The Lying & Cowardice Of David Von Pein

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)

Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
note?

Could it be that you're simply lying again?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.

At Hawkeye Works. With the films and photos and money orders and all of the other stuff that you think was forged.

Your hero Oswald is historically guilty of taking a shot at General Walker. Oswald, with the enormity of the trial he faced had he lived, for the murder of Kennedy and Tippit, likely would not have faced a trial for shooting at Walker, but we'll never fully know how it would've all played out. Jack Ruby ended the possibility of any criminal trials.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>> > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>> > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>> > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>>
>> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
>> note?
>>
>> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
>
>If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.

Speculation about what *I'd* say doesn't address the lie told by
David.

Indeed, you can't even admit that it's a lie. Why not?


Tell us Chuckles, why are believers CONSTANTLY lying about the
evidence in this case? And why aren't these lies being pointed out by
honest believers? Is there anyone who believes the WCR who would spot
such lies, and point them out as we critics do?

Do you think it's okay if I state that the date on the memo was Oct
3rd, 1959?

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> >> > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> >> > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> >> > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> >>
> >> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> >> note?
> >>
> >> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
> >
> >If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.
>
>
> Speculation about what *I'd* say doesn't address the lie told by
> David.
>
> Indeed, you can't even admit that it's a lie. Why not?

You can`t establish it as such. Why not?

[Bud]

The person the note was written to.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

He didn't "lie" about anything, turd.

If you're trying to make the case the letter was written later to implicate Oswald in Walker's shooting to clear it off the DPD books or to strengthen the case that Oswald killed JFK, then be a man and make your case.

[David Healy]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:05:06 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

Oswald is historically guilty of taking a shot at General Walker.

[...]

historically guilty? What does that mean?

Surely after 55 years you can do better, eh?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> Oswald is historically guilty of taking a shot at General Walker.
> [...]
>
> historically guilty? What does that mean?

Means he can't answer to the evidence. Or doesn't know it. Then we laugh.

Rinse, repeat.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:34:46 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oswald is historically guilty of taking a shot at General Walker.
> > [...]
> >
> > historically guilty? What does that mean?
>
> Means he can't answer to the evidence.

This is a Fringe Reset.

Or doesn't know it. Then we laugh.

What we do know is that you have no case. Nada.

>
> Rinse, repeat.

Indeed.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 3:41:31 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:34:46 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Oswald is historically guilty of taking a shot at General Walker.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > historically guilty? What does that mean?
> >
> > Means he can't answer to the evidence.
>
> This is a Fringe Reset.

Not a thing. Never will be. Debate like a man, or acknowledge your obsolescence here.

[David Healy]

"historically guilty" maybe you can help us out here Dudster, what does it mean? Chuckles seems to be stymied, though he uses the term.

Is there any hope for that pale thighed, lone nut looney-tunes whipper-snapper?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>>>>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>>>>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>>>>> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>>>>
>>>> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
>>>> note?
>>>>
>>>> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
>>>
>>>If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.
>>
>> Speculation about what *I'd* say doesn't address the lie told by
>> David.
>>
>> Indeed, you can't even admit that it's a lie. Why not?
>
> You can`t establish it as such. Why not?

You're a liar, "Chickenshit."

WCR, pgs 183-184

Now, you've provably lied, why?

And why are you trying to cover up for David's lie?

>> Tell us Chuckles, why are believers CONSTANTLY lying about the
>> evidence in this case? And why aren't these lies being pointed out by
>> honest believers? Is there anyone who believes the WCR who would spot
>> such lies, and point them out as we critics do?
>>
>> Do you think it's okay if I state that the date on the memo was Oct
>> 3rd, 1959?

"Chickenshit" couldn't answer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:53:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Then produce the evidence proving that an UNDATED note was written on
April 10, 1963.

If you can't - you're a proven liar. And judging by your ad hominem,
you already know that.


> If you're trying to make the case ...


Produce the evidence, or admit that you're a liar.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:27:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> >>>>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> >>>>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> >>>>> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> >>>> note?
> >>>>
> >>>> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
> >>>
> >>>If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.
> >>
> >> Speculation about what *I'd* say doesn't address the lie told by
> >> David.
> >>
> >> Indeed, you can't even admit that it's a lie. Why not?
> >
> > You can`t establish it as such. Why not?
>
>
> You're a liar, "Chickenshit."
>
> WCR, pgs 183-184

Let me totally destroy your contention with "Horton Hears a Who", pages 4 through 7.

