Mark Lane - #4

[Ben Holmes]

"Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area
were those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the
motorcade approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen
were on the railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left. Not one
of the railroad men was called before the Warren Commission. However,
four were questioned by counsel for the Commission and nine by agents
of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll and six
others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of
the 13 men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,
said that he thought that the shots came from the Book Depository,
while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the
fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper was."

The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark
Lane. They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any
evidence.

This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks
can't refute it.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:35:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area
> were those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the
> motorcade approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen
> were on the railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left. Not one
> of the railroad men was called before the Warren Commission. However,
> four were questioned by counsel for the Commission and nine by agents
> of the FBI.

So the information they had was gathered, lurkers.

> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll

Lane is outright lying here, lurkers. Let someone produce five of these witnesses who stated the shots came from the knoll.

>and six
> others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
> immediately attracted to the knoll.

Meaningless, lurkers. Things were going on there.

> It is worth noting that not one of
> the 13 men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,
> said that he thought that the shots came from the Book Depository,

The knoll was directly between them and the TSBD, lurkers.

> while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the
> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper was."

Jean Davison blew this out of the water 6 years ago, lurkers....

<Jean Davison On>

"Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said

that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately

attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the

fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper

was." His footnote indicates he's talking about these six:

Potter and Bishop

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432b.htm

Johnson and Cowsert

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433b.htm

Austin Miller:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0118a.htm

and Walter Winborn:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=863&tab=page

I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
slope."

<Jean Davison Off>

Ben has been running from Jean`s challenge for six years and counting, lurkers.

> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark
> Lane. They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any
> evidence.

Everything Ben posts from Lane`s book illustrates Lane`s dishonesty, lurkers. His sole intent is to deceive the readers, and Ben is stupid enough to fall for it.

> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks
> can't refute it.

This retard doesn`t understand what it is, and what it isn`t, lurkers. The reasoning behind concluding that the shots came from the TSBD is both solid and sound, retards like Lane and Ben just focus on the wrong things.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1291.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1291.html


Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.

Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's website will likely notice nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last word in EVERY debate.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Nor will they notice the arguments have been firmly refuted by
critics...

The only place believers "win" is in censored arenas... and no
believer will publicly acknowledge that fact, or refute it.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.
>
> Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's website will likely notice nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last word in EVERY debate.

Why would you expect anything else at an **LNer's** website, "Boris"? You think I should let a CTer have the final word at **my own site**? Get real.

And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like DiEugenio's "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer *ever* gets the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get real (again).

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/miscellaneous-posts-part-118.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:52:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/miscellaneous-posts-part-118.html

Again demonstrating his cowardice...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Why would you expect anything else at an **LNer's** website, "Boris"? You think I should let a CTer have the final word at **my own site**? Get real.

Von Trapped demonstrates he's less concerned with evidence, and more concerned with staging a bias which supports his flawed position.

>
> And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like DiEugenio's "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer *ever* gets the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get real (again).

Well for one thing, DiEugenio is too busy dealing with EVIDENCE to post senseless ad-hominem squabbling posing as a refutation.

Second, your tactic creates the illusion that LNers resolve every issue. I can't even get one of you clowns to acknowledge this...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ

And that's not even evidence. That's just straightening out a lie.

Maybe you can help?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:47:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.
>>
>> Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's website will likely notice nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last word in EVERY debate.
>
>Why would you expect anything else at an **LNer's** website, "Boris"?

We don't.

You can't expect liars to do anything other than lie.

> You think I should let a CTer have the final word at **my own
> site**? Get real.

We can rightfully expect honesty, however.

Which isn't found at your site.

> And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like DiEugenio's
> "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer *ever* gets
> the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get
> real (again).

Is DiEugenio making claims he's unwilling to back up in forums?

Post it here:

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:57:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Why would you expect anything else at an **LNer's** website, "Boris"? You think I should let a CTer have the final word at **my own site**? Get real.
>
> Von Trapped demonstrates he's less concerned with evidence, and more concerned with staging a bias which supports his flawed position.
>

Good job at putting words (and motives) in my mouth (and mind) that don't exist at all. CTers are experts at doing this. (Think: What CTers do to people like Captain Fritz and Dr. Humes and Robert Frazier and scads of other people connected with the JFK case).

> >
> > And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like DiEugenio's "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer *ever* gets the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get real (again).
>
> Well for one thing, DiEugenio is too busy dealing with EVIDENCE to post senseless ad-hominem squabbling posing as a refutation.
>

DiEugenio is too busy IGNORING all the evidence of Oswald's guilt to do anything else. Totally ignoring and/or skewing every last piece of evidence is, after all, Jimbo's full-time job. Not much time for anything else in the Anybody-But-Oswald world he inhabits.

> Second, your tactic creates the illusion that LNers resolve every issue.

Untrue. Just because I always give myself the "last word" on my own webpages (which is only to be *expected* in a discussion in which I hold an opinion that I have chosen to archive at my very own website; Duh!), that doesn't mean I consider "every issue" to be fully "resolved" by LNers. Two examples being:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald's forever unknowable motive....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html

2. Why did many of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses say they saw something (a huge hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head) that definitely did not exist? (I'm still scratching my head about that "BOH" puzzler.)....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/boh-part-6.html

[David Von Pein]

Here are 22 items that DiEugenio can't "back up" to save his life....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

Oh, Jim will always *claim* that he's "backed up" all twenty-two of those silly beliefs with solid evidence---but we all know what "solid evidence" *really* means when it comes from the mouth of a conspiracy theorist, don't we? It means: speculation, hearsay, bullets that don't exist, multi-gunmen theories about Oswald being a "patsy" that make no logical sense at all, and unsupported allegations of "evidence tampering" and "witness coercion", etc.

In other words, a CTer's "solid evidence" amounts to nothing but a pile of mush.

Lone Assassin believers like myself, however, actually *do* have "solid evidence" to back up their claims, despite the loud protests and the foot stomping of the conspiracists....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Von Trapped demonstrates he's less concerned with evidence, and more concerned with staging a bias which supports his flawed position.
> >
>
> Good job at putting words

My mistake, you clearly have no bias after all.

