Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #5

[Ben Holmes]

> 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
> Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
> Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
> door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
> had the package under his arm."

Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
"sole guilt" of anyone at all.

But let's review what Jack Dougherty testified to:

Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

So what we have is a conflict in the evidence, nothing more.

One man saying that Oswald carried *nothing*.

And one man saying he carried a "long package."

What David won't tell you is that Frazier was de facto arrested, had
his rifle confiscated, and went through a lie detector test. Frazier
was, on 11/22 - a very good suspect for the murder of the President...
and *certainly* had just cause to say what the police wanted to hear.

But... let's presume that Oswald *DID* have a package... what's more
likely to have it been? He told Eddie Piper that he was going down to
eat lunch... he told the DPD during questioning that he ate lunch.

Where did the lunch come from?

David can't answer this, nor can he explain how this shows the "sole
guilt" of anyone at all.

IT'S MERELY SPECULATION.

And speculation that doesn't explain the known facts.

Watch as David runs, and Dufus obfuscates...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
> > Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
> > Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
> > door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
> > had the package under his arm."
>
> Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Of course it has something to do with the political extremist carrying a "big sack" on the day a political assassination was carried out from that workplace, lurkers.

> But let's review what Jack Dougherty testified to:
>
> Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> Mr. BALL - He was alone?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
> Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
> Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
> would remember whether he did or didn't?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
> way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
> Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
> his hands?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
> Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
>
> So what we have is a conflict in the evidence, nothing more.

Not really, lurkers. The door Frazier saw Oswald go in the building was not the door Dougherty saw Oswald come through.

> One man saying that Oswald carried *nothing*.
>
> And one man saying he carried a "long package."

If they both saw Oswald going into the building through the same door at the same time and reported different things, that would be a conflict, lurkers. What is in evidence is not. Besides, Doughery saw Oswald from across the room, a room that was cluttered with stuff.

> What David won't tell you is that Frazier was de facto arrested, had
> his rifle confiscated, and went through a lie detector test.

Likely he leaves focusing on the wrong things to the conspiracy retards, lurkers.

> Frazier
> was, on 11/22 - a very good suspect for the murder of the President...

Nonsense, lurkers. He was a suspect merely because of his association with the President`s murderer. Even over fifty years after the fact they insist on chasing red herrings down blind alleys.

> and *certainly* had just cause to say what the police wanted to hear.

The retards have to call the witnesses liars, what they related does not support their faith.

> But... let's presume that Oswald *DID* have a package...

Let me inform you lurkers that Frazier wasn`t the only person to see Oswald with this package, his sister, Linnie Mae Randle also did.

> what's more
> likely to have it been? He told Eddie Piper that he was going down to
> eat lunch...

Ben is lying, lurkers. This is what he related in his affidavit...

"Yesterday at about 12:00 Noon, this fello Lee says to me, "I'm going up to eat" and I went on to my lunch."

> he told the DPD during questioning that he ate lunch.

<snicker> Ben the hypocrite strikes again, lurkers. Does Ben accept the information that the authorities got from Oswald in the interrogations, or just the information that he finds useful to the silly game he plays with the deaths of these men?

And did Oswald admit to the authorities that he carried a bag like Linnie Mae and Frazier described? No, lurkers, he did not.

> Where did the lunch come from?

Where did the dog in the limo come from, lurkers?

> David can't answer this, nor can he explain how this shows the "sole
> guilt" of anyone at all.
>
> IT'S MERELY SPECULATION.

Where would this retarded conspiracy hobby be without speculation, lurkers?

> And speculation that doesn't explain the known facts.

Did you lurkers see Ben establish as fact that Oswald ate lunch? I know you didn`t, neither did I.

> Watch as David runs, and Dufus obfuscates...

I clearly addressed every issue Ben raised head on, lurkers. But like happens every time I address the issues Ben raises, he will snip and run.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:52:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
>> > Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
>> > Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
>> > door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
>> > had the package under his arm."
>>
>> Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
>> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>
> Of course it has something to do with the political extremist
> carrying a "big sack" on the day a political assassination was carried
> out from that workplace, lurkers.

Running again, eh Dufus?

