Davy Von Molester

[Ben Holmes]

I have a simple policy... I use everyone's name correctly as long as they use mine correctly.

Davy Von Molester can't seem to spell my name correctly, so until he can learn to CONSISTENTLY spell my name, he will be referred to as "Davy Von Molester" or similar.

I warned Davy Von Molester, but he clearly doesn't care how he's referred to.

[David Von Pein]

And Benji Holmes clearly doesn't care how stupid and ridiculous it makes *him* look to constantly refer to someone he doesn't even know as "Molester".

What a pathetic soul.

[Bud]

Do what I do and just refer to Ben as "retard". He answers to it.

[Ben Holmes]

But that's what you told me in a personal email... that you were charged but not convicted...

I do hope the neighborhood knows...

[David Von Pein]

Oh, for Pete sake. How ridiculous. I never said any such thing, in a personal e-mail or anyplace else.

There was some idiot a few years ago sending out some fake mails that appeared to come from my e-mail address. Gary Mack and Jim Fetzer received a few of those fake mails. Maybe the same psycho sent you a fake mail, too. I don't know.

I mentioned this "phony e-mail" scam against me back in 2013 in this acj post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/2IUU-aahvEk/hz4dc_1N1u0J

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:36:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 11:14:16 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:18:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > I have a simple policy... I use everyone's name correctly as long as they use mine correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Davy Von Molester can't seem to spell my name correctly, so until he can learn to CONSISTENTLY spell my name, he will be referred to as "Davy Von Molester" or similar.
> > > >
> > > > I warned Davy Von Molester, but he clearly doesn't care how he's referred to.
> > >
> > > And Benji Holmes clearly doesn't care how stupid and ridiculous it makes *him* look to constantly refer to someone he doesn't even know as "Molester".
> > >
> > > What a pathetic soul.
> >
> > But that's what you told me in a personal email... that you were charged but not convicted...
> >
> > I do hope the neighborhood knows...
>
> Oh, for Pete sake. How ridiculous. I never said any such thing, in a personal e-mail or anyplace else.

Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation...

So it's understandable.

[Bud]

Is it evidence of anything? Or just what the witness indicated?

> So it's understandable.

[Ben Holmes]

Davy Von Molester admitted criminal acts... But he didn't do it under oath, so no - it's not "evidence" in the formal sense.

> > So it's understandable.

[David Von Pein]

Let me see the e-mail you got from the DVP imposter. E-mail it to me please. I want to see it. And I want to compare the date on it with the fake mails an imposter was sending to James Fetzer several years ago, to see if it was in the same timeframe.

[David Von Pein]

Or, better still, Ben .....

Will you please copy and paste the entire "molestation" e-mail from the DVP imposter into a message right here at acj? That would be even better.

I'm certainly not concerned in the least at having such trash being displayed on the Web. After all, I never e-mailed Ben Holmes anything at any time. So they won't be my words on display.

I'd love to read that e-mail message to see what kind of horrendous crimes I decided to allegedly confess to a total stranger via e-mail. (That scenario, in itself, is hilariously absurd.)

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree?

[Ben Holmes]

Ah! Good description! I'll now state that it's "hilariously absurd" to deny that there's evidence of a bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.

Indeed, JFK's treatment in the Emergency Room was *based* on this assumption.

[Bud]

I can`t even follow you retarded reasoning here.

> > > So it's understandable.

[Ben Holmes]

That's because you refuse to accept that sworn testimony is "evidence".

Yet can't cite for it.

Dishonesty is pathetic, don't you know that?

> > > > So it's understandable.

[David Von Pein]

Anyone who could even *begin* to believe that such a fake "molestation" e-mail is a legitimate and truthful piece of e-mail correspondence is *beyond* retarded and should be sent to the mental ward asap.

Anyway, until you send me the "alleged" e-mail message from the DVP imposter, I'm going to just assume you merely made it all up. Such behavior would certainly be consistent with an obnoxious prick like Benji anyway. So I'll just wait for the "physical evidence".*

* And I'll need to see the *original* e-mail message with all of the "Internet Header Information" included, so it can be potentially traced. Not just text with my fake signature at the bottom.

So dig into your filing cabinet, Benji. And remember to click on "Details" at the top of the message to get that header data. Ten-Four? Get cracking...

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, Davy Von Molester... Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree?

[David Von Pein]

Don't forget, Holmes! Click the "Details" links in the header of the e-mail. That's important. Ten-Four?

Still waiting....

[Bud]

It isn`t evidence of everything in the universe. Only what the witnesses said. Any idea what the word "might" means yet?

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 7:26:37 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 7:00:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:38:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:36:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 11:14:16 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:18:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > I have a simple policy... I use everyone's name correctly as long as they use mine correctly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Davy Von Molester can't seem to spell my name correctly, so until he can learn to CONSISTENTLY spell my name, he will be referred to as "Davy Von Molester" or similar.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I warned Davy Von Molester, but he clearly doesn't care how he's referred to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And Benji Holmes clearly doesn't care how stupid and ridiculous it makes *him* look to constantly refer to someone he doesn't even know as "Molester".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What a pathetic soul.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But that's what you told me in a personal email... that you were charged but not convicted...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do hope the neighborhood knows...
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, for Pete sake. How ridiculous. I never said any such thing, in a personal e-mail or anyplace else.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation...
> > > >
> > > > So it's understandable.
> > >
> > > Let me see the e-mail you got from the DVP imposter. E-mail it to me please. I want to see it. And I want to compare the date on it with the fake mails an imposter was sending to James Fetzer several years ago, to see if it was in the same timeframe.
> >
> > Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree?
>
> Anyone who could even *begin* to believe that such a fake "molestation" e-mail is a legitimate and truthful piece of e-mail correspondence is *beyond* retarded and should be sent to the mental ward asap.

I would not assume that Ben got any such email.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:05:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 7:26:37 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 7:00:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:38:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:36:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 11:14:16 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:18:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I have a simple policy... I use everyone's name correctly as long as they use mine correctly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Davy Von Molester can't seem to spell my name correctly, so until he can learn to CONSISTENTLY spell my name, he will be referred to as "Davy Von Molester" or similar.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I warned Davy Von Molester, but he clearly doesn't care how he's referred to.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And Benji Holmes clearly doesn't care how stupid and ridiculous it makes *him* look to constantly refer to someone he doesn't even know as "Molester".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What a pathetic soul.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But that's what you told me in a personal email... that you were charged but not convicted...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do hope the neighborhood knows...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, for Pete sake. How ridiculous. I never said any such thing, in a personal e-mail or anyplace else.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation...
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's understandable.
> > > >
> > > > Let me see the e-mail you got from the DVP imposter. E-mail it to me please. I want to see it. And I want to compare the date on it with the fake mails an imposter was sending to James Fetzer several years ago, to see if it was in the same timeframe.
> > >
> > > Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree?
> >
> > Anyone who could even *begin* to believe that such a fake "molestation" e-mail is a legitimate and truthful piece of e-mail correspondence is *beyond* retarded and should be sent to the mental ward asap.
>
> I would not assume that Ben got any such email.
>

Which is why I said this an hour ago....