For the audience, I don`t even bother trying to go where idiots point and try to discern what they think satisfies the issue. Let them quote their specific support and show how it decides the specific issue in their favor.

> Now, you've provably lied, why?

How so? Have you shown that Lee didn`t do something bad on April 10th, 1963?

> And why are you trying to cover up for David's lie?

When are you going to start showing he lied?

>
> >> Tell us Chuckles, why are believers CONSTANTLY lying about the
> >> evidence in this case? And why aren't these lies being pointed out by
> >> honest believers? Is there anyone who believes the WCR who would spot
> >> such lies, and point them out as we critics do?
> >>
> >> Do you think it's okay if I state that the date on the memo was Oct
> >> 3rd, 1959?
>
> "Chickenshit" couldn't answer...

You can tell any lies you like, I can`t stop you.

[Bud]

He didn`t say the letter was written on the 10th, stupid.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59:50 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:51:23 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> > > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> > > > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> > > > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> > > > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> > >
> > > Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> > > note?
> >
> > The person the note was written to.
>
> "historically guilty" maybe you can help us out here Dudster,

That`s why I`m here.

> what does it mean?

Think of it as "historically responsible". The Japanese are considered historically responsible for attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. Does this help you with the struggles you are having with the concept?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > You can`t establish it as such. Why not?
> >
> >
> > You're a liar, "Chickenshit."
> >
> > WCR, pgs 183-184
>
> Let me totally destroy your contention with "Horton Hears a Who", pages 4 through 7.
>
> For the audience, I don`t even bother trying to go where idiots point

Nor do you have to. We know you think evidence has cooties. You said it couldn't be established, and he identified you as a liar, then established it. Can't just say things without backing it up. Or else he'd be Chuck.

That's just how it works.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > Then produce the evidence proving that an UNDATED note was written on
> > April 10, 1963.
>
> He didn`t say the letter was written on the 10th, stupid.

<snicker> The retard has come to chew bubble gum and split hairs. And he's all out of bubble gum.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:11:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You can`t establish it as such. Why not?
> > >
> > >
> > > You're a liar, "Chickenshit."
> > >
> > > WCR, pgs 183-184
> >
> > Let me totally destroy your contention with "Horton Hears a Who", pages 4 through 7.
> >
> > For the audience, I don`t even bother trying to go where idiots point
>
> Nor do you have to. We know you think evidence has cooties.

Why would I blame the evidence for you being an idiot?

> You said it couldn't be established, and he identified you as a liar, then established it.

Is that what you think happened?

> Can't just say things without backing it up. Or else he'd be Chuck.
>
> That's just how it works.

Not in the House of Bud it doesn`t. Just sit up and pay attention, adults are speaking.

[Bud]

Interesting that you see it as "splitting hairs" when Ben misrepresents what DVP said. Ben claimed I was "parsing" when I pointed out Lane`s outright lie about Clemmons witnessing the slaying of Officer Tippit. All these weasel word excuses when you get caught lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

I'm quite sure that these believers aren't so stupid as to think that
they're actually convincing anyone.

Lying simply doesn't work when it's faced with citable truth.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

It's nobody's fault but DVP's that he mentioned "April 10th" three times in his post, in allusion to contents supposedly found in the letter supposedly written by a man with no fingerprints. Own it, scumbag.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:12:57 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

He's all out of facts and logical argument, too...

[David Healy]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:53:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59:50 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:51:23 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> > > > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> > > > > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> > > > > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> > > > > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> > > >
> > > > Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> > > > note?
> > >
> > > The person the note was written to.
> >
> > "historically guilty" maybe you can help us out here Dudster,
>
> That`s why I`m here.
>
> > what does it mean?
>
> Think of it as "historically responsible". The Japanese are considered historically responsible for attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. Does this help you with the struggles you are having with the concept?

Bush League comment. Are you really as dumb as Ken Rahn implied years ago? Are you Ken Rahn lookin' for a hidey hole?

[Bud]

The "everyone knows I`m right" delusion.

> Lying simply doesn't work when it's faced with citable truth.