Why can't you admit the obvious? David flat *LIED* when he claimed
that any or all of the 20 items supported the "sole guilt" of anyone
at all.

WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF EXPLAINING WHAT DAVID IS CLAIMING?

>> But let's review what Jack Dougherty testified to:
>>
>> Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
>> Mr. BALL - He was alone?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
>> Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
>> Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
>> would remember whether he did or didn't?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
>> way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
>> Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
>> Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
>> his hands?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
>> Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
>>
>> So what we have is a conflict in the evidence, nothing more.
>
> Not really, lurkers. The door Frazier saw Oswald go in the
> building was not the door Dougherty saw Oswald come through.

Dufus is now arguing that Oswald came through two different doors...

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

But notice that Dufus failed to support his claim with *ANYTHING AT
ALL*.

Dufus is lying again.

>> One man saying that Oswald carried *nothing*.
>>
>> And one man saying he carried a "long package."
>
> If they both saw Oswald going into the building through the same
> door at the same time and reported different things, that would be a
> conflict, lurkers. What is in evidence is not. Besides, Doughery saw
> Oswald from across the room, a room that was cluttered with stuff.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that Oswald went through two
different doors as he entered the building.

And you do this on the basis of SHEER SPECULATION.

You're simply lying again.

You're offering your **OPINION** as historical fact.

Why can't you cite for your claims?

>> What David won't tell you is that Frazier was de facto arrested, had
>> his rifle confiscated, and went through a lie detector test.
>
> Likely he leaves focusing on the wrong things to the conspiracy
> retards, lurkers.

David doesn't do *anything*... he's afraid to debate critical review
of his website.

>> Frazier
>> was, on 11/22 - a very good suspect for the murder of the President...
>
> Nonsense, lurkers. He was a suspect merely because of his
> association with the President`s murderer. Even over fifty years after
> the fact they insist on chasing red herrings down blind alleys.

Once again you offer your **OPINION** as historical fact.


At least you acknowledge that he *WAS* a suspect. What you left
unexplained is why his rifle was confiscated if he was merely
suspected because of his association with Oswald.

You lose again!

>> and *certainly* had just cause to say what the police wanted to hear.
>
> The retards have to call the witnesses liars, what they related
> does not support their faith.

Au contraire... we believe what can be corroborated. *YOU* disbelieve
*ALL* the witnesses.

For example, you don't even believe Frazier when he stated how long
the package was...

>> But... let's presume that Oswald *DID* have a package...
>
> Let me inform you lurkers that Frazier wasn`t the only person to
> see Oswald with this package, his sister, Linnie Mae Randle also did.

If she didn't see him going into the TSBD with a package, what good is
her testimony?

You don't believe her anyway...

>> what's more
>> likely to have it been? He told Eddie Piper that he was going down to
>> eat lunch...
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers. This is what he related in his affidavit...
>
> "Yesterday at about 12:00 Noon, this fello Lee says to me, "I'm
> going up to eat" and I went on to my lunch."

This supports what I stated. So where's the "lie?"

THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT OSWALD ATE LUNCH IN THE DOMINO ROOM,
a fact that you can't refute.

>> he told the DPD during questioning that he ate lunch.
>
> <snicker> Ben the hypocrite strikes again, lurkers. Does Ben
> accept the information that the authorities got from Oswald in the
> interrogations, or just the information that he finds useful to the
> silly game he plays with the deaths of these men?

Did he tell the DPD that he ate lunch?

I accept what has been corroborated by more than a single witness, and
Dufus cannot.

The one "playing" is Dufus.

> And did Oswald admit to the authorities that he carried a bag like
> Linnie Mae and Frazier described? No, lurkers, he did not.

Did he corroborate Jack Dougherty's testimony?

>> Where did the lunch come from?
>
> Where did the dog in the limo come from, lurkers?

White flowers, most likely.

Notice that *I* have a credible explanation... Dufus simply believes
everyone to be lying or mistaken.

>> David can't answer this, nor can he explain how this shows the "sole
>> guilt" of anyone at all.
>>
>> IT'S MERELY SPECULATION.
>
> Where would this retarded conspiracy hobby be without speculation,
> lurkers?