>
> (and motives) in my mouth

You *do* have a book to sell.

>
> (and mind)

LOL @ "mind"

>
> that don't exist at all.

DVP is still talking about his "mind"

>
> CTers are experts at doing this. (Think: What CTers do to people like Captain Fritz and Dr. Humes and Robert Frazier and scads of other people connected with the JFK case).

Funny, I cited Frazier VERBATIM, and no one could explain a bloodless bullet.

>
> DiEugenio is too busy IGNORING all the evidence of Oswald's guilt to do anything else. Totally ignoring and/or skewing every last piece of evidence is, after all, Jimbo's full-time job. Not much time for anything else in the Anybody-But-Oswald world he inhabits.

Example?

>
> > Second, your tactic creates the illusion that LNers resolve every issue.
>
> Untrue. Just because I always give myself the "last word" on my own webpages (which is only to be *expected* in a discussion in which I hold an opinion that I have chosen to archive at my very own website; Duh!), that doesn't mean I consider "every issue" to be fully "resolved" by LNers. Two examples being:
>
> 1. Lee Harvey Oswald's forever unknowable motive....

As opposed to the COUNTLESS extant motives elsewhere, including the people who HANDLED THE EVIDENCE.

>
> 2. Why did many of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses say they saw something (a huge hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head) that definitely did not exist? (I'm still scratching my head about that "BOH" puzzler.)....

Now that's a REAL head-scratcher. It's like every time I input "1+1" into my calculator, it always comes out "2." WTF is that about? I *know* it's 3, because the Dulles Commission told me so. Those doctors even got the autopsy report wrong, the silly billys.

>
> > I can't even get one of you clowns to acknowledge this...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ

I see this challenge still remains untouched.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 18:39:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:58:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:47:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.
>> >>
>> >> Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's website will likely notice nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last word in EVERY debate.
>> >
>> >Why would you expect anything else at an **LNer's** website, "Boris"?
>>
>>
>> We don't.
>>
>> You can't expect liars to do anything other than lie.
>>
>> > You think I should let a CTer have the final word at **my own
>> > site**? Get real.
>>
>>
>> We can rightfully expect honesty, however.
>>
>> Which isn't found at your site.
>>
>>
>> > And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like DiEugenio's
>> > "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer *ever* gets
>> > the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get
>> > real (again).
>>
>>
>> Is DiEugenio making claims he's unwilling to back up in forums?
>>
>> Post it here:
>
>Here are 22 items that DiEugenio can't "back up" to save his life....

No, that's not the way we play this game.

Your website is off limits.

You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
there.

One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...

[David Von Pein]

Gosh, Ben, you just pushed me through the front door of my favorite candy store with a $100 bill in my hands. The selection is almost too overwhelming to pick just *one* thing!

Let's start with the second item of hanging fruit on the "DiEugenio Stupid 22" collection....

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

Direct quote from DiEugenio:

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 [Black Op Radio broadcast; audio below; at 31:17]

https://app.box.com/s/3c65ntm4zk

The real evidence (for any lurkers):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:06:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 18:39:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:58:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:47:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.
> >> >>
> >> >> Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's website will likely notice nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last word in EVERY debate.
> >> >
> >> >Why would you expect anything else at an **LNer's** website, "Boris"?
> >>
> >>
> >> We don't.
> >>
> >> You can't expect liars to do anything other than lie.
> >>
> >> > You think I should let a CTer have the final word at **my own
> >> > site**? Get real.
> >>
> >>
> >> We can rightfully expect honesty, however.
> >>
> >> Which isn't found at your site.
> >>
> >>
> >> > And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like DiEugenio's
> >> > "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer *ever* gets
> >> > the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get
> >> > real (again).
> >>
> >>
> >> Is DiEugenio making claims he's unwilling to back up in forums?
> >>
> >> Post it here:
> >
> >Here are 22 items that DiEugenio can't "back up" to save his life....
>
> No, that's not the way we play this game.

It's all a game to Ben.

>
> Your website is off limits.

Why?

>
> You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
> quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
> that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
> there.

Hoops to jump through, bars being raised, goalposts being moved, etc.

>
> One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...

You're running.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:30:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

I warned you about this. I will accept URL's for citations to the
evidence only.

You will be under THE SAME CONSTRAINTS that I'm under... that of
typing in a response.

Otherwise, I'll simply refer you to Douglas Horne's 5 volume set for
the evidence supporting that Oswald never fired a single shot at
Tippit.

Now... you can *start* by explaining why experienced and knowledgeable
police officers at the scene could have so incredibly missed the
identification on the shells.

Or if you'd prefer to run away again, I'll understand.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:22:49 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Instead of silly ad hominem attacks, why don't you address the
evidence that Oswald shot Tippit?

>> Your website is off limits.
>
>Why?

Because the battle of website URL's doesn't go anywhere.

>> You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
>> quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
>> that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
>> there.
>
>Hoops to jump through, bars being raised, goalposts being moved, etc.

Just the evidence, Chuckles... just the evidence.

>> One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...
>
>You're running.

The "runner" is the one who refuses to respond to a post. Shall we
compare your running with "mine?"

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

We all provide links to evidence and quotes. You do it all the time.

>
>
>
> >> You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
> >> quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
> >> that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
> >> there.
> >
> >Hoops to jump through, bars being raised, goalposts being moved, etc.
>
>
> Just the evidence, Chuckles... just the evidence.

The evidence is well known and isn't in dispute except to the far, far fringes of the buff community.

>
>
> >> One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...
> >
> >You're running.
>
> The "runner" is the one who refuses to respond to a post. Shall we
> compare your running with "mine?"

You're making the extraordinary claims, so you have the extraordinary burden. Carry it.

You've said someone named Jack Thompson killed JDT, apparently jealous over a promotion JDT got that Thompson felt he deserved. Post your evidence. Unlike you, I'll actually accept a link to a website specific to the issue I can visit to learn more about your claim.

You can't just say "Oswald didn't fire any shots at Tippit, now prove me wrong." You need to put up a positive case in favor of what you are arguing for.

Why don't you get this?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:42:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Once again moron, you intentionally "misunderstand" what was said.