I cited also.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:53:10 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:53:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59:50 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:51:23 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> > > > > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> > > > > > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> > > > > > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> > > > > > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> > > > > note?
> > > >
> > > > The person the note was written to.
> > >
> > > "historically guilty" maybe you can help us out here Dudster,
> >
> > That`s why I`m here.
> >
> > > what does it mean?
> >
> > Think of it as "historically responsible". The Japanese are considered historically responsible for attacking the US at Pearl Harbor. Does this help you with the struggles you are having with the concept?
>
> Bush League comment. Are you really as dumb as Ken Rahn implied years ago? Are you Ken Rahn lookin' for a hidey hole?

<snicker> I try to help them but they never appreciate it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> ><snicker> The retard has come to chew bubble gum and split hairs. And he's all out of bubble gum.
>
>
> He's all out of facts and logical argument, too...

Very rude of DVP to bring up a topic and then leave his retarded underlings to defend his claims on his behalf. Talk about letting everyone else fall on your sword. Like I said, a LNer would betray their own mother. They prove it every day.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:17:44 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

David has learned the hard way that when he tries to debate me, he
INVARIABLY comes out looking like an ignorant fool.

Can't say that believers can't learn...

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>
> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> note?
>

> Could it be that you're simply lying again?

It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker" letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.

And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker" letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.
>
> And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?

Show how the letter alludes to shooting Walker without committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.

I know for a fact you can't do it. And I'm sure you're willing to ignore the challenge.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:14:06 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker" letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.
> >
> > And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?
>
> Show how the letter alludes to shooting Walker without committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.

The letter doesn`t exist in a vacuum, stupid. It was written to someone.

> I know for a fact you can't do it. And I'm sure you're willing to ignore the challenge.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474392888812-A873XEIUJAXRW49GWWDG/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kIl59K4NCOFnCFT0F9NPpg5Zw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpyLIgACiZC2aS3qiBmGAg3N9as-Jmx9Sui0uzba0Q8Q5Ip1nPzybyqehgrNbCPxaIk/Marina+Walker+state+1+p.1.png?format=750w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474392895173-KT06W07RAL5LL4MR7JLM/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kB_34RBAgVN8WFgW8aHIshZZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpyB513IMDrrsb9FWUhLMyW8-F1sbSiMiMAVV9sn4wvW1wBR5sFi_AwaAsbhsnhNPGM/Marina+Walker+state+1+p.2.png?format=750w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474393639419-1CU0U5QFCL2885O2HDGP/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kF1XlEcnPZG_tkDjIS0jxdNZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpzqJrc8T8dAl2eZkTUQ2xGOCtqPhVR5P4pyWhxsxZyDwX8RVXpZCmfpSKSLj3x6XFw/Marina+Walker+state+2+p.1.png?format=750w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474393642863-JXDDKRW4WRZVU7GQXFQA/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kG-i7Pg6Y67-KHiXQfRNyoxZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpzkZZlkQUqvF6M8tKLauAafdWn9R6w-Y9psEQPAdavFHZAjh0j039Ca2N1ku8oe02k/Marina+Walker+state+2+p.2.png?format=750w

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Show how the letter alludes to shooting Walker without committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.
>

> > I know for a fact you can't do it. And I'm sure you're willing to ignore the challenge.
>
> https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474392888812-A873XEIUJAXRW49GWWDG/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kIl59K4NCOFnCFT0F9NPpg5Zw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpyLIgACiZC2aS3qiBmGAg3N9as-Jmx9Sui0uzba0Q8Q5Ip1nPzybyqehgrNbCPxaIk/Marina+Walker+state+1+p.1.png?format=750w
>
> https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474392895173-KT06W07RAL5LL4MR7JLM/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kB_34RBAgVN8WFgW8aHIshZZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpyB513IMDrrsb9FWUhLMyW8-F1sbSiMiMAVV9sn4wvW1wBR5sFi_AwaAsbhsnhNPGM/Marina+Walker+state+1+p.2.png?format=750w
>
> https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474393639419-1CU0U5QFCL2885O2HDGP/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kF1XlEcnPZG_tkDjIS0jxdNZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpzqJrc8T8dAl2eZkTUQ2xGOCtqPhVR5P4pyWhxsxZyDwX8RVXpZCmfpSKSLj3x6XFw/Marina+Walker+state+2+p.1.png?format=750w
>
> https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5114787ee4b0807f570d7372/1474393642863-JXDDKRW4WRZVU7GQXFQA/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kG-i7Pg6Y67-KHiXQfRNyoxZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpzkZZlkQUqvF6M8tKLauAafdWn9R6w-Y9psEQPAdavFHZAjh0j039Ca2N1ku8oe02k/Marina+Walker+state+2+p.2.png?format=750w

<snicker> And bub fails.

