Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #20
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 16, 2018, 11:15:29 AM4/16/18
to
David Von Pein's "evidence" for the "sole guilt" isn't.
As I've now firmly established.
Interestingly, David simply refuses to defend his website - he knows
that he can't do it on the basis of the evidence.
So he leaves it to dufus to "defend" using ad hominem & lies.
>20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90
> seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and
> descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by
> policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor. [See Warren
> Commission Report; Page 152]
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
What David won't tell you is that Baker calmly walked the distance
(even though he's shown on film that day *running*), and Howlett moved
far too quickly (witnesses asserted that the suspect remained in the
window for a time)
Nor will you hear from David that Truly was half the way up the next
set of stairs when Baker encountered Oswald, AND FOR OSWALD TO HAVE
*PAST* HIM, THE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT EVEN MORE - something that
the "recreation" failed to account for.
Even *more* a problem, there's a great deal of evidence that Oswald
was on the *1st* floor when he encountered Baker.
David mentions *none* of these problems.
Nor is this evidence for *Oswald's* guilt - it's a *PRESUMPTION* that
he had just come down from the 6th floor. So it doesn't support
Oswald's guilt, and it *CERTAINLY* has nothing to do with Oswald's
"sole" guilt.
David has failed completely.
And now he's creating a new site with stump's comments and PROVABLE
LIES - which make them David's lies as well.
Tell us David, why do you think you can defend the Warren Comission
with lies?
As I've now firmly established.
Interestingly, David simply refuses to defend his website - he knows
that he can't do it on the basis of the evidence.
So he leaves it to dufus to "defend" using ad hominem & lies.
>20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90
> seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and
> descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by
> policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor. [See Warren
> Commission Report; Page 152]
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
What David won't tell you is that Baker calmly walked the distance
(even though he's shown on film that day *running*), and Howlett moved
far too quickly (witnesses asserted that the suspect remained in the
window for a time)
Nor will you hear from David that Truly was half the way up the next
set of stairs when Baker encountered Oswald, AND FOR OSWALD TO HAVE
*PAST* HIM, THE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT EVEN MORE - something that
the "recreation" failed to account for.
Even *more* a problem, there's a great deal of evidence that Oswald
was on the *1st* floor when he encountered Baker.
David mentions *none* of these problems.
Nor is this evidence for *Oswald's* guilt - it's a *PRESUMPTION* that
he had just come down from the 6th floor. So it doesn't support
Oswald's guilt, and it *CERTAINLY* has nothing to do with Oswald's
"sole" guilt.
David has failed completely.
And now he's creating a new site with stump's comments and PROVABLE
LIES - which make them David's lies as well.
Tell us David, why do you think you can defend the Warren Comission
with lies?
Bud
Apr 16, 2018, 2:01:24 PM4/16/18
to
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> David Von Pein's "evidence" for the "sole guilt" isn't.
>
> As I've now firmly established.
Ben hasn`t even shown he understands the concept, lurkers.
> David Von Pein's "evidence" for the "sole guilt" isn't.
>
> As I've now firmly established.
> Interestingly, David simply refuses to defend his website - he knows
> that he can't do it on the basis of the evidence.
> So he leaves it to dufus to "defend" using ad hominem & lies.
> >20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90
> > seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and
> > descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by
> > policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor. [See Warren
> > Commission Report; Page 152]
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
>
> What David won't tell you is that Baker calmly walked the distance
> (even though he's shown on film that day *running*), and Howlett moved
> far too quickly
> (witnesses asserted that the suspect remained in the
> window for a time)
> Nor will you hear from David that Truly was half the way up the next
> set of stairs when Baker encountered Oswald,
Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
> AND FOR OSWALD TO HAVE
> *PAST* HIM, THE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT EVEN MORE - something that
> the "recreation" failed to account for.
In high school with a handrail I`d hit one step, landing, one step, landing, without a lot of noise, since I moved like a puma. In my prime I could probably go down four flights in 20 seconds (the layout of the TSBD required a short run around on each floor before the next set of steps). I`d have made it down from the 6th floor and been standing next to Truly when he called for the elevator to be turned loose.
Here is a photo of one flight of stairs...
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339694/m1/1/?q=stairway
> Even *more* a problem, there's a great deal of evidence that Oswald
> was on the *1st* floor when he encountered Baker.
