On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:25:41 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 11:35:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <
sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 11:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> > >> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination. .... But, of
> > >> > course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO
> > >> > to the weapon. Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> > >> > the weapon was Oswald's.
> > >>
> > >> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> > >> > himself; and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> > >> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> > >> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> > >> > him.
> > >>
> > >> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> > >> > trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> > >> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> > >> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> > >> > 22?
> > >>
> > >> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> > >> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> > >> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> > >> > what might be the implications of doing so?
> > >>
> > >> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> > >> > rifle topic, some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> > >> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> > >> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> > >> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> > >> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
> > >>
> > >> Once again, David has COMPLETELY FAILED in his quest to prove the
> > >> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
> > >
> > > Who does Oswald`s prints on the murder weapon implicate, Santa Claus lurkers?
> >
> >
> > Who does Lt. Day's prints on the murder weapon implicate dufus?
>
> This is why retards are rarely tapped to investigate murder, lurkers.
>
> > >> Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
> > >> OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
> > >> even proving guilt???
> > >
> > > It is impossible for a single thing to prove someone`s guilt, lurkers. Hence, a list.
> >
> >
> > It's also impossible for 0+0+0+0+0+0... to equal 1.
>
> Ben doesn`t feel that anything on DVP`s list constitutes evidence that indicates Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. What could matter less? I suspect real criminal investigators would feel differently.
>
> > You can't seem to understand that basic fact.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
> > >> a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.
> > >
> > > Just because I'm a retard...
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > My fellow Retards think...
> >
> > Who would care?
>
> Ben`s scumbaggery aside, this is the wisdom Ben cut and ran from, lurkers...
>
> "Like I said, lurkers, retards have contrived reasons to disregard the evidence. And they do this time and time and time again. How does "they were all working against poor Oswald" become the default? This is the same sort of stupidity the OJ Simpson jurors bought into."
>
> > >> But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
> > >> so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:
> > >>
> > >> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> > >> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
> > >> Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
> > >> down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
> > >> OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
> > >> teilling that David even bothers with this claim.
> > >
> > > I said I'm a retard...
> >
> >
> > Yes, but what you *NEED* to say is how Lt. Day photographed everything
> > but the one single critical tie to the alleged assassin.
>
> Why do I need to say anything on this, lurkers? Am I Lt. Day?
>
> I do see some possibilities in his testimony. This is one...
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
>
> Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
>
> It seems he only photographed prints he *didn`t* lift.
>
> > And why it's silly of the Warren Commission & FBI to doubt Lt. Day.
>
> What did they doubt, lurkers?
>
> >
> > >> > .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
> > >> > linking LHO to the weapon.
> > >>
> > >> David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
> > >> carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
> > >> this claim is - and shows it.
> > >
> > > He didn`t "backtrack", lurkers. He just pointed out that it was overkill.
> >
> > He backtracked.
>
> Ben lies, lurkers, Saying it is a "bonus" is not backing off a previously stated position.
>
> >David *knows* he can't base his theory on such
> > incredibly weak evidence... especially knowing how easily I can trash
> > it using the historical evidence.
> >
> > Wanna put it to a poll?
>
> What a dope, lurkers.
>
> >
> > >> > Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> > >> > the weapon was Oswald's.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
> > >> Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
> > >> Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
> > >> owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
> > >> linking him to the rifle, as you well know.
> > >
> > > As I said, us retards feel...
> >
> >
> > No-one cares...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> > >> > himself;
> > >>
> > >> No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
> > >> ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."
> > >
> > > Nonsense, lurkers.
> >
> > Empty claim. You'll NEVER hear the truth of the testimony speaking of
> > "Hidell" from stump.
>
> Its nonsense, lurkers.
>
> >
> > >> There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if Oswald was arrested with fake ID bearing this name,
> > > lurkers. Oh, thats right, he was.
> >
> >
> > If this were true, why didn't they charge Hidell?
>
> Because they were real criminal investigators and not retards playing silly games with the deaths of these men, lurkers.
>
> > Run stump, Run!!!
> >
> >
> > >> Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
> > >> this case...
> > >
> > > Neither will Ben, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > Already have. "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission #7" Feel free to
> > educate yourself, then come back here and admit that you lied.
>
> No matter how much Ben lies, Heindel will never be Hidell, lurkers.
>
> And it is a strawman anyway, because it doesn`t speak to DVP`s claim.
>
> > >> > and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> > >> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> > >> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> > >> > him.
> > >>
> > >> No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)
> > >>
> > >> It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.
> > >
> > > It was the conclusion of experts who examined the material, lurkers.
> >
> > You're lying again, stump.
> >
> > You'll refuse to cite...
>
> Ben is correct here, lurkers, I must have been looking at the wrong number last night. Here is the handwriting analysis of the HSCA....
>
>
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm
>
> The most they were willing to say about #30...
>
>
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=661&tab=page
>
> Was...
>
> "The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting. It can only be said that as far as the pictorial aspects of form or design. proportions, alignment, slant, and connecting strokes are concerned, the writing on this envelope, although it purports to be that of one Hidell, conforms with the original writing submitted for examination which purported to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald."
>
But the 2 experts for the WC testified that the writing found on the order form and envelope (CE773) was positively the writing of Oswald....
Mr. COLE --- "774-783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773."
Mr. CADIGAN -- "The writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
> I don`t see comment at all on the form, only on the envelope (which has indications of being consistent with Oswald`s writing).
>
>
> > >> Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
> > >> make a judgement, not copies.
> > >
> > > Let Ben quote these experts who say it is impossible to make these
> > > determinations from copies, lurkers.
> >
> > Feel free to examine actual HSCA testimony...
> >
> > Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting
> > for analysis purposes?
> > Mr. MCNALLY. No, never.