Next...?

[Bud]

Oh wait, I had to convince an idiot?

> Next...?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

<snicker> No, you just have to look at the right things correctly. You just do what all idiots do, look at the wrong things incorrectly.

[Bud]

Just did. The only living person who could shed light on the note and the events surrounding it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > <snicker> No, you just have to look at the right things correctly.
>
> Just did.

How so?

[Mark Ulrik]

torsdag den 11. juli 2019 kl. 18.33.59 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>
> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> note?
>
> Could it be that you're simply lying again?

Are you implying that the note in question may have been related to something other than the attempted assassination of General Walker on April 10, 1963?

Please share your thoughts.

[Bud]

Conspiracy idiot: There is no connection between the note and the attempt on Walker`s life.

Me: Marina makes the connection.

Conspiracy idiot: Yes, but since I ignore that connection there is no connection.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

<snicker> I can't make the retard look at the right things correctly when he's looking at all the wrong things incorrectly. Let bub show there is a connection, lurkers. The retard still hasn't done it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:14:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

Why does the "truth" need lies to support it?

Why are you lying about the evidence in this case, David?

Can't you make your case without lying?

[Bud]

Why does Mark Lane?

> Can't you make your case without lying?

Why can`t Mark Lane?

[Bud]

These are the idiots the WC was supposed to convince.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> These are the idiots the WC was supposed to convince.

<snicker> The WC did a wonderful job of convincing many idiots.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:01:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Let's put it to a public poll. Loser to abstain from posting for 30
days.

You claim I couldn't demonstrate that David lied, I cited the evidence
that the "Walker note" had no date on it, despite David's quite
specific date of April 10, 1963.

Amusingly - **NO-ONE** has cited for that date...

>> Lying simply doesn't work when it's faced with citable truth.
>
> I cited also.

Not relevant to the issue at hand.

Who do you believe you're fooling?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:27:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 1:13:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:

>> >>
>> >>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>> >>>>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>> >>>>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>> >>>>> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
>> >>>> note?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
>> >>>

>> >>>If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.
>> >>
>> >> Speculation about what *I'd* say doesn't address the lie told by
>> >> David.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, you can't even admit that it's a lie. Why not?

>> >
>> > You can`t establish it as such. Why not?
>>
>>
>> You're a liar, "Chickenshit."
>>
>> WCR, pgs 183-184

"Chickenshit"... a proven liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 5:32:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:53:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:

>>
>> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:13:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>> >> >> > Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>> >> >> > out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>> >> >> > in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
>> >> >> note?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
>> >> >
>> >> >If it was dated, you'd say the date was forged.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Speculation about what *I'd* say doesn't address the lie told by
>> >> David.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, you can't even admit that it's a lie. Why not?
>> >>
>> >>

>> >> Tell us Chuckles, why are believers CONSTANTLY lying about the
>> >> evidence in this case? And why aren't these lies being pointed out by
>> >> honest believers? Is there anyone who believes the WCR who would spot
>> >> such lies, and point them out as we critics do?
>> >>
>> >> Do you think it's okay if I state that the date on the memo was Oct
>> >> 3rd, 1959?
>> >
>> >
>> >He didn't "lie" about anything, turd.

>>
>>
>> Then produce the evidence proving that an UNDATED note was written on
>> April 10, 1963.
>
> He didn`t say the letter was written on the 10th, stupid.

Then tell us what bad thing was going to happen on the 9th.



>> If you can't - you're a proven liar. And judging by your ad hominem,
>> you already know that.
>>
>>
>> > If you're trying to make the case ...
>>
>>
>> Produce the evidence, or admit that you're a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

As polls demonstrate, the WC failed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>>> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>>
>> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
>> note?
>

> The person the note was written to.

So you're relying on a proven liar, and *implying* that the evidence
is far more solid than it actually is.

Good to know...

>> Could it be that you're simply lying again?

Looks like David's a proven liar... his argument falls to pieces when
you realize that its only basis is a known liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Logical fallacy... provable evasion...

>> Can't you make your case without lying?
>
> Why can`t Mark Lane?