David, of course, is the one speculating... as are you.

*NONE* of David's 20 points support the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
You know it, David knows it, and both of you are lying about it.

I daresay that he wishes he'd never titled that webpage the way he
did.

>> And speculation that doesn't explain the known facts.
>
> Did you lurkers see Ben establish as fact that Oswald ate lunch? I
> know you didn`t, neither did I.

Did you lurkers see Dufus establish as fact that JFK was shot on
11/22/63?

>> Watch as David runs, and Dufus obfuscates...
>
> I clearly addressed every issue Ben raised head on, lurkers. But
> like happens every time I address the issues Ben raises, he will snip
> and run.

Actually, you've simply lied.

You've not addressed the very first point I made *AT ALL*.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:16:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:52:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
> >> > Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
> >> > Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
> >> > door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
> >> > had the package under his arm."
> >>
> >> Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
> >> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
> >
> > Of course it has something to do with the political extremist
> > carrying a "big sack" on the day a political assassination was carried
> > out from that workplace, lurkers.
>
>
> Running again, eh Dufus?

I made a counter argument that Ben didn`t touch, lurkers. That makes him the runner.

> Why can't you admit the obvious? David flat *LIED* when he claimed
> that any or all of the 20 items supported the "sole guilt" of anyone
> at all.
>
> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF EXPLAINING WHAT DAVID IS CLAIMING?

Why is Ben so dishonest that he ignores my explanations, lurkers?

> >> But let's review what Jack Dougherty testified to:
> >>
> >> Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> >> Mr. BALL - He was alone?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
> >> Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
> >> Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
> >> would remember whether he did or didn't?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
> >> way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
> >> Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
> >> Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
> >> his hands?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
> >> Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
> >>
> >> So what we have is a conflict in the evidence, nothing more.
> >
> > Not really, lurkers. The door Frazier saw Oswald go in the
> > building was not the door Dougherty saw Oswald come through.
>
> Dufus is now arguing that Oswald came through two different doors...

Ben is too much of a stump to understand what I am arguing, lurkers. I will have to dumb it down to withing his reach. Only one of the two witnesses being discussed saw Oswald come through a door. One saw him go into a door. They were two completely different doors. Ben is trying to pass it off as if the door Frazier saw Oswald enter was the same door Dougherty saw him come through. They were not.

> Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
> Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
> Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
>
> But notice that Dufus failed to support his claim with *ANYTHING AT
> ALL*.

I only need to quote what Ben supplied earlier from Frazier`s affidavit...

"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1061.jpg

The door Frazier is describing is the one at the top of the steps to the loading dock. The door Dougherty saw Oswald come in was the door to the general open storage space. They saw Oswald at different times at different places. There is no reason to believe that Oswald should be seen with the package at any time during the day by anyone who saw him.

> Dufus is lying again.
>
> >> One man saying that Oswald carried *nothing*.
> >>
> >> And one man saying he carried a "long package."
> >
> > If they both saw Oswald going into the building through the same
> > door at the same time and reported different things, that would be a
> > conflict, lurkers. What is in evidence is not. Besides, Doughery saw
> > Oswald from across the room, a room that was cluttered with stuff.
>
>
> You, on the other hand, are arguing that Oswald went through two
> different doors as he entered the building.

Pointing out, not arguing, lurkers.

> And you do this on the basis of SHEER SPECULATION.

The evidence, lurkers. This is the door Dougherty would have seen Oswald come through. Notice it does not lead to the outside...

https://gaylenixjackson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/breakerboxestsbd.jpg

> You're simply lying again.
>
> You're offering your **OPINION** as historical fact.
>
> Why can't you cite for your claims?

Did that, lurkers.

> >> What David won't tell you is that Frazier was de facto arrested, had
> >> his rifle confiscated, and went through a lie detector test.
> >
> > Likely he leaves focusing on the wrong things to the conspiracy
> > retards, lurkers.
>
>
> David doesn't do *anything*... he's afraid to debate critical review
> of his website.

