info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DAVID VON PEIN PUBLICLY LIES ON HIS WEBSITE... Can't Tell The Truth To Save His Life!
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Mar 13, 2017, 10:20:28 AM3/13/17
to
>> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
>
> Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
>
> Thank you.
> [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
Just 6 minutes later...
It's simply not possible that David didn't read that answer... (the one he claimed didn't exist) - BECAUSE HE RESPONDED TO THAT 'NON-EXISTENT' ANSWER JUST MINUTES LATER - AT 07:47:38 AM.
So David is blatantly lying.
But even when David's obvious lies are pointed out, he consistently refuses to correct his website.
He's desperately trying to convey the impression that his posts are so righteous that I'm unable to respond - when the truth is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.
David *ALWAYS* ends up running away...
ALWAYS!
> So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
>
> Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
>
> Thank you.
> [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
Just 6 minutes later...
It's simply not possible that David didn't read that answer... (the one he claimed didn't exist) - BECAUSE HE RESPONDED TO THAT 'NON-EXISTENT' ANSWER JUST MINUTES LATER - AT 07:47:38 AM.
So David is blatantly lying.
But even when David's obvious lies are pointed out, he consistently refuses to correct his website.
He's desperately trying to convey the impression that his posts are so righteous that I'm unable to respond - when the truth is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.
David *ALWAYS* ends up running away...
ALWAYS!
Ben Holmes
Mar 13, 2017, 12:02:59 PM3/13/17
to
>> Are you attempting to assert that *YOU* are honest, Davey?
David Von Pein:
> You bet.
>
> [Ben now scurries around like a rat to find 397 previous DVP posts that he thinks contain "lies", but they really contain no "lies" at all. Have a ball, Ben.]
*********************************************************************
Don't need to "scurry" at all... the post above shows where David RESPONDED to a post he claims I never made. And did so within just minutes of the post.
How can one respond to something that doesn't exist?
How can one respond within minutes - then claim that the post didn't exist?
So David's a PROVABLE liar. There's no particular difficulty in finding examples where he's lied. Nor is it merely my 'opinion' that David lied... the proof is simple:
DAVID WILL NOT DEFEND HIS LIES!
David Von Pein
Mar 13, 2017, 1:57:00 PM3/13/17
to
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
>
> > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> >
> > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
>
> David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
>
Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
> >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
>
> > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> >
> > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
>
> David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
> My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/N0LseivRDgAJ
And here's the sum total of Ben's response:
--quote:--
"Why are you trying desperately to get me to say something? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN POSTING EVERY DAY???"
--unquote--
Therefore, my added comment that I made on my website only --- "Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't" --- is a 100% accurate and true statement. Ben never answered my question at all.
Ben, as he just proved yet again by starting this useless thread, is a slimy, despicable liar.
Ben Holmes
Mar 13, 2017, 2:22:12 PM3/13/17
to
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:57:00 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> >
> > > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> > >
> > > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
> >
> > David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
> >
>
> Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
>
>
>
>
> > My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
> >
>
> Ben doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). Ben's response...
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> >
> > > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> > >
> > > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
> >
> > David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
> >
>
> Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
>
>
>
>
> > My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
> >
>
WHAT!!???
What response?
You claimed I never answered you.
Now you're admitting that I did.
So which is it, David?
DID I ANSWER YOUR POST, OR DID I NOT ANSWER YOUR POST???
See if you can tell the truth...
David Von Pein
Mar 13, 2017, 2:40:58 PM3/13/17
to
"Why are you trying desperately to get me to say something? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN POSTING EVERY DAY???" -- B. Holmes
And you got the post times all mixed up. You referred to 2 posts that had nothing to do with my post in question. Why did you do that?
Ben Holmes
Mar 13, 2017, 2:52:44 PM3/13/17
to
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:40:58 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:57:00 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> > > >
> > > > > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
> > > >
> > > > David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ben doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). Ben's response...
> >
> >
> > WHAT!!???
> >
> > What response?
> >
> > You claimed I never answered you.
> >
> > Now you're admitting that I did.
> >
> > So which is it, David?
> >
> > DID I ANSWER YOUR POST, OR DID I NOT ANSWER YOUR POST???