"Until you [B. Holmes] send me the "alleged" e-mail message from the DVP imposter, I'm going to just assume you merely made it all up. Such behavior would certainly be consistent with an obnoxious prick like Benji anyway. So I'll just wait for the "physical evidence"." -- DVP

[Jason Burke]

Wasn't Holmie-boy a pig in his previous life?
You'd think those idiots would know how to put two and two together.

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

Why? *I* know who sent the email...


> Still waiting....

Indeed, lurkers are still waiting for you to retract your lie...

I suspect that they'll be waiting until Hell freezes over. Dishonesty runs deep...

Amusing that you admit Jean Hill's testimony is evidence, then refuse to accept Dr. Clark's testimony as evidence.

And a person who'd do that will refuse to admit that he sent an incriminating email... how else did I know of your arrest?

[David Von Pein]

What email? Until you produce it, all we have is your word for it. And Ben Holmes' word is as useless and worthless as a clothing store at a nudist camp.

>
> > Still waiting....
>
> Indeed, lurkers are still waiting for you to retract your lie...
>

What lie? There was none. (As usual.)

> I suspect that they'll be waiting until Hell freezes over. Dishonesty runs deep...
>

You should know. You wrote the book.

> Amusing that you admit Jean Hill's testimony is evidence, then refuse to accept Dr. Clark's testimony as evidence.
>

LOL. Holmes still thinks I am Bud. (Hint for Holmes: Go check that "Jean Hill / dog" quote. That was Bud who said that, not me. Learn to read.

> And a person who'd do that will refuse to admit that he sent an incriminating email... how else did I know of your arrest?

Oh, goodie! I've got a fictional "arrest" record now. That's news to me. How many years did I have to serve? Was Jack Ruby my cellmate?

Somebody offer Benji a bridge in Brooklyn, quick. He'll buy anything.

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, Davy Von Molester... Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree? (I note for the record that you're denying it...)

[Jason Burke]

Ex-pig.
Can't read.
Real good at eating donuts, though.

[Jason Burke]

>>>>>> Anyway, until you send me the "alleged" e-mail message from the DVP imposter, I'm going to just assume you merely made it all up. Such behavior would certainly be consistent with an obnoxious prick like Benji anyway.. So I'll just wait for the "physical evidence".*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * And I'll need to see the *original* e-mail message with all of the "Internet Header Information" included, so it can be potentially traced.. Not just text with my fake signature at the bottom.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> So dig into your filing cabinet, Benji. And remember to click on "Details" at the top of the message to get that header data. Ten-Four? Get cracking...
>>>>>
>>>>> Tut tut tut, Davy Von Molester... Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree?
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget, Holmes! Click the "Details" links in the header of the e-mail. That's important. Ten-Four?
>>>
>>> Why? *I* know who sent the email...
>>>
>>
>> What email? Until you produce it, all we have is your word for it. And Ben Holmes' word is as useless and worthless as a clothing store at a nudist camp.
>
> Tut tut tut, Davy Von Molester... Anyone who denies that testimony is not "evidence" would deny sending me an email admitting molestation... wouldn't you agree? (I note for the record that you're denying it...)
>

I note for the record that benji is the dumbest fuck in the world.
Well, Cinque might be close...

[David Von Pein]

BTW, I never once said "testimony is not evidence", you goof.

BTW #2, I wasn't even aware of that exact section of Dr. Kemp Clark's testimony until you posted it.

Testimony, of course, can be considered "evidence". But the Clark testimony (and other newspaper quotes from Dr. Clark) that you cited do NOT qualify, IMO, as "evidence" that a bullet "ranged downward" into JFK's body. Not even close, in fact.

Dr. Clark was using speculation and sheer guesswork regarding where the bullet COULD conceivably have gone after Dr. Perry had (incorrectly!) thought the bullet had ENTERED the throat of JFK and had likely not exited his body.

But neither Clark nor Perry (nor anybody else) turned JFK over to see if there were any wounds on the back side of the President. So they were working with limited information and were merely utilizing caution when they inserted the chest tubes into JFK. It was done merely IN CASE the lungs or other structures had been damaged and fluids might need to be extracted.

In short, the doctors were CLUELESS about whether any bullet(s) had actually "ranged downward" into JFK's chest area or not. They were merely exercising ordinary precautions when they inserted the chest tubes. But they had no KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER about any "downward ranging" bullet(s).

So how on Earth can such speculative, precautionary actions on the part of Dr. Clark and Dr. Perry be considered "evidence" that a bullet ACTUALLY DID "range downward" into President Kennedy's body?

Answer: It can't be considered "evidence" of any such thing. Particularly when we examine the OTHER KNOWN FACTS regarding JFK's wounds and discover that the autopsy reveals for an absolute FACT that no bullet actually did do any "ranging downward" into the chest of John F. Kennedy.

Therefore, my previous comment on this matter (even though, admittedly, it was a comment that I wrote at a point in time when I had not remembered any of that Clark testimony that Ben Holmes has referred to) is still 100% accurate and true:

"There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)" -- DVP; Jan. 28, 2017

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/wqtQ9KuLOrk/zR6GP5W-AgAJ

[Ben Holmes]

If there's testimony of a down-ranging bullet, and sworn testimony is considered "evidence" (yes, it's ALWAYS evidence!) and you claim I have "NO evidence" - then yes, you're claiming that testimony is not evidence.

But what can we expect from a proven liar?

More lies, of course!

> BTW #2, I wasn't even aware of that exact section of Dr. Kemp Clark's testimony until you posted it.

Who cares? You got schooled again. It's not the first time I've schooled you on the evidence. And I'm quite sure it'll keep right on happening.

But at THAT EXACT MOMENT that I cited Clark's testimony - your ignorance turned into a lie. You KNOW BEYOND ALL DISPUTE that there's testimony (and yes, it's ALWAYS considered "evidence") that a bullet ranged downward into JFK's chest.

So you're a liar. You claimed that I had "NO evidence" - and you lied.

And now you're lying about that molestation charge...

[David Von Pein]

No there isn't. There's merely testimony of what one of the uninformed doctors THOUGHT might have happened within JFK's chest. But the autopsy totally cancels out the Parkland doctors' speculation. And Holmes knows this, of course, but since he's an ultra-rabid conspiracy kook, what can we expect from him? More speculation about the nonexistent "downward ranging" bullet, of course. What else?

In summary -- Only a totally desperate conspiracy-happy nutcase could possibly look at that Clark testimony and think that that particular testimony could possibly be utilized to support the notion that a bullet REALLY DID "range downward" into JFK's body.

Ben Holmes is just such a nutcase (in case you hadn't noticed).

> So you're a liar. You claimed that I had "NO evidence" - and you lied.
>
> And now you're lying about that molestation charge...

What charge? The one you won't confirm by providing the e-mail? Is that the one you mean?

Remember, Ben, when you finish hunting for CT chaff tonight and you get around to looking in your file cabinet, make sure to click "Details" for the header info. Got it, kook?