>
> David mentions *none* of these problems.
> Nor is this evidence for *Oswald's* guilt - it's a *PRESUMPTION* that
> he had just come down from the 6th floor. So it doesn't support
> Oswald's guilt, and it *CERTAINLY* has nothing to do with Oswald's
> "sole" guilt.
> David has failed completely.
Lurkers, only an idiot would think that everything on DVP`s list was supposed to show Oswald`s guilt on a individual, stand alone basis. Ben is just such an idiot.
> And now he's creating a new site with stump's comments and PROVABLE
> LIES - which make them David's lies as well.
> Tell us David, why do you think you can defend the Warren Comission
> with lies?
David Von Pein
Apr 16, 2018, 4:31:38 PM4/16/18
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 16, 2018, 5:08:55 PM4/16/18
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:31:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Good of you to *prove* that you've read the refutation - and shown
your cowardice by refusing to support your lying claim.
Needless to say, I've snipped your website citations - since you're
too much a coward to defend 'em.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Good of you to *prove* that you've read the refutation - and shown
your cowardice by refusing to support your lying claim.
Needless to say, I've snipped your website citations - since you're
too much a coward to defend 'em.
David Von Pein
Apr 16, 2018, 5:15:42 PM4/16/18
to
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes
Ben Holmes
Apr 16, 2018, 6:38:46 PM4/16/18
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:15:41 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
children.
You will *NEVER* quote me saying what you just claimed I'd said, so
clearly molesting children is much closer to your heart than the
truth.
David "Chester" Pein. Perhaps that's what I'll start calling you.
> I guess all these battles with some loon named "Ben Holmes" must
> have all been invented by me, eh?....
Why are you lying about Lt. Day photographing a palmprint on the
rifle?
Do you think an honest person would address a provable lie on their
website?
Why do you refuse to remove provable lies?
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 5:08:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:31:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good of you to *prove* that you've read the refutation - and shown
>> your cowardice by refusing to support your lying claim.
>>
>> Needless to say, I've snipped your website citations - since you're
>> too much a coward to defend 'em.
>
>Yeah, keep pretending I've never once addressed (i.e., "defended") my positions in the past.
I see you're busy along with stump, molesting the neighborhood
>On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 5:08:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:31:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good of you to *prove* that you've read the refutation - and shown
>> your cowardice by refusing to support your lying claim.
>>
>> Needless to say, I've snipped your website citations - since you're
>> too much a coward to defend 'em.
>
>Yeah, keep pretending I've never once addressed (i.e., "defended") my positions in the past.
children.
You will *NEVER* quote me saying what you just claimed I'd said, so
clearly molesting children is much closer to your heart than the
truth.
David "Chester" Pein. Perhaps that's what I'll start calling you.
> I guess all these battles with some loon named "Ben Holmes" must
> have all been invented by me, eh?....
rifle?
Do you think an honest person would address a provable lie on their
website?
Why do you refuse to remove provable lies?
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:50 AM4/23/18
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> David Von Pein's "evidence" for the "sole guilt" isn't.
>>
>> As I've now firmly established.
>
> Ben hasn`t even shown he understands the concept, lurkers.
Another empty claim...
No logical argument, no citations, nothing...
Merely an empty claim.
>> Interestingly, David simply refuses to defend his website - he knows
>> that he can't do it on the basis of the evidence.
>
> Why does Ben assume that David should feel it is worth an
> expendure of his time, lurkers?
Because *ANY* honest man would be willing to defend and support the
claims he makes.
You probably don't understand this.
>> So he leaves it to dufus to "defend" using ad hominem & lies.
>
> Doesn`t matter what I use lurkers, the results are the same. Ben running.
dufus couldn't refute the fact that he's using ad hominem and lies...
ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90
>> > seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and
>> > descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by
>> > policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor. [See Warren
>> > Commission Report; Page 152]
>> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
>>
>> What David won't tell you is that Baker calmly walked the distance
>> (even though he's shown on film that day *running*), and Howlett moved
>> far too quickly
>
> Ben is, of course, lying. The guy moved like a turtle, lurkers.
Not only an empty claim, but a LYING empty claim.
>> (witnesses asserted that the suspect remained in the
>> window for a time)
>
> How long is "a time", lurkers?