> >
> > See if you can tell the truth...
>
> Are you REALLY this dense, Ben? You RESPONDED to my Feb. 3rd post with a NON-ANSWER to the question I asked.
Then why did you assert I had not answered AT ALL? ("Ben never answered me.")
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:57:00 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> > > >
> > > > > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
> > > >
> > > > David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ben doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). Ben's response...
> >
> >
> > WHAT!!???
> >
> > What response?
> >
> > You claimed I never answered you.
> >
> > Now you're admitting that I did.
> >
> > So which is it, David?
> >
> > DID I ANSWER YOUR POST, OR DID I NOT ANSWER YOUR POST???
> >
> > See if you can tell the truth...
>
> Are you REALLY this dense, Ben? You RESPONDED to my Feb. 3rd post with a NON-ANSWER to the question I asked.
I can answer ANY EVIDENCE BASED QUESTION **WHATSOEVER** on this case, and you know this.
You're a disgusting little liar to suggest otherwise.
I DARE you to answer any evidential question in this case that I will not answer!!!
The same isn't true for you, YOU RUN REPEATEDLY FROM QUESTIONS I RAISE - Questions that are DIRECTLY relevant to this case, and the evidence.
>But you didn't ANSWER THE QUESTION at all. Not even close to an answer. You think THIS is an answer to my question?....
>
> "Why are you trying desperately to get me to say something? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN POSTING EVERY DAY???" -- B. Holmes
>
> And you got the post times all mixed up. You referred to 2 posts that had nothing to do with my post in question. Why did you do that?
Probably won't work again, now that you know.
So coward, why don't you ask the question you claim I didn't answer...
Then answer my questions... you can start with a credible explanation of why the prosectors never saw the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
Let's see who the coward truly is...
David Von Pein
Mar 13, 2017, 3:06:14 PM3/13/17
to
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:52:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:40:58 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:57:00 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
> > > > >
> > > > > David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ben doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). Ben's response...
> > >
> > >
> > > WHAT!!???
> > >
> > > What response?
> > >
> > > You claimed I never answered you.
> > >
> > > Now you're admitting that I did.
> > >
> > > So which is it, David?
> > >
> > > DID I ANSWER YOUR POST, OR DID I NOT ANSWER YOUR POST???
> > >
> > > See if you can tell the truth...
> >
> > Are you REALLY this dense, Ben? You RESPONDED to my Feb. 3rd post with a NON-ANSWER to the question I asked.
>
>
> Then why did you assert I had not answered AT ALL? ("Ben never answered me.")
>
Because you DIDN'T answer, you silly stump. You merely responded with a non-answer.
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:40:58 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:57:00 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:20:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > >> You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > [Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]
> > > > >
> > > > > David's post above occurred in this forum on Feb 3rd, at 07:32:34 AM.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ben is dead wrong (as usual). The post of mine Ben is referring to was written at 3:37:33 PM (ET) on Feb. 3 .... not at 7:32 AM.
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MXhn-L3CAMk/sifnyCvMDgAJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > My answer (which he clearly claims never occurred) follows on Feb 3rd, at 07:38:48 AM.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ben doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). Ben's response...
> > >
> > >
> > > WHAT!!???
> > >
> > > What response?
> > >
> > > You claimed I never answered you.
> > >
> > > Now you're admitting that I did.
> > >
> > > So which is it, David?
> > >
> > > DID I ANSWER YOUR POST, OR DID I NOT ANSWER YOUR POST???
> > >
> > > See if you can tell the truth...
> >
> > Are you REALLY this dense, Ben? You RESPONDED to my Feb. 3rd post with a NON-ANSWER to the question I asked.
>
>
> Then why did you assert I had not answered AT ALL? ("Ben never answered me.")
>
Do you *actually* need to have the words "RESPOND" and "ANSWER" defined for you?
Ben Holmes
Mar 13, 2017, 4:18:05 PM3/13/17
to
You clearly asserted that I'd not answered the post AT ALL.
The fact is, not only did I answer it, BUT YOU RESPONDED TO MY ANSWER.
> Do you *actually* need to have the words "RESPOND" and "ANSWER" defined for you?