[David Von Pein]

FYI / FWIW....

Here's some additional WC testimony from Dr. Kemp Clark:

Mr. SPECTER - Well, is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?

Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred.

Mr. SPECTER - Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?

Dr. CLARK - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Was it the preliminary thought that the missile might have been in the chest by virtue of the fact that this wound was noted on the neck?

Dr. CLARK - Yes; with the other factors I have enumerated.

Mr. SPECTER - And at that time, not knowing what the angle might have been or any of the surrounding circumstances, then you proceeded to take precautionary measures as if there might have been a missile in the chest at some point?

Dr. CLARK - That is correct. Measures were taken, assuming the worst had happened.

Mr. SPECTER - As the quotation appears in the issue of "L' Express," "This bullet penetrated into his chest and did not come out," would that then be an accurate quotation of something that you said, Dr. Clark?

Dr. CLARK - No, sir.

[Ben Holmes]

You keep confusing "evidence" with what you believe are historical "facts".

This is how you weasel your way out of your assertion. But YOU CLAIMED I HAD "NO EVIDENCE"... and that, is simply a lie. You did *NOT* claim I was historically wrong... you claimed I had no basis on which to make the statement I did. You're lying.

Nor did the autopsy contradict what the Parkland doctors based their treatment on... the autopsy DID NOT dissect the track of any wound, nor did it establish any contrary scenario to what Parkland thought.

So once again, you're simply lying.

You continually refuse to cite for your lies (and no wonder - YOU CAN'T!!)

So tell us Davy Von Molester - are you known around the neighborhood? Does your state law allow you to live close to a school?

[Ben Holmes]

Good of you to finally get around to reading Dr. Clark.

But by your terms, none of this is evidence. Nor does it contradict anything that I've said or cited... so why bother?

And how much did you have to put up to post bail?

[David Von Pein]

Don't forget --- the "Details" button. It's very important. 10-4?

[David Von Pein]

You need my help to find your Filing Cabinet, Benji? If so, just let me know.

[David Von Pein]

To fill in the gaps and show the parts of Dr. Clark's testimony that you obviously had no interest in showing. And that's because you have no interest in fairly and objectively evaluating the SUM TOTAL of evidence and testimony surrounding this case.

But, there's nothing new there, of course. You've been on the Outer Fringe CT Team for many years now. We can't expect you to suddenly become a *reasonable* individual, now can we?

[Ben Holmes]

Lose your copy?

[Ben Holmes]

Need help defending Bugliosi?

Check with McAdams... maybe you can get some help.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 11:50:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:46:12 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > FYI / FWIW....
> > >
> > > Here's some additional WC testimony from Dr. Kemp Clark:
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - Well, is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?
> > >
> > > Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred.
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?
> > >
> > > Dr. CLARK - No, sir.
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - Was it the preliminary thought that the missile might have been in the chest by virtue of the fact that this wound was noted on the neck?
> > >
> > > Dr. CLARK - Yes; with the other factors I have enumerated.
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - And at that time, not knowing what the angle might have been or any of the surrounding circumstances, then you proceeded to take precautionary measures as if there might have been a missile in the chest at some point?
> > >
> > > Dr. CLARK - That is correct. Measures were taken, assuming the worst had happened.
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - As the quotation appears in the issue of "L' Express," "This bullet penetrated into his chest and did not come out," would that then be an accurate quotation of something that you said, Dr. Clark?
> > >
> > > Dr. CLARK - No, sir.
> >
> > Good of you to finally get around to reading Dr. Clark.
> >
> > But by your terms, none of this is evidence. Nor does it contradict anything that I've said or cited... so why bother?
>
> To fill in the gaps and show the parts of Dr. Clark's testimony that you obviously had no interest in showing.

If I told you that President Trump had decided on a new Judicial appointment, I'd reference the one tweet that he gave on that issue, and that would be the definitive source... nothing else would matter... I don't need to provide tweets on his selection criteria, his immigration policy, or anything else.

That you clearly don't understand this is truly funny!!! I quoted & cited Dr. Clark providing the evidence you claimed I didn't have...

Now, address the fact that you've denied that sworn testimony is "evidence".

Address the fact that you claimed I had "NO evidence"...

Or you can run again... just like you do in the park when you see the parents approaching.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> But, there's nothing new there, of course. You've been on the Outer Fringe CT Team for many years now. We can't expect you to suddenly become a *reasonable* individual, now can we?

You're lying again, Davy Von Molester...

I'm quite midstream in views... you cannot point to *any* "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.

But this is your excuse for not defending Bugliosi... not defending your faith.

It's not a very good excuse...

[Bud]

I thought you were supposed to be refuting him. I`m still waiting for that to start.

[Bud]

You are lying, of course. A witness who raises the possibility of something occurring is not evidence that it did.

> Now, address the fact that you've denied that sworn testimony is "evidence".
>
> Address the fact that you claimed I had "NO evidence"...

You haven`t produced any. Clark saying the thought it might have is not evidence that it did.

[Ben Holmes]

Been there, done that... you ran like a yellow coward...

[Bud]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > But, there's nothing new there, of course. You've been on the Outer Fringe CT Team for many years now. We can't expect you to suddenly become a *reasonable* individual, now can we?
>
> You're lying again, Davy Von Molester...
>
> I'm quite midstream in views...

Really? have you ever met anyone else who thinks Frazier lied when he said that Oswald told him the package contained curtain rods. Do you think this is a widespread belief?

> you cannot point to *any* "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.
>
> But this is your excuse for not defending Bugliosi... not defending your faith.

You were supposed to be refuting Bugliosi. When does that show start?

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:53:44 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:47:43 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 11:50:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:46:12 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > FYI / FWIW....
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's some additional WC testimony from Dr. Kemp Clark:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - Well, is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - No, sir.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - Was it the preliminary thought that the missile might have been in the chest by virtue of the fact that this wound was noted on the neck?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - Yes; with the other factors I have enumerated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - And at that time, not knowing what the angle might have been or any of the surrounding circumstances, then you proceeded to take precautionary measures as if there might have been a missile in the chest at some point?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - That is correct. Measures were taken, assuming the worst had happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - As the quotation appears in the issue of "L' Express," "This bullet penetrated into his chest and did not come out," would that then be an accurate quotation of something that you said, Dr. Clark?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - No, sir.
> > > >
> > > > Good of you to finally get around to reading Dr. Clark.
> > > >
> > > > But by your terms, none of this is evidence. Nor does it contradict anything that I've said or cited... so why bother?
> > >
> > > To fill in the gaps and show the parts of Dr. Clark's testimony that you obviously had no interest in showing.
> >
> > If I told you that President Trump had decided on a new Judicial appointment, I'd reference the one tweet that he gave on that issue, and that would be the definitive source... nothing else would matter... I don't need to provide tweets on his selection criteria, his immigration policy, or anything else.
> >
> > That you clearly don't understand this is truly funny!!! I quoted & cited Dr. Clark providing the evidence you claimed I didn't have...
>
> You are lying, of course. A witness who raises the possibility of something occurring is not evidence that it did.