Citing evidence is one thing... citing the arguments you're afraid to
post in an open forum is a completely different thing.

>> >> You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
>> >> quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
>> >> that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
>> >> there.
>> >
>> >Hoops to jump through, bars being raised, goalposts being moved, etc.
>>
>>
>> Just the evidence, Chuckles... just the evidence.
>
> The evidence is well known and isn't in dispute except to the far,
> far fringes of the buff community.

So you accept the evidence that the lie detector test by Herndon was
intentionally falsified.

So why not simply publicly acknowledge this fact?

Why the cowardice?

>> >> One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...
>> >
>> >You're running.
>>
>> The "runner" is the one who refuses to respond to a post. Shall we
>> compare your running with "mine?"
>
> You're making the extraordinary claims, so you have the
> extraordinary burden. Carry it.

I've given you an example today in another thread of a "runner."

> You've said someone named Jack Thompson killed JDT, apparently
> jealous over a promotion JDT got that Thompson felt he deserved. Post
> your evidence. Unlike you, I'll actually accept a link to a website
> specific to the issue I can visit to learn more about your claim.
>
> You can't just say "Oswald didn't fire any shots at Tippit, now
> prove me wrong." You need to put up a positive case in favor of what
> you are arguing for.
>
>Why don't you get this?

Word salad.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I understand it quite well. You're running from DVP. It's obvious.

>
> Citing evidence is one thing... citing the arguments you're afraid to
> post in an open forum is a completely different thing.

Word salad. You wanted a specific cite, he gave you: James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 [Black Op Radio broadcast; audio below; at 31:17] and I guess you expect him to hand-transcribe the portion at 31:17 before you'll comment on it.

You're a joke, you really are. Constantly whining, constantly moving the goalposts.

>
>
>
> >> >> You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
> >> >> quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
> >> >> that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
> >> >> there.
> >> >
> >> >Hoops to jump through, bars being raised, goalposts being moved, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just the evidence, Chuckles... just the evidence.
> >
> > The evidence is well known and isn't in dispute except to the far,
> > far fringes of the buff community.
>
>
> So you accept the evidence that the lie detector test by Herndon was
> intentionally falsified.

I accept the overwhelming evidence that shows Oswald killed JD Tippit.

>
> So why not simply publicly acknowledge this fact?

Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>
> Why the cowardice?

Why do you run from your 'Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit' claim? Your burden, carry it.

>
>
> >> >> One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...
> >> >
> >> >You're running.
> >>
> >> The "runner" is the one who refuses to respond to a post. Shall we
> >> compare your running with "mine?"
> >
> > You're making the extraordinary claims, so you have the
> > extraordinary burden. Carry it.
>
> I've given you an example today in another thread of a "runner."

So what? Post your evidence that Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit. Your claim, your burden. Focus on presenting your case.

>
>
> > You've said someone named Jack Thompson killed JDT, apparently
> > jealous over a promotion JDT got that Thompson felt he deserved. Post
> > your evidence. Unlike you, I'll actually accept a link to a website
> > specific to the issue I can visit to learn more about your claim.
> >
> > You can't just say "Oswald didn't fire any shots at Tippit, now
> > prove me wrong." You need to put up a positive case in favor of what
> > you are arguing for.
> >
> >Why don't you get this?
>
>
> Word salad.

Translation: Ben is running. Post your evidence that Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit. I'll even take a link to a website.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 07:49:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Notice that I just corrected you, and you changed the topic.

>> Citing evidence is one thing... citing the arguments you're afraid to
>> post in an open forum is a completely different thing.
>
> Word salad. You wanted a specific cite, he gave you: James
> DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 [Black Op Radio broadcast; audio below; at
> 31:17] and I guess you expect him to hand-transcribe the portion at
> 31:17 before you'll comment on it.
>
>You're a joke, you really are. Constantly whining, constantly moving the goalposts.

And you're a dishonest coward TERRIFIED of doing what I routinely do
in this forum.


I *DID* comment on it... DiEugenio has perfectly good evidence to
favor his position.

>> >> >> You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his
>> >> >> quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state
>> >> >> that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be
>> >> >> there.
>> >> >
>> >> >Hoops to jump through, bars being raised, goalposts being moved, etc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just the evidence, Chuckles... just the evidence.
>> >
>> > The evidence is well known and isn't in dispute except to the far,
>> > far fringes of the buff community.
>>
>>
>> So you accept the evidence that the lie detector test by Herndon was
>> intentionally falsified.
>
>I accept the overwhelming evidence that shows Oswald killed JD Tippit.

And deny the contradicting evidence.


You evaded the question. What a ** COWARD ** you are!

>> So why not simply publicly acknowledge this fact?
>
>Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

This meaningless phrase isn't an answer, it's an evasion...

It's a way to avoid answering a legitimate evidential question.

>> Why the cowardice?
>
>Why do you run from your 'Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit' claim? Your burden, carry it.

Why do you demand that others do what you refuse to do?

>> >> >> One statement at a time... pick your best example ... I'm waiting...
>> >> >
>> >> >You're running.
>> >>
>> >> The "runner" is the one who refuses to respond to a post. Shall we
>> >> compare your running with "mine?"
>> >
>> > You're making the extraordinary claims, so you have the
>> > extraordinary burden. Carry it.
>>
>> I've given you an example today in another thread of a "runner."
>
> So what? Post your evidence that Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit.
> Your claim, your burden. Focus on presenting your case.

Quite the runner you PROVABLY are...

And clearly, I'm not running at all...

>> > You've said someone named Jack Thompson killed JDT, apparently
>> > jealous over a promotion JDT got that Thompson felt he deserved. Post
>> > your evidence. Unlike you, I'll actually accept a link to a website
>> > specific to the issue I can visit to learn more about your claim.
>> >
>> > You can't just say "Oswald didn't fire any shots at Tippit, now
>> > prove me wrong." You need to put up a positive case in favor of what
>> > you are arguing for.
>> >
>> >Why don't you get this?
>>
>>
>> Word salad.
>
>Translation: Ben is running.

You're lying again, Chuckles...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Provide a link regarding your Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit claim.