Yes or no?
If you were honest, David; you'd be forced to say "yes."
Meaning that you've misrepresented the thread.
In other words - YOU LIED!
> > I can answer ANY EVIDENCE BASED QUESTION **WHATSOEVER** on this case, and you know this.
> >
> > You're a disgusting little liar to suggest otherwise.
> >
> > I DARE you to answer any evidential question in this case that I will not answer!!!
This clearly shows that David *knows* he lost this one... he dares not post any question - because he *KNOWS* I can offer a credible, citable answer to any evidence based question on this case.
> > The same isn't true for you, YOU RUN REPEATEDLY FROM QUESTIONS I RAISE - Questions that are DIRECTLY relevant to this case, and the evidence.
> >
> >
> > >But you didn't ANSWER THE QUESTION at all. Not even close to an answer. You think THIS is an answer to my question?....
> > >
> > > "Why are you trying desperately to get me to say something? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN POSTING EVERY DAY???" -- B. Holmes
> > >
> > > And you got the post times all mixed up. You referred to 2 posts that had nothing to do with my post in question. Why did you do that?
> >
> > Hehehe... I knew I could get you to respond that way.
> >
> > Probably won't work again, now that you know.
> >
> > So coward, why don't you ask the question you claim I didn't answer...
> >
> > Then answer my questions... you can start with a credible explanation of why the prosectors never saw the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
Not only does David refuse to ask any questions... HE ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER MINE.
In other words, David is PROVABLY guilty of what he claimed for me...
Why the cowardice, David???
> > Let's see who the coward truly is...
No answers for me either... quite the coward, aren't you David?
David Von Pein
Mar 14, 2017, 12:36:29 AM3/14/17
to
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Does a reasonable person get the impression from reading your website that I never answered the post?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Does a reasonable person get the impression from reading your website that I never answered the post?
Of course. Because you didn't ANSWER it, Mr. Potato Head. Just as I said in "Assassination Arguments, Part 1227":
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html
Anyone who clicks on the post link that I cited to prove my point (i.e., the post you wrote on Feb. 3 at 5:09:09 PM ET) can easily see that you didn't answer my question about the alleged "fake" evidence at all.
And now you want to play silly mind games (and semantics games) regarding the terms "RESPONDED" and "ANSWERED". As Bud has said many times recently, you like to play silly games, don't you Ben? It's evidently the only thing keeping you here.
As for my answering every conspiracy-tinged question you raise --- that's probably never going to happen. I answer the stuff I choose to answer. If you don't like the response percentage I provide, tough toenails.
That doesn't mean, however, that your questions have NO ANSWERS from the LN side. *Of course* they all have reasonable answers---and you know exactly what they are even if I haven't immediately rushed to my computer to answer you in this forum two seconds after you demand a reply.
But I'd bet the farm that I *HAVE* answered all (or certainly most) of your questions AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST in prior posts at either this forum or my websites or somewhere else online.
I've catalogued most of the major sub-topics pertaining to the JFK case in my JFK Archives Index for quick reference to those subjects. And additional advanced site searches on my site will usually bring up positive results for nearly all of the topics related to the Kennedy case, even very minor ones.
But you'll just hide in your conspiracy cocoon and pretend that your inquiries have never *once* been reasonably answered by any Lone Assassin advocate. (That's called "Denial", folks. And it's a CTer's middle name. Just ask James R. Gordon at The Education Forum. He's probably even changed his middle initial to "D" by now.)
Ben Holmes
Mar 14, 2017, 10:16:29 AM3/14/17
to
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:36:29 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Does a reasonable person get the impression from reading your website that I never answered the post?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Of course.
And yet, you RESPONDED TO MY ANSWER - and refused to post *that* to your dishonest website.
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Does a reasonable person get the impression from reading your website that I never answered the post?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Of course.
> Because you didn't ANSWER it, Mr. Potato Head. Just as I said in "Assassination Arguments, Part 1227":
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html
You RESPONDED to my response.
So you *KNOW* beyond all doubt that I responded to your post.
Once again, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to either ask or answer a question.
Which merely shows your consciousness of guilt... you know you lost.