DVP does what Ben cannot, puts his ideas and the support for them out there for consideration, lurkers. The criteria Ben wants to apply is that these ideas have to be accepted by retards, that is not the criteria, they are offered to reasonable people. It is like asking a dog to see color to expect a conspiracy retard to be able to reason.

> >> Frazier
> >> was, on 11/22 - a very good suspect for the murder of the President...
> >
> > Nonsense, lurkers. He was a suspect merely because of his
> > association with the President`s murderer. Even over fifty years after
> > the fact they insist on chasing red herrings down blind alleys.
>
>
> Once again you offer your **OPINION** as historical fact.

It is only Ben`s retarded opinion that they would have chased Frazier down had he not taken Oswald to work, lurkers. These retards can`t figure out the slightest thing, that driving the strong suspect of the murder to the scene of the murder might make you a person of interest. It is because their thinking is so out of touch with the reality of this event that can`t figure out simple things.

> At least you acknowledge that he *WAS* a suspect. What you left
> unexplained is why his rifle was confiscated if he was merely
> suspected because of his association with Oswald.

Why not take it until he is cleared, lurkers? What harm is done?

> You lose again!
>
>
> >> and *certainly* had just cause to say what the police wanted to hear.
> >
> > The retards have to call the witnesses liars, what they related
> > does not support their faith.
>
>
> Au contraire... we believe what can be corroborated.

If Ben really believed this he would believe Oswald was at 10th and Patton with a gun.

> *YOU* disbelieve
> *ALL* the witnesses.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers, it is his favorite thing to do.

> For example, you don't even believe Frazier when he stated how long
> the package was...

I believe he gave the estimate he gave, lurkers. I just recognize it was an estimate, and that he hadn`t measured the package. I also believe him when he says many, many times that he didn`t pay much attention to it. Conspiracy retards focus on the wrong things and then look at the wrong things incorrectly.

> >> But... let's presume that Oswald *DID* have a package...
> >
> > Let me inform you lurkers that Frazier wasn`t the only person to
> > see Oswald with this package, his sister, Linnie Mae Randle also did.
>
>
> If she didn't see him going into the TSBD with a package, what good is
> her testimony?

Ben illustrates once more that he is playing silly games and has no interest in the truth. Lurkers take note, this is they way they operate.

LMR see Oswald going towards her brother`s car with a long brown paper package. Her brother leaves the house and goes to his car and sees such an object in his backseat. Ben will make pretend this is not corroboration of Oswald carrying a brown paper object.

> You don't believe her anyway...

No telling what Ben means by this, lurkers. He is frightened to actually spell out his arguments, which tells you how bad they are.

> >> what's more
> >> likely to have it been? He told Eddie Piper that he was going down to
> >> eat lunch...
> >
> > Ben is lying, lurkers. This is what he related in his affidavit...
> >
> > "Yesterday at about 12:00 Noon, this fello Lee says to me, "I'm
> > going up to eat" and I went on to my lunch."
>
>
> This supports what I stated. So where's the "lie?"

<snicker> Like I thought, "down" is "up" to these retards.

> THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT OSWALD ATE LUNCH IN THE DOMINO ROOM,
> a fact that you can't refute.

Ben demands that an argument he cannot make be accepted as fact, lurkers.

>
> >> he told the DPD during questioning that he ate lunch.
> >
> > <snicker> Ben the hypocrite strikes again, lurkers. Does Ben
> > accept the information that the authorities got from Oswald in the
> > interrogations, or just the information that he finds useful to the
> > silly game he plays with the deaths of these men?
>
>
> Did he tell the DPD that he ate lunch?

He told them he didn`t own a rifle, lurkers. He told them he hadn`t killed anyone. "Oswald said" does not establish truth.

> I accept what has been corroborated by more than a single witness, and
> Dufus cannot.

Dougherty said he ate luch in the domino room, why didn`t he see Oswald, lurkers?

> The one "playing" is Dufus.

I`m the one weighing the available information in a reasonable manner. Ben is taking the retard "this allows me to believe stupid things" approach.

>
>
> > And did Oswald admit to the authorities that he carried a bag like
> > Linnie Mae and Frazier described? No, lurkers, he did not.
>
>
> Did he corroborate Jack Dougherty's testimony?