Is that word salad? Do you understand it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:00:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You can keep running, but it's noticeable in an open forum.

If you want a topic discussed, go to the ORIGINAL THREAD, where all
the context is located.

In the meantime, deal with the claim that Owasld didn't shoot Tippit.

Or run like the coward you are again...

[David Von Pein]

And, of course, it helps the CTer's cause if the CTer in question has chosen to just ignore (or skew) all the evidence of Oswald's guilt --- like, say, pretending that everything has been planted to frame LHO. That cop-out tactic, IMO, is the same as "ignoring" the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 12:15:27 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

I'm being very specific... and you're running like the coward you are.

Now... you RAN the last time I posted this, so here it is again:

I warned you about this. I will accept URL's for citations to the
evidence only.

You will be under THE SAME CONSTRAINTS that I'm under... that of
typing in a response.

Otherwise, I'll simply refer you to Douglas Horne's 5 volume set for
the evidence supporting that Oswald never fired a single shot at
Tippit.

Now... you can *start* by explaining why experienced and knowledgeable
police officers at the scene could have so incredibly missed the
identification on the shells.

Or if you'd prefer to run away again, I'll understand.

[Bud]

Loaded question with a side dish of shifting the burden. lurkers.

[David Von Pein]

Yeah. Ben is very funny indeed.

Just for the fun of it, I decided to comply with Ben's rigid requirements that he laid down yesterday--which were:

"Your website is off limits. You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be there." -- B. Holmes

....and after I complied with the above demands by producing a DiEugenio AUDIO CLIP (no less), which is not a link to "my website" at all, I'm treated to this lovely hunk of goalpost-moving by Benny:

"I will accept URL's for citations to the evidence only." -- B. Holmes

Huh? Earlier, you specifically said "You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his quote" --- which, of course, I did (just for kicks). But now, the very next day, it seems I have to follow a different set of rules -- "citations to the evidence only".

Ben is an ever-changing whirl of moving goalposts.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:17:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

You're lying again, Chester.

You're now claiming that you never posted this:

*******************************************

The real evidence (for any lurkers):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit
********************************************

Why do you think that lurkers will miss such OBVIOUS lies?

And just for the record, you're still refusing to answer... Quite the
coward as well as liar, aren't you?

[David Von Pein]

I never claimed anything of the sort, Mr. Creep. I posted that Tippit link to my site, yes. But that was just a bonus link provided for "lurkers" at the bottom of my post. I met all your requirements -- i.e., I posted the "quote" from DiEugenio and I posted a link where others could verify it. Those were your *only* requirements in your August 8th post regarding this matter. The additional Tippit link that I supplied was just gravy that I decided to add to my post for the heck of it.

Admit it, Ben....you like moving the End Zone around to suit your dictatorial needs. You think you can "control" people by engaging in those cheap kind of tricks.

But, as Bud has told you so many times in the past, you don't "control" this forum. Nobody is under your CT *spell* here, and they never will be. As I said earlier today, I merely complied with your arrogant "You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his quote" demands just for kicks (and to archive more of your nonsense at my own website, of course)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1291.html

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> I never claimed anything of the sort, Mr. Creep. I posted that Tippit link to my site, yes. But that was just a bonus link provided for "lurkers" at the bottom of my post. I met all your requirements -- i.e., I posted the "quote" from DiEugenio and I posted a link where others could verify it. Those were your *only* requirements in your August 8th post regarding this matter. The additional Tippit link that I supplied was just gravy that I decided to add to my post for the heck of it.
>
> Admit it, Ben....you like moving the End Zone around to suit your dictatorial needs. You think you can "control" people by engaging in those cheap kind of tricks.

David, I think the point is to present the argument here. When you link to your website, you have to scroll through pages and multiple links just to find your refutation. Just state your point. Otherwise, I can just refute your link likewise, with another link:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-harvey-oswald-kill-officer-jd-tippit

There, now what? Stalemate, right? Unless you post another link. But posting links doesn't make for much discussion.

PS - That link does not even mention Acquilla Clemons, the Davis "sisters" (in-law) and it doesn't indicate that Oswald was caught with a revolver, rather than an automatic, as per the automatic shell.

PPS - And of all the issues you have with DiEugenio, the one you choose to discuss is the one which does not deal with the assassination in DP at all. I find that strange. Or telling. Can't decide which.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 6:10:18 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I never claimed anything of the sort, Mr. Creep. I posted that Tippit link to my site, yes. But that was just a bonus link provided for "lurkers" at the bottom of my post. I met all your requirements -- i.e., I posted the "quote" from DiEugenio and I posted a link where others could verify it. Those were your *only* requirements in your August 8th post regarding this matter. The additional Tippit link that I supplied was just gravy that I decided to add to my post for the heck of it.
> >
> > Admit it, Ben....you like moving the End Zone around to suit your dictatorial needs. You think you can "control" people by engaging in those cheap kind of tricks.
>
> David, I think the point is to present the argument here. When you link to your website, you have to scroll through pages and multiple links just to find your refutation. Just state your point. Otherwise, I can just refute your link likewise, with another link:
>
> http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-harvey-oswald-kill-officer-jd-tippit
>
> There, now what? Stalemate, right? Unless you post another link. But posting links doesn't make for much discussion.
>

Yes, I can see your point on this, Boris. But one of the reasons I've taken the time to archive so much material at my site about various sub-topics relating to the JFK case is so that I can simply link to a webpage (or series of pages) about a topic, instead of doing what Ben insists I need to do---which is to type my whole argument (or paste it), word for word, into each post I make here at acj (which I have, indeed, done on many occasions, but certainly not always).

I, however, think that my archived webpages on the various topics at my website are *better* than having them typed into this newsgroup, because my site offers up so much more useful material when compared to what can be viewed at this forum --- like embedded videos, photos within the text (instead of just links to the pictures), embedded audio files, hyperlinked text, etc.

Also....