Ah! So you ADMIT that Dr. Clark "raised the possibility"!!!

That's all that's needed.

Sworn testimony *IS* evidence.

You lost...

> > Now, address the fact that you've denied that sworn testimony is "evidence".
> >
> > Address the fact that you claimed I had "NO evidence"...
>
> You haven`t produced any. Clark saying the thought it might have is not evidence that it did.

Confusing evidence with factual history again...

Is there evidence that a bullet ranged downward into JFK's chest?

Yes, there is. YOU ADMIT THAT DR. CLARK TESTIFIED TO THAT POSSIBILITY.

Have both of you been lying about that fact?

Yes, you have.

[Bud]

The only reason you believe that is because you are ignorant of the meaning of the word "refute".

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:56:06 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:22:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > > But, there's nothing new there, of course. You've been on the Outer Fringe CT Team for many years now. We can't expect you to suddenly become a *reasonable* individual, now can we?
> >
> > You're lying again, Davy Von Molester...
> >
> > I'm quite midstream in views...
>
> Really? have you ever met anyone else who thinks Frazier lied when he said that Oswald told him the package contained curtain rods. Do you think this is a widespread belief?

What would you call a "critic" who asserts that the shots came from the stairway in the middle of the Grassy Knoll?

Or a "critic" who argues that Greer shot JFK with a pistol?

You cannot defend the assertion that I'm on the "outer fringe".

I'm simply a knowledgeable mainstream critic.

> > you cannot point to *any* "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.

Anyone notice the dead silence here?

> > But this is your excuse for not defending Bugliosi... not defending your faith.
>
> You were supposed to be refuting Bugliosi. When does that show start?

Been doing precisely that... you've been running.

Quite the coward, aren't you?

[Bud]

Yes, I know what the word "might" means.

> That's all that's needed.

Wrong. This is not evidence of a downranging shot. It is evidence that it was once entertained as a possibility.

> Sworn testimony *IS* evidence.

*This* testimony is *not* evidence of a downranging shot. If you want to use in support of the idea that the doctors one time thought it possible, go ahead.

> You lost...

You are lost.

> > > Now, address the fact that you've denied that sworn testimony is "evidence".
> > >
> > > Address the fact that you claimed I had "NO evidence"...
> >
> > You haven`t produced any. Clark saying the thought it might have is not evidence that it did.
>
>
> Confusing evidence with factual history again...

No, I`m looking at what the words the witness used. What idea was Dr Clark expressing when he used the word "might", Ben?

> Is there evidence that a bullet ranged downward into JFK's chest?
>
> Yes, there is.

You haven`t produced any.

> YOU ADMIT THAT DR. CLARK TESTIFIED TO THAT POSSIBILITY.

He sure did. So you can use him in support of the idea that it was thought possible at one time that a bullet ranged downward into Kennedy`s chest, but not in support of the idea that one actually did.

> Have both of you been lying about that fact?
>
> Yes, you have.

Are you retarded? Yes, you are.

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut... Davy Von Molester stated that I had "NO evidence".

You calling him a liar?

[Jason Burke]

Homie-boy needs to work up to retarded.

[Bud]

It has to be evidence of what you are asserting it to be evidence of.

[Ben Holmes]

Is there evidence that a bullet ranged downward into JFK's chest?

Absolutely... this was testified to, AND WAS THE CAUSE OF THEIR TREATMENT CHOICES.

You can run, "Bud" - but you can't hide.

> > You calling him a liar?

Dead silence...

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You cannot point to *any* "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can't? Let's try this one on for size then (with source link provided)....

"That bullet...wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- Ben Holmes; Jan. 18, 2017

http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Single-Bullet-Fact?pid=1770#pid1770

Now, if the above statement about a "pre-autopsy autopsy" isn't to be considered "outer fringe", then what would be, Ben? In fact, nothing I can think of could possibly be *more* "outer fringe" than what you said in that January 18th quote I just cited above.

[David Von Pein]

That's one of the big problems with JFK CTers --- they always want to ISOLATE certain things and prop those things up ALONE as some kind of "proof" to win their case.

You, Ben, KNOW that there was no bullet dug out of JFK's chest. You KNOW, of course, that no bullet actually did "range downward" into JFK's chest. You know those things from the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence. But you want to PRETEND that some nefarious was happening to JFK's body, so you'll INVENT a way for a bullet to have "ranged downward" --- i.e., you'll just IGNORE the actual autopsy findings (which verify for all time that no bullet "ranged downward" into JFK's body), and you'll hang on for dear life to the WORST possible "evidence", which is the testimony of Dr. Clark and/or Dr. Perry, who were simply using precaution when they inserted the chest tubes in JFK's body.

IOW---They had NO KNOWLEDGE of any "downward ranging" bullet(s).

Ergo, their actions (and resulting testimony and statements) are most certainly NOT "evidence" that a bullet REALLY DID range downward in Kennedy's chest.

You, of course, will never acknowledge that I am right on this issue, and you'll never admit that there really is NO EVIDENCE at all (not even Dr. Clark's testimony) that any bullet "ranged downward" into JFK.

And I fully understand what you're doing. Everybody here understands it. It's a game you like to play. It's what "Internet JFK CTers" do --- they pretend and speculate and make up absurd theories, such as this one....

"The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest. It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- B. Holmes; Jan. 2017

You have no "EVIDENCE" at all that ANY of the above things really happened. None. And you know it! But that won't stop you from calling me a liar ten times a day just so that you won't have to face reality. And that reality is....

You have absolutely no capacity for properly and fairly evaluating the facts, evidence, and testimony associated with the events of 11/22/63.

[Ben Holmes]

A "pre-autopsy" autopsy has been fairly standard among critics since Lifton first made it well-known.

The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.

This is hardly "outer fringe" material.

And if you feel that this is more outrageous than a shooter on the stairs of the Grassy Knoll, or Greer doing the shooting with a pistol, then you simply have no brains.

You absolutely REFUSE to explain what was happening to JFK's body between 6:40pm and 8pm. That's nearly an hour an a half that you can't account for.

Your theory is that the body was just laying in the casket, ignored by everyone for nearly an hour and a half.

You can't explain the evidence that this isn't true... so you label it "outer fringe" to avoid the necessity of dealing with it.

But it's not "outer fringe" AT ALL to state that the autopsy was unable to demonstrate that there was any transit.

It's not "outer fringe" to point out the overwhelming evidence for multiple shooters... including the eyewitness accounts of a MAJORITY of witnesses that were documented in print in the first two days.

It's not "outer fringe" to point out that the medical testimony is simply not consistent with the Warren Commission's theory...

Such as the direction of the bullet through Connally's wrist - which you've been desperately running from.

These rather basic refutations of Vincent Bugliosi aren't "outer fringe" at all... yet you refuse to answer them.

Such a coward!!!