Far longer than Howlett.
> Brennan said he lingered "a moment".
"And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the
right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher
on the Houston side."
Yep... really credible.
Tell us dufus, why did you just lie?
> Had Oswald stayed in the window for any considerable amount
> of time he would have appeared in photos taken shortly after the
> shooting and he almost certainly would have been noticed by more
> people.
Speculation isn't evidence.
>> Nor will you hear from David that Truly was half the way up the next
>> set of stairs when Baker encountered Oswald,
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers...
>
> Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
>Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
>
>Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
You pretend that its just a few steps, when it's actually around the
2nd floor landing, THEN up the stairs.
Baker himself said that when he arrived to the landing and began to
scan it, Truly "had already started around the bend to come to
the next elevation going up" (3 H 255).
Even Truly makes it clear that he was FURTHER ahead of Baker on the
second floor than he was on the first floor.
So who's lying, stump?
>> AND FOR OSWALD TO HAVE
>> *PAST* HIM, THE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT EVEN MORE - something that
>> the "recreation" failed to account for.
>
> Since the *fastest* time a person could get to the lunchroom was
> never assertained there is no way to tell if this is an issue or not,
> lurkers.
You're lying again, stump. Howlett was the one who tested the
"assassin's" time from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom.
It was in the Warren Commission's interest to make that time AS FAST
AS POSSIBLE - it's simply stupidity on your part that would suggest
that they weren't trying for the fastest time possible.
> In high school with a handrail I`d hit one step, landing, one
> step, landing, without a lot of noise, since I moved like a puma. In
> my prime I could probably go down four flights in 20 seconds (the
> layout of the TSBD required a short run around on each floor before
> the next set of steps). I`d have made it down from the 6th floor and
> been standing next to Truly when he called for the elevator to be
> turned loose.
Speculation isn't evidence.
> Here is a photo of one flight of stairs...
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339694/m1/1/?q=stairway
>
>> Even *more* a problem, there's a great deal of evidence that Oswald
>> was on the *1st* floor when he encountered Baker.
>>
>> David mentions *none* of these problems.
>
> I'm just a retard incapable of seeing any such "problem."
No-one cares, stump.
>> Nor is this evidence for *Oswald's* guilt - it's a *PRESUMPTION* that
>> he had just come down from the 6th floor. So it doesn't support
>> Oswald's guilt, and it *CERTAINLY* has nothing to do with Oswald's
>> "sole" guilt.
>
> Certainly it does, lurkers. Since there wasn`t a body cam on
> Oswald at the time, certain reasonable presumptions have to made. Like
> it isn`t reasonable to believe that Oswald grew wings and flew down
> the steps, but it is reasonable to believe he ran.
Once again, you're *presuming* what Oswald did. Then using that
*presumption* as evidence of guilt.
>> David has failed completely.
>
> Lurkers, only an idiot would think that everything on DVP`s list
> was supposed to show Oswald`s guilt on a individual, stand alone
> basis. Ben is just such an idiot.
Sadly, *NONE* of the items supported the "sole guilt" of anyone at
all.
stump has *PROVEN* that to be a fact - he's repeatedly refused to
quote which one 'does' do this.
So everyone can see who the true "idiot" is.
>> And now he's creating a new site with stump's comments and PROVABLE
>> LIES - which make them David's lies as well.
>
> He is immortalizing my wisdom, lurkers.
You've been caught in a blatant lie. Since *YOU* claim to have seen a
photo of the palmprint on the rifle taken by Lt. Day - why don't you
cite it, so everyone else can see it?
Of course, you can't. You lied. And *DAVID* knows you lied. That
proves David Von Pein a liar.
>> Tell us David, why do you think you can defend the Warren Comission
>> with lies?
>
> Loaded question, lurkers.
Of *COURSE* this one is "loaded" - it includes the presumption that
David and you are lying. Yet it's not really a presumption... I've
already *PROVEN* that.
So tell us, why do you think you can use what *I've* proven to be lies
to support the Warren Commission?
wrote:
>On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> David Von Pein's "evidence" for the "sole guilt" isn't.
>>
>> As I've now firmly established.
>
> Ben hasn`t even shown he understands the concept, lurkers.
No logical argument, no citations, nothing...
Merely an empty claim.
>> Interestingly, David simply refuses to defend his website - he knows
>> that he can't do it on the basis of the evidence.