Ditto.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:01:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:46:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can`t establish it as such. Why not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're a liar, "Chickenshit."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> WCR, pgs 183-184
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me totally destroy your contention with "Horton Hears a Who", pages 4 through 7.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the audience, I don`t even bother trying to go where idiots point
> >>>
> >>> Nor do you have to. We know you think evidence has cooties. You
> >>> said it couldn't be established, and he identified you as a liar, then
> >>> established it. Can't just say things without backing it up. Or else
> >>> he'd be Chuck.
> >>>
> >>>That's just how it works.
> >>
> >> I'm quite sure that these believers aren't so stupid as to think that
> >> they're actually convincing anyone.
> >
> > The "everyone knows I`m right" delusion.
>
>
> Let's put it to a public poll. Loser to abstain from posting for 30
> days.

It boggles my mind every time you make this stupid suggestion. Who is the "public". Why would they be expected to understand the nuances of the issues? Either you use people who are knowledgeable about the case, in which case they are so biased as to be useless, or you use people who are ignorant of the case, in which case how it would be presented to them would be paramount. And this is just a few of the problems. If you think you have a concept that is workable, let`s hear it.

> You claim I couldn't demonstrate that David lied, I cited the evidence
> that the "Walker note" had no date on it, despite David's quite
> specific date of April 10, 1963.

We`ll ignore the fact that you lied when you said that DVP claimed the note was *written* on that date for the moment.

Lets say there is a newspaper saying "JFK ASSASSINATED" in the headline but the date was torn off, would it be possible to discern the date of the paper using the available information?

> Amusingly - **NO-ONE** has cited for that date...
>
>
> >> Lying simply doesn't work when it's faced with citable truth.
> >
> > I cited also.
>
>
> Not relevant to the issue at hand.

You didn`t show that what you cited was relevant to the issue at hand.

> Who do you believe you're fooling?

You seemed to think you were fooling someone by citing pages but not quoting what appears on those pages that supported your claim.

But I wasn`t fooled, I`ve seen that trick before.

[Bud]

<snicker> The coward removed the cited I cited that trumped his cite.

[Bud]

First admit you lied, then we can move on to other things.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

They succeeded in doing what they were tasked to do.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > As polls demonstrate, the WC failed.
>
> They succeeded in doing what they were tasked to do.

<snicker> This might be the only thing bub has said which I agree with. Of course being a retard, he doesn't realize what he **actually** said. So it's more of a half-win.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> >>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> >>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> >>> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> >>
> >> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
> >> note?
> >
> > The person the note was written to.
>
>
> So you're relying on a proven liar, and *implying* that the evidence
> is far more solid than it actually is.

The evidence is what they evidence is. That you choose to look at it incorrectly is of no consequence.

> Good to know...
>
>
> >> Could it be that you're simply lying again?
>
>
> Looks like David's a proven liar... his argument falls to pieces when
> you realize that its only basis is a known liar.

An idiot might figure like this. An honest person with an interest in the truth would weigh the information properly.

[Bud]

Now all you need to do is figure out what that was.

[Bud]

I just like pointing out your hypocrisy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:01:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 6:46:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can`t establish it as such. Why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're a liar, "Chickenshit."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WCR, pgs 183-184
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me totally destroy your contention with "Horton Hears a Who", pages 4 through 7.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the audience, I don`t even bother trying to go where idiots point
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor do you have to. We know you think evidence has cooties. You
>>>>> said it couldn't be established, and he identified you as a liar, then
>>>>> established it. Can't just say things without backing it up. Or else
>>>>> he'd be Chuck.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's just how it works.
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite sure that these believers aren't so stupid as to think that
>>>> they're actually convincing anyone.
>>>
>>> The "everyone knows I`m right" delusion.
>>
>> Let's put it to a public poll. Loser to abstain from posting for 30
>> days.
>

> It boggles my mind...


Yep... liars just *HATE* objective truth.

Or paying a price for lying....

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Liars lie, that's what you do.

Why can't you cite for your empty claims?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 12:33:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>>>>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>>>>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>>>>> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>>>>
>>>> Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
>>>> note?
>>>
>>> The person the note was written to.
>>
>> So you're relying on a proven liar, and *implying* that the evidence
>> is far more solid than it actually is.
>
> The evidence is what they evidence is.

Oh?

Looks like you're getting frustrated again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

There is no citation you could offer that shows a date on that note.

Liars lie, that's what liars do...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:56:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> First admit you lied...

Your refusal to answer the question proves you've been nailed to the
wall with indisputable facts.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:59:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Yep... cover it up.

As demonstrated by their 'outline' that they followed.

Sadly, they were unable to convince a majority of Americans...