Do you, Boris, think I did or did not meet Ben's requirements that he set forth in the post linked below?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/Wca9VNXyBgAJ

> PS - That link does not even mention Acquilla Clemons, the Davis "sisters" (in-law) and it doesn't indicate that Oswald was caught with a revolver, rather than an automatic, as per the automatic shell.
>
> PPS - And of all the issues you have with DiEugenio, the one you choose to discuss is the one which does not deal with the assassination in DP at all. I find that strange. Or telling. Can't decide which.

Well, Boris, I picked that item (the Tippit murder) because--to me--it's a murder that was so obviously committed by Lee Oswald. And since I hold such an opinion, I have to laugh every time I see quotes like this one from DiEugenio ---- "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit."

So, I guess my thinking is --- 'Gee, if Jim can't even figure out that Oswald shot Tippit, then how can he possibly hope to get anything else right when it comes to the JFK case?'

That, to me, is very "telling" (to use your word) as far as the opinions of CTers (like DiEugenio) are concerned.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?

[Bud]

None that they can tell.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Do you, Boris, think I did or did not meet Ben's requirements that he set forth in the post linked below?
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/Wca9VNXyBgAJ

You did okay. You cited his claim and exactly where it could be found. The problem is there isn't a lot that can be done with it, because he doesn't get into the evidence that leads him to believe Oswald was not the shooter, and so therefore there is nothing from DiEugenio to deconstruct (and BTW, I say that having not listened to the whole hour, so I might be wrong; he mentioned the wallet, that's all I heard).

The other problem is he'd said your website was off limits, and the first thing you did was link to your website. I know you have records of your arguments there, but the problem is those arguments aren't evidence. So by linking your website, you are citing your opinions rather than citing evidence. I could link to Jim's Kennedys & King website all day, but it wouldn't be evidence, not unless he specifically cited some in the article I linked.

>
> So, I guess my thinking is --- 'Gee, if Jim can't even figure out that Oswald shot Tippit, then how can he possibly hope to get anything else right when it comes to the JFK case?'

I think it's impossible for ANYONE to do as much research on the case as DiEugenio has and not get **anything** about it right. Truly, that's an absurd statement. I don't even say that about LNers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

An idiot chimes in...

>
> So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?

The Tippit murder doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, other than your presumption that Oswald was involved with both. If Oswald shot Tippit, does that ALSO prove he acted alone in DP?

That's a question mark at the end of a sentence there, idiot. Which means you know what to do with those laces and sneakers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> An idiot chimes in...
>
> >
> > So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?
>
> The Tippit murder doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, other than your presumption that Oswald was involved with both. If Oswald shot Tippit, does that ALSO prove he acted alone in DP?

Try and follow along, lil' fella.

>
> That's a question mark at the end of a sentence there, idiot. Which means you know what to do with those laces and sneakers.

I'll use the laces as a noose around your neck, Truther.

If you've been following the disjointed comments your camping mentor Ben is apparently receiving through the secret radio waves traveling through his brain, he thinks a guy named Jack Thompson (no middle name!)killed Tippit, apparently unrelated to the JFK assassination and having something to do with being passed over for a promotion on the DPD.


By the way, Boris, do you have a case yet? Who killed JFK?

Run away now.

Boris on the Trail of the Assassins!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Well, Boris, I picked that item (the Tippit murder) because--to me--it's a murder that was so obviously committed by Lee Oswald. And since I hold such an opinion, I have to laugh every time I see quotes like this one from DiEugenio ---- "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit."

Talk about timing, these two links appeared in my feed literally a few minutes ago:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/jfk-did-oswald-shoot-tippit-eyewitnesses-no-warren-commission-yes/

https://22novembernetwork.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/the-murder-of-j-d-tippit-by-s-r-dusty-rohde/comment-page-1/

No doubt the moron LN plankton Bud and Chuck won't read these. You might, though. I assume you're aware of what time Tippit's death certificate states. I have to assume the only reason anyone believes Oswald shot Tippit is because the WC connected him to it. Otherwise, it would be easy enough even for you to dismiss.

[Bud]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:27:41 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> An idiot chimes in...
>
> >
> > So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?
>
> The Tippit murder doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination,

You probably feel that learning the identities of the terrorists involved in the 9-11 attack didn`t give any insight into the attack, or those behind it.

> other than your presumption that Oswald was involved with both.

Not a presumption, stupid, a conclusion.

> If Oswald shot Tippit, does that ALSO prove he acted alone in DP?

You can`t even figure out that he acted in DP.

> That's a question mark at the end of a sentence there, idiot. Which means you know what to do with those laces and sneakers.

You`re an idiot. You start by determining whether he did the deed, *then* you determine whether he had help. You are stuck on the first step and demand we rule out the second step.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 14:39:50 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

>I never claimed anything of the sort...

So you never said this: "Huh? Earlier, you specifically said "You'll

QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his quote"
--- which, of course, I did (just for kicks). But now, the very next
day, it seems I have to follow a different set of rules -- "citations
to the evidence only".

You're lying, of course.

You can run Chester, but you can't convince people by lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:06:48 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 6:10:18 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> > I never claimed anything of the sort, Mr. Creep. I posted that Tippit link to my site, yes. But that was just a bonus link provided for "lurkers" at the bottom of my post. I met all your requirements -- i.e., I posted the "quote" from DiEugenio and I posted a link where others could verify it. Those were your *only* requirements in your August 8th post regarding this matter. The additional Tippit link that I supplied was just gravy that I decided to add to my post for the heck of it.
>> >
>> > Admit it, Ben....you like moving the End Zone around to suit your dictatorial needs. You think you can "control" people by engaging in those cheap kind of tricks.
>>
>> David, I think the point is to present the argument here. When you link to your website, you have to scroll through pages and multiple links just to find your refutation. Just state your point. Otherwise, I can just refute your link likewise, with another link:
>>
>> http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-harvey-oswald-kill-officer-jd-tippit
>>
>> There, now what? Stalemate, right? Unless you post another link. But posting links doesn't make for much discussion.
>>
>
>Yes, I can see your point on this, Boris.

Strangely enough, Chester can't see the same point when I make it...
and is even willing to blatantly lie about it...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> An idiot chimes in...
>>
>> >
>> > So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?
>>
>> The Tippit murder doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, other than your presumption that Oswald was involved with both. If Oswald shot Tippit, does that ALSO prove he acted alone in DP?
>
>Try and follow along, lil' fella.