> Anyone who clicks on the post link that I cited to prove my point (i.e., the post you wrote on Feb. 3 at 5:09:09 PM ET) can easily see that you didn't answer my question about the alleged "fake" evidence at all.
Why are you so afraid to ask the question, David?
Could it be because YOU KNOW BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT I'LL ANSWER IT?
And you still refuse to answer mine?
> And now you want to play silly mind games (and semantics games) regarding the terms "RESPONDED" and "ANSWERED". As Bud has said many times recently, you like to play silly games, don't you Ben? It's evidently the only thing keeping you here.
And that's a lie.
You *KNOW* it's a lie.
> As for my answering every conspiracy-tinged question you raise --- that's probably never going to happen. I answer the stuff I choose to answer. If you don't like the response percentage I provide, tough toenails.
Nor are they "conspiracy-tinged" questions... they are questions on the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
There are only two reasons for your refusal to answer: Dishonesty & Cowardice.
You'll NEVER provide another *credible* reason...
> That doesn't mean, however, that your questions have NO ANSWERS from the LN side. *Of course* they all have reasonable answers---and you know exactly what they are even if I haven't immediately rushed to my computer to answer you in this forum two seconds after you demand a reply.
This is a lie you'll NEVER support.
The *honest* answer to most of the questions I raise indict the Warren Commission... you'll NEVER cite any such prior answers... They don't exist.
> But I'd bet the farm that I *HAVE* answered all (or certainly most) of your questions AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST in prior posts at either this forum or my websites or somewhere else online.
Quite amusing, really... This simply shows the level of dishonesty required to support Vincent Bugliosi & the Warren Commission.
> I've catalogued most of the major sub-topics pertaining to the JFK case in my JFK Archives Index for quick reference to those subjects. And additional advanced site searches on my site will usually bring up positive results for nearly all of the topics related to the Kennedy case, even very minor ones.
> But you'll just hide in your conspiracy cocoon and pretend that your inquiries have never *once* been reasonably answered by any Lone Assassin advocate. (That's called "Denial", folks. And it's a CTer's middle name. Just ask James R. Gordon at The Education Forum. He's probably even changed his middle initial to "D" by now.)
If I were, you'd have no problems CITING these 'well indexed' answers.
But you can't... you're lying.
Go ahead, David ... PROVE ME WRONG!!!
But you're too gutless...
> > Yes or no?
> >
> > If you were honest, David; you'd be forced to say "yes."
> >
> > Meaning that you've misrepresented the thread.
> >
> > In other words - YOU LIED!
> >
> >
> > > > I can answer ANY EVIDENCE BASED QUESTION **WHATSOEVER** on this case, and you know this.
> > > >
> > > > You're a disgusting little liar to suggest otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > I DARE you to answer any evidential question in this case that I will not answer!!!
> >
> >
> > Dead silence...
> >
> >
> > This clearly shows that David *knows* he lost this one... he dares not post any question - because he *KNOWS* I can offer a credible, citable answer to any evidence based question on this case.
> > > > The same isn't true for you, YOU RUN REPEATEDLY FROM QUESTIONS I RAISE - Questions that are DIRECTLY relevant to this case, and the evidence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >But you didn't ANSWER THE QUESTION at all. Not even close to an answer. You think THIS is an answer to my question?....
> > > > >
> > > > > "Why are you trying desperately to get me to say something? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN POSTING EVERY DAY???" -- B. Holmes
> > > > >
> > > > > And you got the post times all mixed up. You referred to 2 posts that had nothing to do with my post in question. Why did you do that?
> > > >
> > > > Hehehe... I knew I could get you to respond that way.
> > > >
> > > > Probably won't work again, now that you know.
> > > >
> > > > So coward, why don't you ask the question you claim I didn't answer...
> > > >
> > > > Then answer my questions... you can start with a credible explanation of why the prosectors never saw the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
> >
> >
> > Dead silence...
> >
> > Not only does David refuse to ask any questions... HE ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER MINE.
> >
> > In other words, David is PROVABLY guilty of what he claimed for me...
> >
> > Why the cowardice, David???
0 new messages