No, lurkers, he didn`t. Dougherty declared him empty handed.

And note that Ben is hypocritically cherry picking things from the interviews of Oswald by the authorities, lurkers.

> >> Where did the lunch come from?
> >
> > Where did the dog in the limo come from, lurkers?
>
> White flowers, most likely.

What kind of breed of dog is "white flowers", lurkers?

> Notice that *I* have a credible explanation... Dufus simply believes
> everyone to be lying or mistaken.

Ben just suggested that Jean Hill mistook white flowers for a dog. Then he accuses *me* of calling witnesses mistaken. What a hypocrite!

Jean Hill establishes as *fact* that witnesses can be mistaken. That witnesses can be mistaken is fact, a fact Ben and the other retards hate, because it interferes with the silly games they greatly wish to play.

> >> David can't answer this, nor can he explain how this shows the "sole
> >> guilt" of anyone at all.
> >>
> >> IT'S MERELY SPECULATION.
> >
> > Where would this retarded conspiracy hobby be without speculation,
> > lurkers?
>
>
> David, of course, is the one speculating... as are you.

Oswald didn`t confess his crimes, lurkers. They need to be reasonably deducted, something these stumps just can`t do.

> *NONE* of David's 20 points support the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Can Ben point to one of the things on DVP`s list and name a person other than Oswald that that thing points to the guilt of, lurkers?

> You know it, David knows it, and both of you are lying about it.
>
> I daresay that he wishes he'd never titled that webpage the way he
> did.
>
>
> >> And speculation that doesn't explain the known facts.
> >
> > Did you lurkers see Ben establish as fact that Oswald ate lunch? I
> > know you didn`t, neither did I.
>
>
> Did you lurkers see Dufus establish as fact that JFK was shot on
> 11/22/63?

What does that misdirection have to do with Ben supporting his claim that Oswald ate lunch. He wants to declare it, and have it accepted without the tedious bother of supporting it. Bluff, bluster and hot air is all this guy has, lurkers.

> >> Watch as David runs, and Dufus obfuscates...
> >
> > I clearly addressed every issue Ben raised head on, lurkers. But
> > like happens every time I address the issues Ben raises, he will snip
> > and run.
>
> Actually, you've simply lied.
>
> You've not addressed the very first point I made *AT ALL*.

I`ve done that several times now, lurkers. Ben thinks it needs to be done to his satisfaction, he not only plays silly games, he is also partial to crooked ones.

The things on DVP list point to the guilt of Oswald, not anyone else. "not anyone else" and "solely" are synonymous.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:59:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:16:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:52:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
>> >> > Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
>> >> > Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
>> >> > door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
>> >> > had the package under his arm."
>> >>
>> >> Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
>> >> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>> >
>> > Of course it has something to do with the political extremist
>> > carrying a "big sack" on the day a political assassination was carried
>> > out from that workplace, lurkers.
>>
>> Running again, eh Dufus?
>
> I made a counter argument that Ben didn`t touch, lurkers. That
> makes him the runner.

No Stump, you RAN LIKE A COWARD from the original point, and when I
point this out, you start whining that I'm running from *YOUR* change
of topic.

Tell us Stump... why can't you or David list even *ONE* of those 20
points that support, EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST, Oswald's "sole guilt?"

You can keep changing the topic, and running away, but you can't
convince anyone.

>> Why can't you admit the obvious? David flat *LIED* when he claimed
>> that any or all of the 20 items supported the "sole guilt" of anyone
>> at all.
>>
>> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF EXPLAINING WHAT DAVID IS CLAIMING?
>
> Why is Ben so dishonest that he ignores my explanations, lurkers?

You've *NEVER* explained...

Nor will you ever explain.

Yep... Stump Dufus is still trying to argue that Oswald went through
two different doors.

>> Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
>> Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
>> Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
>> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
>>
>> But notice that Dufus failed to support his claim with *ANYTHING AT
>> ALL*.
>
> I only need to quote what Ben supplied earlier from Frazier`s affidavit...
>
> "I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building
> that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1061.jpg
>
> The door Frazier is describing is the one at the top of the steps
> to the loading dock. The door Dougherty saw Oswald come in was the
> door to the general open storage space. They saw Oswald at different
> times at different places. There is no reason to believe that Oswald
> should be seen with the package at any time during the day by anyone
> who saw him.