Chuckles ran...

>> That's a question mark at the end of a sentence there, idiot. Which means you know what to do with those laces and sneakers.

I'm sure Boris didn't really expect you to show any honesty or
courage, and answer the question...

But the answer is obvious... If I produced a video of two men, neither
of whom were Oswald, shooting and killing Tippit, your very next
statement would be something about Oswald shooting JFK.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Do you, Boris, think I did or did not meet Ben's requirements that he set forth in the post linked below?
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/Wca9VNXyBgAJ
>
> You did okay. You cited his claim and exactly where it could be found. The problem is there isn't a lot that can be done with it, because he doesn't get into the evidence that leads him to believe Oswald was not the shooter, and so therefore there is nothing from DiEugenio to deconstruct (and BTW, I say that having not listened to the whole hour, so I might be wrong; he mentioned the wallet, that's all I heard).
>
> The other problem is he'd said your website was off limits, and the first thing you did was link to your website.

The "first thing"? That's untrue. The "first thing" I did was to do what Ben was demanding I do---I provided a direct DiEugenio quote and then told him where to access it. My Tippit link was just a bonus.

> I know you have records of your arguments there, but the problem is those arguments aren't evidence. So by linking your website, you are citing your opinions rather than citing evidence.

Come now. You know that's not true. I provide plenty of "evidence" on my webpages. I provide more WC and HSCA links than you can shake a stick at. Most CTers hate WC & HSCA links, but that's tough, because those two entities just happen to be the two official investigative organizations assigned to look into Kennedy's murder. So I think those WC/HSCA links are pretty good "evidence". So please don't ever again tell me that my arguments on my sites don't contain any "evidence" within them---because we both know that's just a blatant falsehood.

> I could link to Jim's Kennedys & King website all day, but it wouldn't be evidence, not unless he specifically cited some in the article I linked.
>
>
> >
> > So, I guess my thinking is --- 'Gee, if Jim can't even figure out that Oswald shot Tippit, then how can he possibly hope to get anything else right when it comes to the JFK case?'
>
> I think it's impossible for ANYONE to do as much research on the case as DiEugenio has and not get **anything** about it right. Truly, that's an absurd statement. I don't even say that about LNers.

Yeah, you *would* tend to think that, huh? It is amazing that a smart guy like that could get so much stuff 100% backward (and wrong). But Jimmy has managed to accomplish just such a feat (incredible though it may be). Just peruse "The DiEugenio 22" again for just a few (blatant) examples....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

IMO, Jim DiEugenio is a victim of "The Snowball Effect" when it comes to the evidence he has studied regarding the JFK assassination case.

What I mean is....

DiEugenio has been "locked in" to a belief in a "JFK Conspiracy" for so long now (back to at least 1990 or 1991, probably even earlier), that whenever he is confronted with something that is relatively "new", he automatically examines that "new" evidence (regardless of what it might be) within the framework of his older "I Know It Was A Conspiracy" mindset, which (of course) leads him to even MORE wrong conclusions concerning the evidence.

A fairly recent example of this type of "Snowball" behavior is the way Jim now treats Howard Brennan with respect to the police line-up that Brennan attended on Nov. 22. Well, DiEugenio has now said he actually believes Brennan **never attended any line-up at all on 11/22**! Which means Jim has now added several more LIARS to his Liars List when it comes to JUST that Brennan subject. Jim has probably read some crackpot conspiracy theorist's article (or book) concerning Brennan and the line-up, and has now decided to ADD that item to his list of "suspicious" activity engaged in by the DPD....instead of stepping back and looking at all the witness statements (including Brennan's!) that indicate DiEugenio is dead wrong about this subject. But in Jim's "Everything's Part Of The Plot" mindset that has been festering in him for almost 30 years (or more), he won't properly or fairly evaluate the evidence (such as Brennan's direct testimony), and thusly this "new" Brennan theory gets rolled up into Jim's "Snowball" and gets added to his already absurdly lengthy list of things that he thinks are conspiratorial.

But to think, as Jim D. does, that SO MANY things could lead straight to the guilt of one man (Lee Oswald) and yet still not have that "one man" be guilty of firing ANY shots at ANYBODY on 11/22/63, is a fantasy that only an outer-fringe JFK conspiracy theorist could possibly believe. Ergo, Jim gets everything wrong about this case (as do so many other CTers just like him).

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 19:00:02 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you, Boris, think I did or did not meet Ben's requirements that he set forth in the post linked below?
>> >
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/Wca9VNXyBgAJ
>>
>> You did okay. You cited his claim and exactly where it could be found. The problem is there isn't a lot that can be done with it, because he doesn't get into the evidence that leads him to believe Oswald was not the shooter, and so therefore there is nothing from DiEugenio to deconstruct (and BTW, I say that having not listened to the whole hour, so I might be wrong; he mentioned the wallet, that's all I heard).
>>
>> The other problem is he'd said your website was off limits, and the first thing you did was link to your website.
>
>The "first thing"? That's untrue. The "first thing" I did was to do what Ben was demanding I do---I provided a direct DiEugenio quote and then told him where to access it. My Tippit link was just a bonus.

You're lying again, Chester.

You tried to make *YOUR* argument by citing your website - something I
already told you was unacceptable...

THEN YOU LIED AND CLAIMED I WAS REFERRING TO YOUR CITATION OF WHAT
DIEUGENIO HAD STATED....

What a DESPICABLE liar you are!


And, not surprising anyone at all - you've refused to engage in debate
on this issue - despite your apparent willingness to do so...

You ran away on the VERY FIRST POINT I MADE...

And still refuse to address it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> An idiot chimes in...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?
> >>
> >> The Tippit murder doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, other than your presumption that Oswald was involved with both. If Oswald shot Tippit, does that ALSO prove he acted alone in DP?
> >
> >Try and follow along, lil' fella.
>
>
> Chuckles ran...
>
>
> >> That's a question mark at the end of a sentence there, idiot. Which means you know what to do with those laces and sneakers.
>
> I'm sure Boris didn't really expect you to show any honesty or
> courage, and answer the question...

