

[Bud]

Whenever I`m beating Ben up badly he is forced to change my words. I beat Ben up a lot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Whenever...

Whatever...