>
> Strawman, lurkers. It isn`t a question of whether one is better than the other, the question is whether copies can be used.
>
> > > I searched "handwriting analysis from copies" on google and the
> > > first thing on the list disputes his claim...
> >
> > Why are you afraid to examine the testimony of the actual handwriting
> > experts who testified on this matter?
>
> If Ben has something that he thinks supports his position he should produce it, lurkers.
>
> >
> > >
https://www.forensicdocexaminer.com/photocopies-for-evidence-beware/
> > >
> > > The articles cites difficulties but doesn`t say it can`t be done.
> >
> >
> > It can't be done *RELIABLY*.
>
> Let Ben support the claim that a copy can never be used to identify handwriting, lurkers. I saw nothing like that in the forensic source I linked to.
>
> > There are many factors of handwriting visible on originals, that
> > cannot be seen or examined in copies... pressure, micro tremors, etc.
> >
> > I'm no handwriting expert, and *I* know this... why don't you, stump?
> >
> >
> > >> Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
> > >> Oswald had.
> > >
> > > The BY photo shows it was, lurkers. The serial number on the rifle shows it was.
> >
> >
> > A rather stupid logical fallacy on your part.
>
> It is how criminal investigatoin solves solves crimes, lurkers.
>
> > >> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> > >> > trigger.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
> > >> Oswald owned a rifle.
> > >
> > > It has been shown, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed out of hand, lurkers.
>
>
> > >> The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
> > >> glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
> > >> attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
> > >> banking system... a complete failure on his part.
> > >
> > > The file locator number show the money order had been through the
> > > banking system, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > >> Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> > >> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> > >> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> > >> > 22?
> > >>
> > >> This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
> > >> the "common sense" argument.
> > >
> > > I'm retarded to believe...
> >
> >
> > Yep, but no-one cares...
> >
> >
> > >> It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
> > >> claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
> > >> evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
> > >> "common sense?"
> > >
> > > I'm a retards...
> >
> >
> > Got a mouse in your pocket?
> >
> >
> > >> "Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
> > >> knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
> > >> would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
> > >> that was credible.
> > >
> > > We have fingerprint evidence
> >
> >
> > No you don't.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > > photographic evidence
>
> > Disputed.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > > documentation
> >
> >
> > Quite likely forged, no independent ability for anyone to check now...
> > the FBI destroyed the evidence.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > > and witness testimony
> >
> >
> > Of a proven liar. Doesn't get you very far...
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > >I'm a Retard...
> >
> >
> > No-one cares, stump.
> >
> >
> > >> But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
> > >> knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
> > >> evidence he *should* have been familiar with.
> > >>
> > >> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> > >> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> > >> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> > >> > what might be the implications of doing so?
> > >>
> > >> This is not the alternative.
> > >>
> > >> David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
> > >> with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
> > >> handed over his weapon to another.
> > >>
> > >> This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
> > >> Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
> > >> an "empty claim.")
> > >>
> > >> Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
> > >> "know full well" what's going to occur...
> > >
> > > Of course none of Ben`s offerings make the least bit of sense in
> > > the context of this crime. If Oswald`s rifle was loaned or stolen,
> > > what are the first words out of his mouth when he is in custody,
> > > lurkers?
> >
> >
> > "I don't own a rifle, I can prove that photo is faked..."
>
> Does it make sense that he would say these things if his rifle was lost or stolen, lurkers?
>
> > >> David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
> > >> preconceptions of what happened.
> > >
> > > It is only stupid speculation if the presumptions of retards ...
> >
> >
> > No, David doesn't have to be a "retard" in order to engage in stupid
> > speculation.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> And if *this* is the best that David can do...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> > >> > rifle topic,
> > >>
> > >> The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
> > >> suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
> > >> outright lie on David's part.
> > >
> > > I`ve never seen a retard ...
> >
> >
> > Don't have mirrors where your from?
> >
> >
> >
> > >> This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
> > >> frequently guilty of.
> > >
> > > I'm a retards...
> >
> >
> > It's no excuse.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
> > >> tells the true tale, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Don`t pat any attention to this nonsense, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > I've noted before the interesting phenomena of believers losing their
> > ability to spell when they get frustrated.
>
> Pretty desperate to score points when you have to jump on a typo, lurkers.
>
> > >> > some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> > >> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> > >> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> > >> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> > >> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
> > >>
> > >> How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
> > >> against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
> > >> the **REAL** ones...
> > >
> > > <snicker> Have you ever seen a retard...
> >
> >
> > No, but you're not welcome here anyway...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?
> > >
> > > I'm retarded...
> >
> >
> > No excuses...
> >
> >
> > >> This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
> > >> rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
> > >> Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.
> > >
> > > So Marina took the police into the garage to show them the nice
> > > blanket she kept there, lurkers?
> >
> >
> > The same Marina who repeated said that Oswald didn't own a rifle?
>
> Did Marina want to show the cops the blanket she kept in the garage, lurkers? I think she took them there because she thought her husband kept a rifle there, and this retard is focusing on the wrong thing because he is playing silly games with the deaths of these men.
>
> > *That* Marina?
> >
> >
> >
> > > And why doesn`t Ben take his denials one step further, and claim
> > > there was no Lee Harvey Oswald?
> >
> >
> > And why doesn't dufus take it one step further, and talk about the
> > pink elephant in that garage?
>
> Kennedy wasn`t trampled to death, lurkers.
>
> > >> As usual - David being the coward that he is, will not dare to defend
> > >> his lies in an open forum not controlled by friendly believers...
> > >>
> > >> It will be left to dufus to dance, whine & lie... but yet again we see
> > >> the central claim of David - completely unsupported.
> >
> > Yep... and David snipped **ALL** of this, and refused to try defending
> > his lies.