[Bud]

The possibility of a downranging bullet is not evidence of a downranging bullet, it is as simple as that. You *might* possibly understand this at some point, but there is no evidence that you will.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:47:43 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 11:50:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 8:46:12 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > FYI / FWIW....
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's some additional WC testimony from Dr. Kemp Clark:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - Well, is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - No, sir.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - Was it the preliminary thought that the missile might have been in the chest by virtue of the fact that this wound was noted on the neck?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - Yes; with the other factors I have enumerated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - And at that time, not knowing what the angle might have been or any of the surrounding circumstances, then you proceeded to take precautionary measures as if there might have been a missile in the chest at some point?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - That is correct. Measures were taken, assuming the worst had happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - As the quotation appears in the issue of "L' Express," "This bullet penetrated into his chest and did not come out," would that then be an accurate quotation of something that you said, Dr. Clark?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. CLARK - No, sir.
> > > >
> > > > Good of you to finally get around to reading Dr. Clark.
> > > >
> > > > But by your terms, none of this is evidence. Nor does it contradict anything that I've said or cited... so why bother?
> > >
> > > To fill in the gaps and show the parts of Dr. Clark's testimony that you obviously had no interest in showing.
> >
> > If I told you that President Trump had decided on a new Judicial appointment, I'd reference the one tweet that he gave on that issue, and that would be the definitive source... nothing else would matter... I don't need to provide tweets on his selection criteria, his immigration policy, or anything else.

Dead silence...

> > That you clearly don't understand this is truly funny!!! I quoted & cited Dr. Clark providing the evidence you claimed I didn't have...
> >
>
> That's one of the big problems with JFK CTers --- they always want to ISOLATE certain things and prop those things up ALONE as some kind of "proof" to win their case.

You cannot make a forest with each "tree" that's not really a tree. It takes REAL trees to make a forest.

You can't take one fake tree, add it to another 52 fake trees, and call it a forest.

> You, Ben, KNOW that there was no bullet dug out of JFK's chest. You KNOW, of course, that no bullet actually did "range downward" into JFK's chest.

Nope... I *don't* know that. The prosectors were forbidden from dissecting the track of the bullet - the evidence seen at Parkland DEMONSTRATED beyond any doubt that there was damage to JFK's chest that could very well have been because of a down ranging bullet.

You claimed that there was "NO evidence" for that - and I quoted SWORN TESTIMONY.

You're a gutless liar, Davy Von Molester...

> You know those things from the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence. But you want to PRETEND that some nefarious was happening to JFK's body, so you'll INVENT a way for a bullet to have "ranged downward" --- i.e., you'll just IGNORE the actual autopsy findings (which verify for all time that no bullet "ranged downward" into JFK's body),

You're lying again, Davy... indeed, the *ONLY* physical proof that might have worked - DISAPPEARED WHILE UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

You can't explain the missing chest photos... I can.

Indeed, *YOU* refuse to believe the autopsy findings... at the end of that autopsy, THERE WAS NO TRANSIT THROUGH THE BODY.

You know that, I know that.

> and you'll hang on for dear life to the WORST possible "evidence", which is the testimony of Dr. Clark and/or Dr. Perry, who were simply using precaution when they inserted the chest tubes in JFK's body.

You're lying AGAIN, Davy Von Molester...

They SPECIFICALLY treated JFK ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BELIEF THAT A BULLET HAD RANGED DOWNWARD.

The chest tubes were inserted for that express purpose.

Do you suppose that you'll convince anyone by lying?

> IOW---They had NO KNOWLEDGE of any "downward ranging" bullet(s).

No-one is talking about a certain "knowledge".

Now you're simply getting desperate...

Was their *EVIDENCE* of a downward ranging bullet... absolutely yes.

You can't admit that I've schooled you again on something you simply didn't know.

> Ergo, their actions (and resulting testimony and statements) are most certainly NOT "evidence" that a bullet REALLY DID range downward in Kennedy's chest.

Tut tut tut, Davy... YOU'RE LYING AGAIN!!!

No-one is speaking of what actually occurred. You didn't accuse me of lying about what actually occurred.

YOU CLAIMED I HAD "NO EVIDENCE" FOR MY ASSERTION ABOUT A BULLET RANGING DOWNWARD INTO JFK'S CHEST.

You implied that I simply made it up.

Now you know otherwise, and you're desperate to change the topic.

> You, of course, will never acknowledge that I am right on this issue, and you'll never admit that there really is NO EVIDENCE at all (not even Dr. Clark's testimony) that any bullet "ranged downward" into JFK.

You're lying again, Davy Von Molester.

What caused the bruise on JFK's lung? Why did the emergency doctors treat for a collapsed lung? EXPLAIN THE INSERTION OF CHEST TUBES... or run away again.

> And I fully understand what you're doing. Everybody here understands it. It's a game you like to play. It's what "Internet JFK CTers" do --- they pretend and speculate and make up absurd theories, such as this one....
>
> "The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest. It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- B. Holmes; Jan. 2017

Yep... all evidence based.

And if it was so "absurd" - then you're calling all the doctors at Bethesda who treated JFK morons.

But that's common among believers - they simply cannot accept expert testimony.

> You have no "EVIDENCE" at all

You're lying again, Davy the Molester... I guess you get pretty good at lying... when parents rush up to you in the park...

>that ANY of the above things really happened. None. And you know it! But that won't stop you from calling me a liar ten times a day just so that you won't have to face reality. And that reality is....
>
> You have absolutely no capacity for properly and fairly evaluating the facts, evidence, and testimony associated with the events of 11/22/63.

If this were true, you'd be able to credibly respond to the points I raise.

[Ben Holmes]

Was their evidence of a bullet that ranged downward into the chest?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

They [the Parkland doctors] SPECIFICALLY treated JFK ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BELIEF THAT A BULLET HAD RANGED DOWNWARD. The chest tubes were inserted for that express purpose.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not exactly, Ben. Try reading this section of Dr. Kemp Clark's Warren Commission testimony again (at 6 H 28-29):

MR. SPECTER -- "Is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?"

DR. CLARK -- "Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred."

MR. SPECTER -- "Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?"

DR. CLARK -- "No, sir."

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:02:56 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:07:21 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > You cannot point to *any* "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > I can't? Let's try this one on for size then (with source link provided)....
> >
> > "That bullet...wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- Ben Holmes; Jan. 18, 2017
> >
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Single-Bullet-Fact?pid=1770#pid1770
> >
> > Now, if the above statement about a "pre-autopsy autopsy" isn't to be considered "outer fringe", then what would be, Ben? In fact, nothing I can think of could possibly be *more* "outer fringe" than what you said in that January 18th quote I just cited above.
>
> A "pre-autopsy" autopsy has been fairly standard among critics since Lifton first made it well-known.
>
> The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.
>
> This is hardly "outer fringe" material.
>

You're hilarious, Ben! You're actually going to sit there (or kneel) next to your life-sized statue of Mark Lane and tell me that a belief in a covert "pre-autopsy autopsy" (and body alteration on JFK's corpse) is NOT an "outer fringe" theory?

That's hilarity at its finest!

BTW....