Boris is watching the propeller on his tinfoil hat spin, sparking a bowl, listening to Jimi Hendrix.

>
> But the answer is obvious... If I produced a video of two men, neither
> of whom were Oswald, shooting and killing Tippit, your very next
> statement would be something about Oswald shooting JFK.

Huh? Produce a video of two non_Oswalds killing Tippit? The reality and fantasy are blending together with Ben, lurkers. He's apparently drifting off into mixing up Oliver Stone's movie with real life. The radio signals are becoming unbearable now, the barking dog is commanding Ben to act. He's left his ring and last few dollars in a cup on Boris's dresser as he unbundles the AR-15 from its blanket, climbing the bell tower that overlooks the parade route, bible open.

What a NUT.

Wo killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:04:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 19:00:02 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Do you, Boris, think I did or did not meet Ben's requirements that he set forth in the post linked below?
> >> >
> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/Wca9VNXyBgAJ
> >>
> >> You did okay. You cited his claim and exactly where it could be found. The problem is there isn't a lot that can be done with it, because he doesn't get into the evidence that leads him to believe Oswald was not the shooter, and so therefore there is nothing from DiEugenio to deconstruct (and BTW, I say that having not listened to the whole hour, so I might be wrong; he mentioned the wallet, that's all I heard).
> >>
> >> The other problem is he'd said your website was off limits, and the first thing you did was link to your website.
> >
> >The "first thing"? That's untrue. The "first thing" I did was to do what Ben was demanding I do---I provided a direct DiEugenio quote and then told him where to access it. My Tippit link was just a bonus.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chester.
>
> You tried to make *YOUR* argument by citing your website - something I
> already told you was unacceptable...

Ben is trembling with anger, the trigger finger twitching. How dare anyone disobey the rules at acj, Ben's sanctuary?

>
> THEN YOU LIED AND CLAIMED I WAS REFERRING TO YOUR CITATION OF WHAT
> DIEUGENIO HAD STATED....

As if to highlight his displeasure, Ben types in ALL CAPS, TO REALLLLY SHOW HIS DISPLEASURE.

>
> What a DESPICABLE liar you are!

What's an honest man like Ben to do in a broken world filled with liars, cowards and child molesters, all sending signals to his brain from televisions, computers and smart phones?

>
>
> And, not surprising anyone at all - you've refused to engage in debate
> on this issue - despite your apparent willingness to do so...

Tens of thousands of posts at this board by Ben, tens of thousands of replies to Ben, but no one has engaged Ben in a debate. This must come to a finality, a plan must be hatched to end the nightmare.

>
> You ran away on the VERY FIRST POINT I MADE...

Oh yeah, I forgot running. Liars, cowards, child molesters, and runners. First they beam the signals to his brain and then a dog with twirling eyes barks English commands to Ben, then the liars, cowards and child molesters all run, setting fires to SoCal as they run, the flames lighting the skies that illuminate the saucer-people controlling their actions. It's all adding up, Ben must act to save the United States of America.

>
> And still refuse to address it.

No one has ever addressed anything. And in a moment of brilliance, Ben realizes he's found the opening line to his manifesto. Ted Kaczynski, eat your heart out!

Look out Southern California!

Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 20:35:39 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:04:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 19:00:02 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you, Boris, think I did or did not meet Ben's requirements that he set forth in the post linked below?
>> >> >
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/Wca9VNXyBgAJ
>> >>
>> >> You did okay. You cited his claim and exactly where it could be found. The problem is there isn't a lot that can be done with it, because he doesn't get into the evidence that leads him to believe Oswald was not the shooter, and so therefore there is nothing from DiEugenio to deconstruct (and BTW, I say that having not listened to the whole hour, so I might be wrong; he mentioned the wallet, that's all I heard).
>> >>
>> >> The other problem is he'd said your website was off limits, and the first thing you did was link to your website.
>> >
>> >The "first thing"? That's untrue. The "first thing" I did was to do what Ben was demanding I do---I provided a direct DiEugenio quote and then told him where to access it. My Tippit link was just a bonus.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chester.
>>
>> You tried to make *YOUR* argument by citing your website - something I
>> already told you was unacceptable...
>
> Ben is trembling with anger, the trigger finger twitching. How dare
> anyone disobey the rules at acj, Ben's sanctuary?

The answer can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/yb4wwa3j

>> THEN YOU LIED AND CLAIMED I WAS REFERRING TO YOUR CITATION OF WHAT
>> DIEUGENIO HAD STATED....
>
> As if to highlight his displeasure, Ben types in ALL CAPS, TO
> REALLLLY SHOW HIS DISPLEASURE.

Chuckles agrees with the lie told by Chester... is it any surprise?

>> What a DESPICABLE liar you are!
>
> What's an honest man like Ben to do in a broken world filled with

> liars, cowards and child molesters...


Point 'em out.

>> And, not surprising anyone at all - you've refused to engage in debate
>> on this issue - despite your apparent willingness to do so...
>
> Tens of thousands of posts at this board by Ben, tens of thousands
> of replies to Ben, but no one has engaged Ben in a debate.

True. Good of you to recognize this fact. Can you cite the "persuasive
evidence?"

No?

Why not, coward?

>> You ran away on the VERY FIRST POINT I MADE...
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot running. Liars, cowards, child molesters, and
> runners. First they beam the signals to his brain and then a dog with
> twirling eyes barks English commands to Ben, then the liars, cowards
> and child molesters all run, setting fires to SoCal as they run, the
> flames lighting the skies that illuminate the saucer-people
> controlling their actions. It's all adding up, Ben must act to save
> the United States of America.

Take off your aluminum hat... you really don't need it.

>> And still refuse to address it.
>
> No one has ever addressed anything.

The cites to the "persuasive evidence?"