Sheer speculation with nothing to support it.

Run Stump Dufus... RUN!!!

>> Dufus is lying again.
>>
>> >> One man saying that Oswald carried *nothing*.
>> >>
>> >> And one man saying he carried a "long package."
>> >
>> > If they both saw Oswald going into the building through the same
>> > door at the same time and reported different things, that would be a
>> > conflict, lurkers. What is in evidence is not. Besides, Doughery saw
>> > Oswald from across the room, a room that was cluttered with stuff.
>>
>>
>> You, on the other hand, are arguing that Oswald went through two
>> different doors as he entered the building.
>
> Pointing out, not arguing, lurkers.

Yep... I was right.

You're now *admitting* that what I stated was correct!

>> And you do this on the basis of SHEER SPECULATION.
>
> The evidence, lurkers. This is the door Dougherty would have seen
> Oswald come through. Notice it does not lead to the outside...
>
> https://gaylenixjackson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/breakerboxestsbd.jpg

Still with the empty claims...

>> You're simply lying again.
>>
>> You're offering your **OPINION** as historical fact.
>>
>> Why can't you cite for your claims?
>
> Did that, lurkers.

You're lying again, Stump Dufus.

>> >> What David won't tell you is that Frazier was de facto arrested, had
>> >> his rifle confiscated, and went through a lie detector test.
>> >
>> > Likely he leaves focusing on the wrong things to the conspiracy
>> > retards, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> David doesn't do *anything*... he's afraid to debate critical review
>> of his website.
>
> DVP does what Ben cannot, puts his ideas and the support for them
> out there for consideration, lurkers. The criteria Ben wants to apply
> is that these ideas have to be accepted by retards, that is not the
> criteria, they are offered to reasonable people. It is like asking a
> dog to see color to expect a conspiracy retard to be able to reason.

No Stump Dufus... you're lying again.

David doesn't have a *SINGLE* thought in his head about
"consideration" of his ideas...

He ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to defend them when they are refuted.

As I've done.


Anyone notice that Stump Dufus can't defend David either?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:59:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:16:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:52:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> > 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
> >> >> > Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
> >> >> > Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
> >> >> > door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
> >> >> > had the package under his arm."
> >> >>
> >> >> Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
> >> >> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
> >> >
> >> > Of course it has something to do with the political extremist
> >> > carrying a "big sack" on the day a political assassination was carried
> >> > out from that workplace, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Running again, eh Dufus?
> >
> > I made a counter argument that Ben didn`t touch, lurkers. That
> > makes him the runner.
>
> No Stump, you RAN LIKE A COWARD from the original point, and when I
> point this out, you start whining that I'm running from *YOUR* change
> of topic.

Ben is, of course, lying lurkers. I didn`t change the argument, I merely added the context that Ben was ignoring. Just because Ben wants to look at information incorrectly doesn`t mean that everyone should.

> Tell us Stump... why can't you or David list even *ONE* of those 20
> points that support, EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST, Oswald's "sole guilt?"

I`ve explained the "sole guilt" thing to Ben several times now, lurkers, so why does he keep demanding answers and then ignores them when they are provided?

> You can keep changing the topic, and running away, but you can't
> convince anyone.
>
>
> >> Why can't you admit the obvious? David flat *LIED* when he claimed
> >> that any or all of the 20 items supported the "sole guilt" of anyone
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF EXPLAINING WHAT DAVID IS CLAIMING?
> >
> > Why is Ben so dishonest that he ignores my explanations, lurkers?
>
>
> You've *NEVER* explained...

Ben is, of course, lying, lurkers.

I`ve cited the evidence that shows it, lurkers. The retards claim the evidence is on their side but they ignore it when it goes against their silly ideas.