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1057 and 1066 of "Reclaiming History"

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:46:34 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> They [the Parkland doctors] SPECIFICALLY treated JFK ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BELIEF THAT A BULLET HAD RANGED DOWNWARD. The chest tubes were inserted for that express purpose.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Not exactly, Ben.

Yes... PRECISELY. I'm guessing that you don't think you'll ever pay the price for your lies.

>Try reading this section of Dr. Kemp Clark's Warren Commission testimony again (at 6 H 28-29):
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?"
>
> DR. CLARK -- "Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?"
>
> DR. CLARK -- "No, sir."

You're lying again, Von Molester... You're desperate to imply that because there was no EXTERNAL indication - that there's no evidence for a bullet ranging downward into the chest.

You're a lying scumbag who INTENTIONALLY missed this:

Dr. Clark: "The part pertaining to the bullet entering the President's chest rests on the reasons for the placing of the chest tubes which were being inserted when I arrived. It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

and...

Dr. Clark: "Dr. CLARK - Assuming that a missile had entered the pleural space, if there had been bleeding into the pleural space, the trachea would have been deviated or had there been leakage of air into the pleural space, the trachea would have been deviated, as it is the main conduit of air to the two lungs. Collapse of a lung would have produced, or will produce deviation of the trachea. There being a wound in the throat, there being blood in the strap muscles and there being deviation of the trachea in the presence of a grievously wounded patient without opportunity for X-ray or other diagnostic measures, Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed."

You're just a scumbag of a liar - desperate to avoid the fact THAT THE TREATMENT OF JFK IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WAS LARGELY BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION OF A BULLET ENTERING HIS THROAT, AND RANGING DOWNWARD IN THE CHEST.

You can keep lying all you want - and I'll simply keep quoting the evidence you claim doesn't exist.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:01:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:02:56 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:07:21 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > You cannot point to *any* "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > I can't? Let's try this one on for size then (with source link provided)....
> > >
> > > "That bullet...wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- Ben Holmes; Jan. 18, 2017
> > >
> > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Single-Bullet-Fact?pid=1770#pid1770
> > >
> > > Now, if the above statement about a "pre-autopsy autopsy" isn't to be considered "outer fringe", then what would be, Ben? In fact, nothing I can think of could possibly be *more* "outer fringe" than what you said in that January 18th quote I just cited above.
> >
> > A "pre-autopsy" autopsy has been fairly standard among critics since Lifton first made it well-known.
> >
> > The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.
> >
> > This is hardly "outer fringe" material.
> >
>
> You're hilarious, Ben!

And like the coward you are, you'll continue to refuse to defend the HSCA on this issue.

Why is that, Davy Von Molester?

I find it truly amusing that you're unwilling to say anything in defense of Vincent Bugliosi as I demolish his legacy.

He'd be very disappointed in you.

[Bud]

<snicker> His legacy is safe from you, Ben.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just what "lies" did the HSCA tell the world, Ben?

Cites and links please. Not just your half-baked accusations that "lies" were being told.

[Ben Holmes]

They lied about the medical testimony. Full details can be found here:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

Simply skip to the section titled: HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound

You'll find it right under the McClelland drawing of the BOH wound.

And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they *ARE* lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.

[David Von Pein]

Just look at the words Holmes totally ignores in Clark's testimony....

"Assumption"
"Assumed"
"Assuming"
"Might have"

In addition, let's have a look at Dr. Malcolm Perry's 1998 ARRB testimony, where he says....

"That's when I asked that a chest tube be put in place because I didn't know how many times he'd been shot or from what direction. And, of course, the assumption was that he might have a chest wound as well...I asked the chest tubes be put in because once you start pressure-assisted respiration, if he had a chest tube he might have a tension pneumothorax. And not knowing the extent of his head injury with any certainty, as Dr. Jones said, we didn't look at that. We were busy trying to get an airway. And so as it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity, but I didn't know that at the time." -- Dr. Malcolm O. Perry; August 27, 1998

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

How, Ben, does the above testimony (and the other testimony of Dr. Clark) add up to "evidence" of a bullet that really did "range downward" into JFK's chest (which is what you say you actually believe DID happen--i.e., a bullet really DID go down into JFK's chest and was then dug out of him later by covert plotters)? Particularly the 1998 testimony of Dr. Perry when he said (after having 35 years to reflect back on his sum total of knowledge that he had garnered about JFK's wounds):

"As it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity."

Some people saw Lyndon Johnson holding his own arm as he walked into Parkland Hospital on Nov. 22nd, and subsequently the rumor began to spread rapidly that LBJ, too, had been the victim of an assassin's bullet that day. So would you now (years later) try and utilize those early false rumors and reports as "evidence" that LBJ really was shot?

[David Von Pein]

So let me get this straight, Ben....

According to you and other CT fanatics, the HSCA decided to "LIE" about the medical evidence....but then, in their final report, they decided to TELL THE WORLD THAT THEY THINK A CONSPIRACY EXISTED TO KILL THE PRESIDENT.

Is that about the size of the goofy contradictory situation as it exists in your eyes, Ben?

Talk about convoluted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 5:32:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:46:34 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > They [the Parkland doctors] SPECIFICALLY treated JFK ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BELIEF THAT A BULLET HAD RANGED DOWNWARD. The chest tubes were inserted for that express purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Not exactly, Ben.
> >
> >
> > Yes... PRECISELY. I'm guessing that you don't think you'll ever pay the price for your lies.
> >
> >
> > >Try reading this section of Dr. Kemp Clark's Warren Commission testimony again (at 6 H 28-29):
> > >
> > > MR. SPECTER -- "Is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?"
> > >
> > > DR. CLARK -- "Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred."
> > >
> > > MR. SPECTER -- "Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?"
> > >
> > > DR. CLARK -- "No, sir."
> >
> > You're lying again, Von Molester... You're desperate to imply that because there was no EXTERNAL indication - that there's no evidence for a bullet ranging downward into the chest.
> >
> > You're a lying scumbag who INTENTIONALLY missed this:
> >
> > Dr. Clark: "The part pertaining to the bullet entering the President's chest rests on the reasons for the placing of the chest tubes which were being inserted when I arrived. It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."
> >
> > and...
> >
> > Dr. Clark: "Dr. CLARK - Assuming that a missile had entered the pleural space, if there had been bleeding into the pleural space, the trachea would have been deviated or had there been leakage of air into the pleural space, the trachea would have been deviated, as it is the main conduit of air to the two lungs. Collapse of a lung would have produced, or will produce deviation of the trachea. There being a wound in the throat, there being blood in the strap muscles and there being deviation of the trachea in the presence of a grievously wounded patient without opportunity for X-ray or other diagnostic measures, Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed."

Dead silence after you've just been schooled on your dishonesty.

> > You're just a scumbag of a liar - desperate to avoid the fact THAT THE TREATMENT OF JFK IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WAS LARGELY BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION OF A BULLET ENTERING HIS THROAT, AND RANGING DOWNWARD IN THE CHEST.
> >
> > You can keep lying all you want - and I'll simply keep quoting the evidence you claim doesn't exist.
>
> Just look at the words Holmes totally ignores in Clark's testimony....
>
> "Assumption"
> "Assumed"
> "Assuming"
> "Might have"

Truly a scumbag, aren't you?