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 20:13:14 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:27:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> An idiot chimes in...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So the Tippit murder has no connection to the JFK murder?
>> >>
>> >> The Tippit murder doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, other than your presumption that Oswald was involved with both. If Oswald shot Tippit, does that ALSO prove he acted alone in DP?
>> >
>> >Try and follow along, lil' fella.
>>
>>
>> Chuckles ran...
>>
>>
>> >> That's a question mark at the end of a sentence there, idiot. Which means you know what to do with those laces and sneakers.
>>
>> I'm sure Boris didn't really expect you to show any honesty or
>> courage, and answer the question...
>
>Boris is watching the propeller on his tinfoil hat spin, sparking a bowl, listening to Jimi Hendrix.

How can you see that with your aluminum hat?

>> But the answer is obvious... If I produced a video of two men, neither
>> of whom were Oswald, shooting and killing Tippit, your very next
>> statement would be something about Oswald shooting JFK.
>
>
>Huh?

You lost that round...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 06:35:20 -0700, Ben Holmes
<ad...@conspiracyjfkforum.com> wrote:

>"Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area
>were those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the
>motorcade approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen
>were on the railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left. Not one
>of the railroad men was called before the Warren Commission. However,
>four were questioned by counsel for the Commission and nine by agents
>of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll and six
>others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of
>the 13 men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,
>said that he thought that the shots came from the Book Depository,
>while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the
>fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>
>The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark
>Lane. They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any
>evidence.
>
>This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks
>can't refute it.


Did anyone notice how FAST the "refutations" of this post drifted off
topic?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 16:46:13 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

>wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cowards are those who post, but refuse to defend what they post.
>>
>> Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's website will likely notice
>> nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last
>> word in EVERY debate.
>

>Nor will they notice the arguments have been firmly refuted by
>critics...
>
>The only place believers "win" is in censored arenas... and no
>believer will publicly acknowledge that fact, or refute it.

And amusingly, no one did.

[Ben Holmes]

David "Chester" Pein decided to run.

It was expected...

He's lying, and he *KNOWS* he's lying...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

They're all liars, cowards and child molesters. The secret radio waves reverberate through the tinfoil hat into Ben's skull. The dog barks the order: "Kill!"

And with the nimbleness that only a small man can know, Ben's tiny legs propel him into action. He heads to the window where he's arranged the schoolbook boxes. The dog barks again: "Kill!" Ben puts down the worn copy of 'Crossfire' and picks up his bible. It flutters open to 'Revelations.' This is an omen. The dog barks a third time: "Kill!" The motorcade swings by and Ben raises his AR-15, tufts of blanket fibers caught in its buttstock. They will pay for what they did to JFK. They will pay for mocking the truth in front of them, that tens of thousands of worker-bees killed JFK and covered it up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 07:54:23 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

More word salad.

David "Chester" Pein simply ran away, and you can't publicly
acknowledge that fact...

Or help him with his false claim...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Why are you so petrified to just lay out your entire case? Why the games? Why the rules? Why the insistence that you'll do "X" just as sure as this person or that person acknowledges "X" or answers one thing or another without directing someone to a website, or admits they're a coward or a liar, etc.?

We get it: everyone except you is a liar, coward or child molester. We get it: the WC lied, the HSCA did a little better but they lied, the cops lied, the FBI lied, the CIA lied, etc.

Now that we've got THAT out of the way, what's your case?

Let's break it down. Post all of the interviews, evidence, etc. that Jack Thompson (no middle name!) killed JD Tippit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:58:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

I have... repeatedly now.

The fact that you feel the need to lie shows that you're getting
desperate.

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to answer your own question, and lay out your
entire case.

Because you **KNOW** that I'll match it in length, detail, and number
of citations...

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 08:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:35:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area
>> were those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the
>> motorcade approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen
>> were on the railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left. Not one
>> of the railroad men was called before the Warren Commission. However,
>> four were questioned by counsel for the Commission and nine by agents
>> of the FBI.
>

> So the information they had was gathered, lurkers.


But it proved too much for the Warren Commission.

>> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>

> Lane is outright lying here, lurkers. Let someone produce five of
> these witnesses who stated the shots came from the knoll.


Empty claim.

>>and six
>> others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> immediately attracted to the knoll.
>

> Meaningless, lurkers. Things were going on there.


Meaningless to someone who doesn't know how to assess evidence.

>> It is worth noting that not one of
>> the 13 men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,
>> said that he thought that the shots came from the Book Depository,
>

> The knoll was directly between them and the TSBD, lurkers.


And it's worth noting that not one of the 13 men, who wee among the
witnesses closet to the grassy knoll, said that he thought that the
shots came from the Book Depository.

>> while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the
>> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>

> Jean Davison blew this out of the water 6 years ago, lurkers....

And I, of course, answered her.

Let's make a little bet, Pud.

If I produce a post where I answered Jean, will you go 30 days without
posting?

And if I can't, I will, of course, do the same.


> <Jean Davison On>
>
> "Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said

>that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately

>attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the

>fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper

>was." His footnote indicates he's talking about these six:
>
>Potter and Bishop
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432b.htm
>
>Johnson and Cowsert
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433b.htm
>
>Austin Miller:
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0118a.htm
>
>and Walter Winborn:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=863&tab=page
>
> I challenge you



The challenge is above.



> to show that all six implicitly
>indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
>that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
>abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
>no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
>several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
>Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
>slope."
>
> <Jean Davison Off>
>
> Ben has been running from Jean`s challenge for six years and counting, lurkers.


You'll prove yourself a liar if you refuse to accept the challenge.

>> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark
>> Lane. They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any
>> evidence.
>

> Everything Ben posts from Lane`s book illustrates Lane`s dishonesty, lurkers. His sole intent is to deceive the readers, and Ben is stupid enough to fall for it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 12:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 3:46:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 12:15:27 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 9:32:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:22:49 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

> Loaded question with a side dish of shifting the burden. lurkers.


The claim is being made, without citing *ANY* evidence, that Oswald
shot Tippit.

The very first connecting piece of evidence would be the bullets &
type of weapon.

If you claim Oswald shot Tippit with a Bow & Arrow... then you have to
produce a bow in Oswald's possession.

This ** IS ** your burden... and relevant evidence can't be "loaded."

It shows what it shows...

Your refusal to address the evidence tells the tale.

>> Or if you'd prefer to run away again, I'll understand.
>>
>>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Puddles ran from the question too.