>
> >> Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
> >> Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
> >> Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
> >> Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
> >>
> >> But notice that Dufus failed to support his claim with *ANYTHING AT
> >> ALL*.
> >
> > I only need to quote what Ben supplied earlier from Frazier`s affidavit...
> >
> > "I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building
> > that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1061.jpg
> >
> > The door Frazier is describing is the one at the top of the steps
> > to the loading dock. The door Dougherty saw Oswald come in was the
> > door to the general open storage space. They saw Oswald at different
> > times at different places. There is no reason to believe that Oswald
> > should be seen with the package at any time during the day by anyone
> > who saw him.
>
>
> Sheer speculation with nothing to support it.

Actually it was sheer speculation on Ben`s part that it was different doors, lurkers.

> Run Stump Dufus... RUN!!!
>
>
> >> Dufus is lying again.
> >>
> >> >> One man saying that Oswald carried *nothing*.
> >> >>
> >> >> And one man saying he carried a "long package."
> >> >
> >> > If they both saw Oswald going into the building through the same
> >> > door at the same time and reported different things, that would be a
> >> > conflict, lurkers. What is in evidence is not. Besides, Doughery saw
> >> > Oswald from across the room, a room that was cluttered with stuff.
> >>
> >>
> >> You, on the other hand, are arguing that Oswald went through two
> >> different doors as he entered the building.
> >
> > Pointing out, not arguing, lurkers.
>
>
> Yep... I was right.
>
> You're now *admitting* that what I stated was correct!

I point out Ben was wrong and he sees this as me admitting he was right, lurkers. Is this guy retarded or what?

>
> >> And you do this on the basis of SHEER SPECULATION.
> >
> > The evidence, lurkers. This is the door Dougherty would have seen
> > Oswald come through. Notice it does not lead to the outside...
> >
> > https://gaylenixjackson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/breakerboxestsbd.jpg
>
>
> Still with the empty claims...

It is good that Ben chooses to lie and deny after I`ve shown him with cites to the evidence that he was wrong, lurkers.

> >> You're simply lying again.
> >>
> >> You're offering your **OPINION** as historical fact.
> >>
> >> Why can't you cite for your claims?
> >
> > Did that, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, Stump Dufus.

Lurkers can see the links and cites above and reconfirm who the liar is.

Ben always cries that I don`t cite evidence and this is why, it is a wasted effort. The problems with this case aren`t with the evidence, they lie with the retards looking at the evidence.

> >> >> What David won't tell you is that Frazier was de facto arrested, had
> >> >> his rifle confiscated, and went through a lie detector test.
> >> >
> >> > Likely he leaves focusing on the wrong things to the conspiracy
> >> > retards, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> David doesn't do *anything*... he's afraid to debate critical review
> >> of his website.
> >
> > DVP does what Ben cannot, puts his ideas and the support for them
> > out there for consideration, lurkers. The criteria Ben wants to apply
> > is that these ideas have to be accepted by retards, that is not the
> > criteria, they are offered to reasonable people. It is like asking a
> > dog to see color to expect a conspiracy retard to be able to reason.
>
> No Stump Dufus... you're lying again.
>
> David doesn't have a *SINGLE* thought in his head about
> "consideration" of his ideas...

Of course he does, lurkers, he routinely does what Ben refuses to do, puts his ideas and the support for them out there for consideration.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 02:52:52 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:59:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:16:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:52:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> > 5.) Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book
>> >> >> > Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963. ....
>> >> >> > Frazier said (via his 11/22/63 affidavit): "I saw him go in the back
>> >> >> > door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still
>> >> >> > had the package under his arm."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Once again, the item listed has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the
>> >> >> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course it has something to do with the political extremist
>> >> > carrying a "big sack" on the day a political assassination was carried
>> >> > out from that workplace, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Running again, eh Dufus?
>> >
>> > I made a counter argument that Ben didn`t touch, lurkers. That
>> > makes him the runner.
>>
>> No Stump, you RAN LIKE A COWARD from the original point, and when I
>> point this out, you start whining that I'm running from *YOUR* change
>> of topic.
>

> Ben is, of course, lying...

Then you'll have no trouble **QUOTING** where you dealt with the fact
that David's #5 has **NOTHING** to do with anyone's "sole guilt."

But you won't.

And then it will be crystal clear who the liar is...