The question has NEVER been "did a bullet enter the chest cavity"... nor did you complain about that... Your complaint was stating that I had "NO evidence" for what I'd said.

You were quite clearly asserting that I'd just made it up.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Davy Von Molester - and judging from your perversions, it's certainly understandable why you'd be good at lying.

> In addition, let's have a look at Dr. Malcolm Perry's 1998 ARRB testimony, where he says....

Deleted.

Decades later...

Earliest testimony is to be preferred, and when decades old statements conflict with the earliest - the earliest is far more likely to be true.

> How, Ben, does the above testimony (and the other testimony of Dr. Clark) add up to "evidence" of a bullet that really did "range downward" into JFK's chest

Tut tut tut... you're changing the topic again.

That was *NEVER* the topic.

The topic is did I have "EVIDENCE" for my statement that a bullet struck JFK in the throat, and then went downward into his chest.

And I provably did.

Just like "Bud" - you're too afraid to cite a definition of the term "evidence" that you will adhere to.

You know you'll be stringing yourself up if you give a real citable definition, and equally hanging yourself if you refuse to give a real citation.

Were you abused as a child?

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > And just what "lies" did the HSCA tell the world, Ben?
> > >
> > > Cites and links please. Not just your half-baked accusations that "lies" were being told.
> >
> > They lied about the medical testimony. Full details can be found here:
> > https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm
> >
> > Simply skip to the section titled: HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound
> >
> > You'll find it right under the McClelland drawing of the BOH wound.
> >
> > And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they *ARE* lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.
>
> So let me get this straight, Ben....

I already did... here it is again: And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they *ARE* lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.

[Bud]

There is no evidence of a downranging bullet. There is evidence of speculation about the possibility of a downranging bullet.

> You were quite clearly asserting that I'd just made it up.
>
> YOU'RE A LIAR, Davy Von Molester - and judging from your perversions, it's certainly understandable why you'd be good at lying.
>
>
> > In addition, let's have a look at Dr. Malcolm Perry's 1998 ARRB testimony, where he says....
>
> Deleted.
>
> Decades later...
>
> Earliest testimony is to be preferred, and when decades old statements conflict with the earliest - the earliest is far more likely to be true.

Here is what Perry told the WC decades before...

"Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile."

>
> > How, Ben, does the above testimony (and the other testimony of Dr. Clark) add up to "evidence" of a bullet that really did "range downward" into JFK's chest
>
> Tut tut tut... you're changing the topic again.
>
> That was *NEVER* the topic.
>
> The topic is did I have "EVIDENCE" for my statement that a bullet struck JFK in the throat, and then went downward into his chest.

You haven`t offered any. What you produced dealt with the speculation of the possibility that there might have been a downranging bullet.

> And I provably did.
>
> Just like "Bud" - you're too afraid to cite a definition of the term "evidence" that you will adhere to.

Which is just a lie, since I have offered a definition of "evidence". Ben, of course, has not.

> You know you'll be stringing yourself up if you give a real citable definition, and equally hanging yourself if you refuse to give a real citation.
>
> Were you abused as a child?

Did you parents have any children that lived?

[Bud]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:42:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > And just what "lies" did the HSCA tell the world, Ben?
> > > >
> > > > Cites and links please. Not just your half-baked accusations that "lies" were being told.
> > >
> > > They lied about the medical testimony. Full details can be found here:
> > > https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm
> > >
> > > Simply skip to the section titled: HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound
> > >
> > > You'll find it right under the McClelland drawing of the BOH wound.
> > >
> > > And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they *ARE* lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.
> >
> > So let me get this straight, Ben....
>
>
> I already did...

Look at Ben running from DVP`s excellent observation that Ben has an investigation that came to the conclusion of conspiracy hiding evidence of conspiracy.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:04:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:42:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > And just what "lies" did the HSCA tell the world, Ben?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cites and links please. Not just your half-baked accusations that "lies" were being told.
> > > >
> > > > They lied about the medical testimony. Full details can be found here:
> > > > https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm
> > > >
> > > > Simply skip to the section titled: HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound
> > > >
> > > > You'll find it right under the McClelland drawing of the BOH wound.
> > > >
> > > > And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they *ARE* lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.
> > >
> > > So let me get this straight, Ben....
> >
> >
> > I already did...
>
> Look at Ben running from DVP`s excellent observation that Ben has an investigation that came to the conclusion of conspiracy hiding evidence of conspiracy.

Look at both of you fulfilling the prediction I made in the initial post.

Your cowardice & dishonesty is so predictable, that if anyone were foolish enough to bet on it, I'd easily win the bet.

[Bud]

You *might* think that, since you don`t know the meaning of the word "might".

[Bud]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:07:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:04:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:42:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:08:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just what "lies" did the HSCA tell the world, Ben?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cites and links please. Not just your half-baked accusations that "lies" were being told.
> > > > >
> > > > > They lied about the medical testimony. Full details can be found here:
> > > > > https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply skip to the section titled: HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll find it right under the McClelland drawing of the BOH wound.
> > > > >
> > > > > And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they *ARE* lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.
> > > >
> > > > So let me get this straight, Ben....
> > >
> > >
> > > I already did...
> >
> > Look at Ben running from DVP`s excellent observation that Ben has an investigation that came to the conclusion of conspiracy hiding evidence of conspiracy.
>
> Look at both of you fulfilling the prediction I made in the initial post.

Look at Ben ignoring the fact that what DVP said spoke directly to the stupidity of Ben`s position.

[Ben Holmes]

Did Davy the Molester say that I "might" not have the evidence for my statement?

And once again, you demonstrate your cowardice by refusing yet again to cite for a definition of "evidence".

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

The question has NEVER been "did a bullet enter the chest cavity[?]"...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So all of this discussion about "ranging downward" has evidently just been an exercise in tedium and semantics on your part. Based on Ben's comment I just quoted above, Ben doesn't really believe that a bullet actually entered JFK's chest at all.

Whew! Thank goodness for that! I was beginning to wonder about the man's sanity there for a minute! Because given the totality of the evidence, no reasonable human being could possibly *actually believe* that a bullet ranged downward into Kennedy's chest.

But after he has now decided to move the goal posts several yards and claim that "the question has NEVER been 'did a bullet enter the chest cavity?' ", now I know that Ben REALLY only meant precisely what Bud said earlier....

"There is no evidence of a downranging bullet. There is evidence of speculation about the possibility of a downranging bullet." -- Bud

Now if only Ben can convince a single rational person that a belief in the "pre-autopsy autopsy" theory ISN'T an "outer fringe" belief.

Good luck with that one, Ben.

[Bud]

Why would I do it again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:17:29 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> The question has NEVER been "did a bullet enter the chest cavity[?]"...
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> So all of this discussion about "ranging downward" has evidently just been an exercise in tedium and semantics on your part.

No Davy The Molester... you're simply lying again.