>
> Why does Ben assume that David should feel it is worth an
> expendure of his time, lurkers?
claims he makes.
You probably don't understand this.
>> So he leaves it to dufus to "defend" using ad hominem & lies.
>
> Doesn`t matter what I use lurkers, the results are the same. Ben running.
ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >20.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed travelled, in 90
>> > seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and
>> > descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by
>> > policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor. [See Warren
>> > Commission Report; Page 152]
>> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
>>
>> What David won't tell you is that Baker calmly walked the distance
>> (even though he's shown on film that day *running*), and Howlett moved
>> far too quickly
>
> Ben is, of course, lying. The guy moved like a turtle, lurkers.
>> (witnesses asserted that the suspect remained in the
>> window for a time)
>
> How long is "a time", lurkers?
> Brennan said he lingered "a moment".
right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher
on the Houston side."
Yep... really credible.
Tell us dufus, why did you just lie?
> Had Oswald stayed in the window for any considerable amount
> of time he would have appeared in photos taken shortly after the
> shooting and he almost certainly would have been noticed by more
> people.
>> Nor will you hear from David that Truly was half the way up the next
>> set of stairs when Baker encountered Oswald,
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers...
>
> Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
>Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
>
>Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
2nd floor landing, THEN up the stairs.
Baker himself said that when he arrived to the landing and began to
scan it, Truly "had already started around the bend to come to
the next elevation going up" (3 H 255).
Even Truly makes it clear that he was FURTHER ahead of Baker on the
second floor than he was on the first floor.
So who's lying, stump?
>> AND FOR OSWALD TO HAVE
>> *PAST* HIM, THE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT EVEN MORE - something that
>> the "recreation" failed to account for.
>
> Since the *fastest* time a person could get to the lunchroom was
> never assertained there is no way to tell if this is an issue or not,
> lurkers.
"assassin's" time from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom.
It was in the Warren Commission's interest to make that time AS FAST
AS POSSIBLE - it's simply stupidity on your part that would suggest
that they weren't trying for the fastest time possible.
> In high school with a handrail I`d hit one step, landing, one
> step, landing, without a lot of noise, since I moved like a puma. In
> my prime I could probably go down four flights in 20 seconds (the
> layout of the TSBD required a short run around on each floor before
> the next set of steps). I`d have made it down from the 6th floor and
> been standing next to Truly when he called for the elevator to be
> turned loose.
> Here is a photo of one flight of stairs...
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339694/m1/1/?q=stairway
>
>> Even *more* a problem, there's a great deal of evidence that Oswald
>> was on the *1st* floor when he encountered Baker.
>>
>> David mentions *none* of these problems.
>
No-one cares, stump.
>> Nor is this evidence for *Oswald's* guilt - it's a *PRESUMPTION* that
>> he had just come down from the 6th floor. So it doesn't support
>> Oswald's guilt, and it *CERTAINLY* has nothing to do with Oswald's
>> "sole" guilt.
>
> Certainly it does, lurkers. Since there wasn`t a body cam on
> Oswald at the time, certain reasonable presumptions have to made. Like
> it isn`t reasonable to believe that Oswald grew wings and flew down
> the steps, but it is reasonable to believe he ran.
*presumption* as evidence of guilt.
>> David has failed completely.
>
> Lurkers, only an idiot would think that everything on DVP`s list
> was supposed to show Oswald`s guilt on a individual, stand alone
> basis. Ben is just such an idiot.
all.
stump has *PROVEN* that to be a fact - he's repeatedly refused to
quote which one 'does' do this.
So everyone can see who the true "idiot" is.
>> And now he's creating a new site with stump's comments and PROVABLE
>> LIES - which make them David's lies as well.
>
> He is immortalizing my wisdom, lurkers.
photo of the palmprint on the rifle taken by Lt. Day - why don't you
cite it, so everyone else can see it?
Of course, you can't. You lied. And *DAVID* knows you lied. That
proves David Von Pein a liar.
>> Tell us David, why do you think you can defend the Warren Comission
>> with lies?
>
> Loaded question, lurkers.
David and you are lying. Yet it's not really a presumption... I've
already *PROVEN* that.
So tell us, why do you think you can use what *I've* proven to be lies
to support the Warren Commission?
0 new messages