You stated that I had "NO evidence" for my statement. It's never been about the truth or falsehood of the issue - BUT RATHER, YOUR CLAIM THAT I HAD NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY STATEMENT.

You tried to imply that I'd simply made it up.

And now you're desperate to change the topic, because it's been proven beyond all refutation that I did indeed have evidence, quite adequate evidence for my statement.

And now, as I predicted, you ran like a scared kid who's looking at
"Davy Von Molester" in the park... from the HSCA's obvious lie.

You aren't honest enough to address it.

[Bud]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:31:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:17:29 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > The question has NEVER been "did a bullet enter the chest cavity[?]"...
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > So all of this discussion about "ranging downward" has evidently just been an exercise in tedium and semantics on your part.
>
>
> No Davy The Molester... you're simply lying again.
>
> You stated that I had "NO evidence" for my statement. It's never been about the truth or falsehood of the issue - BUT RATHER, YOUR CLAIM THAT I HAD NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY STATEMENT.

You posted evidence for a completely different concept.

> You tried to imply that I'd simply made it up.
>
> And now you're desperate to change the topic, because it's been proven beyond all refutation that I did indeed have evidence, quite adequate evidence for my statement.

You haven`t produced any.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:37:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> You posted evidence for a completely different concept.

You're lying again...

It's worth another look:

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
>

> ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)

So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?

On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.

On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.

But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:

Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)

Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)

So who's lying, Davy Von Molester?

I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.

Of course, knowing how dishonest you are, this rebuttal and your retraction will never find it's way on to your many websites...

[Bud]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:37:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>
> > You posted evidence for a completely different concept.
>
> You're lying again...
>
> It's worth another look:
>
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> >
> > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
>
> So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
>
> On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.
>
> On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."
>
> CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.
>
> But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
>
> Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
>
> Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)

What concept was Clark going for when he used the word "might", Ben? Any idea?

This just isn`t evidence of a downranging shot. It is evidence of speculation about a downranging shot. Ben is either too stupid to understand the difference or too dishonest to admit it.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You stated that I had "NO evidence" for my statement. It's never been about the truth or falsehood of the issue...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bullshit. Of COURSE it's always been about the "truth or falsehood" of your statement, because your statement didn't say you think a bullet MIGHT have ranged downward into JFK's chest. Your statement clearly indicates your goofy belief that a bullet DEFINITELY DID range downward. No maybes about it. You stated it as if it were a PROVEN FACT based on "THE EVIDENCE". Ergo, Holmes is nothing but a liar (as we all know).

Here are Holmes' two pertinent January 18th statements (taken from the same post at Holmes' deserted forum)*....

"That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." -- B. HOLMES

"[DVP]...knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE." -- B. HOLMES

* I've archived the original Holmes' lies for all time in the Archive.org's Wayback Machine (below), just in case Liar Holmes decides he wants to edit the post sometime in the future since he's now been caught saying those incredibly stupid things.

http://web.archive.org/web/20170131005400/http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Single-Bullet-Fact?pid=1770#pid1770

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:59:07 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> You stated that I had "NO evidence" for my statement. It's never been about the truth or falsehood of the issue...
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bullshit. Of COURSE it's always been about the "truth or falsehood" of your statement,

Tut tut tut, Davy the Molester.

*MY* statement has been quite thoroughly attested to - YOUR statement was that I had "NO evidence".

Lied, didn't you?

Why can't you cite for your statement? Why can't you back up your statement?

> because your statement didn't say you think a bullet MIGHT have ranged downward into JFK's chest. Your statement clearly indicates your goofy belief that a bullet DEFINITELY DID range downward. No maybes about it. You stated it as if it were a PROVEN FACT based on "THE EVIDENCE". Ergo, Holmes is nothing but a liar (as we all know).

Nope... this is the "proven" game... believers like to engage in it, and try to suck critics into their game.

You didn't claim that my statement was false, YOU CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE" FOR MY STATEMENT.

You've been proven a liar.

Which, no doubt, explains why you refuse to cite any meaning of the term "evidence" - you'd just HATE it if you had to use the same meaning everyone else uses.

And why you're desperate to change the topic.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES (INCREDIBLY!) ACTUALLY SAID:

You didn't claim that my statement was false, YOU CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE" FOR MY STATEMENT.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben is a riot, isn't he? He can't figure out that my comment (which I'll repeat in full below) was a teeny-tiny indicator that I might just think his statement about the "bullet ranging downward" was, indeed, a FALSE statement. Ben, as we can see, is desperately trying to move those goal posts some more.

Here's my quote....

"Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:

Ben thinks that this statement....

"That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Ben is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)" -- DVP; Jan. 28, 2017

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/wqtQ9KuLOrk/zR6GP5W-AgAJ

[End DVP Quote.]

Now, after having reviewed the above comment written by me, can anybody in their right mind *actually think* that I was NOT asserting that Ben's "ranging downward" comment was a FALSE STATEMENT?

I used such words as:

"Please note the multiple lies..."

"Ben is lying..."

"Such a desperate theory put forth by Ben is most certainly NOT supported by the evidence in this case at all..."

and...

"Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more."

And yet Ben comes back and says: "You didn't claim that my statement was false."

Yeah, you're right, Ben....I merely called you a liar (twice) in that quote of mine because I must have been of the opinion that your "ranged downward" assertion was the GOSPEL TRUTH, right?

(Oh, my poor weak bladder!)

[Bud]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:01:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:59:07 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > You stated that I had "NO evidence" for my statement. It's never been about the truth or falsehood of the issue...
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Bullshit. Of COURSE it's always been about the "truth or falsehood" of your statement,
>
> Tut tut tut, Davy the Molester.
>
> *MY* statement has been quite thoroughly attested to - YOUR statement was that I had "NO evidence".

As has been explained numerous times, what you produced is not evidence of a downranging bullet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:02:21 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES (INCREDIBLY!) ACTUALLY SAID:
>
> You didn't claim that my statement was false, YOU CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE" FOR MY STATEMENT.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Ben is a riot, isn't he? He can't figure out that my comment (which I'll repeat in full below) was a teeny-tiny indicator that I might just think his statement about the "bullet ranging downward" was, indeed, a FALSE statement. Ben, as we can see, is desperately trying to move those goal posts some more.
>
> Here's my quote....
>
> "Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
>
> Ben thinks that this statement....
>
> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."
>
> ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Ben is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None.

Yep... caught in a lie.

And even when I've quoted and cited the evidence you claim doesn't exist... you keep right on lying.

You can't even define the term "evidence".

That tells the tale, doesn't it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 3:51:06 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 9:01:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:59:07 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > You stated that I had "NO evidence" for my statement. It's never been about the truth or falsehood of the issue...
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Of COURSE it's always been about the "truth or falsehood" of your statement,
> >
> > Tut tut tut, Davy the Molester.
> >
> > *MY* statement has been quite thoroughly attested to - YOUR statement was that I had "NO evidence".
>
> As has been explained numerous times, what you produced is not evidence of a downranging bullet.

You're lying again "Bud"...

[Bud]

You are just ignorant of what the word "might" means.