info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #17
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 11, 2018, 7:39:30 PM4/11/18
to
David Von Pein thinks he's shown the "sole guilt" of someone, yet here
we are again with another item that shows the guilt of no-one at all,
let alone someone's "sole guilt."
And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to agree with this
obvious fact. (Indeed, this is all you need know about the honesty of
believers...)
> 17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the
> contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe
> from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy). The probability that
> Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to accomplish the shooting
> further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed the
> deed.
>
> If the first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike
> James Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film
> (as I believe did happen), then the total time between shots #1 and #3
> increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum
> required time to get off the three shots.
Now let's dissect David's nonsense:
> 17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the
> contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe
> from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy).
Actually no.
The *ONLY* test done with the rifle failed to match Oswald's alleged
feat. The rifle can be accurate, but is slow. And despite the
capability for accuracy, the three NRA rated shooters couldn't match
time and accuracy. David fails to cite for this "proven" assertion of
his, because he's simply lying.
Indeed, anytime that a believer starts saying "proven" - yet fails to
cite the proof, you can be sure he's lying.
> The probability that Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to
> accomplish the shooting further increases the likelihood that Lee
> could have performed the deed.
You contradict the Warren Commission's finding, and offer no expertise
that would allow *YOU* to be believed by anyone.
And the shooters that test fired the rifle *STILL* failed.
> If the first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike
> James Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film
> (as I believe did happen), then the total time between shots #1 and #3
> increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum
> required time to get off the three shots.
So you merely speculate as to what must have happened, base it ONLY on
your "belief," and hope people won't notice that it doesn't support
ANYONE's guilt, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
The Warren Commission had the opportunity to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT
that Oswald could have used the Mannlicher Carcano, and they failed.
And no amount of lying by believers will change that fact.
we are again with another item that shows the guilt of no-one at all,
let alone someone's "sole guilt."
And not a *SINGLE* believer is honest enough to agree with this
obvious fact. (Indeed, this is all you need know about the honesty of
believers...)
> 17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the
> contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe
> from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy). The probability that
> Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to accomplish the shooting
> further increases the likelihood that Lee could have performed the
> deed.
>
> If the first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike
> James Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film
> (as I believe did happen), then the total time between shots #1 and #3
> increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum
> required time to get off the three shots.
Now let's dissect David's nonsense:
> 17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the
> contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe
> from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy).
Actually no.
The *ONLY* test done with the rifle failed to match Oswald's alleged
feat. The rifle can be accurate, but is slow. And despite the
capability for accuracy, the three NRA rated shooters couldn't match
time and accuracy. David fails to cite for this "proven" assertion of
his, because he's simply lying.
Indeed, anytime that a believer starts saying "proven" - yet fails to
cite the proof, you can be sure he's lying.
> The probability that Oswald had, in fact, approx. 8.4 seconds to
> accomplish the shooting further increases the likelihood that Lee
> could have performed the deed.
You contradict the Warren Commission's finding, and offer no expertise
that would allow *YOU* to be believed by anyone.
And the shooters that test fired the rifle *STILL* failed.
> If the first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike
> James Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film
> (as I believe did happen), then the total time between shots #1 and #3
> increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum
> required time to get off the three shots.
So you merely speculate as to what must have happened, base it ONLY on
your "belief," and hope people won't notice that it doesn't support
ANYONE's guilt, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
The Warren Commission had the opportunity to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT
that Oswald could have used the Mannlicher Carcano, and they failed.
And no amount of lying by believers will change that fact.
David Von Pein
Apr 11, 2018, 8:37:47 PM4/11/18
to
You skipped "Part 15", Ben. Please go back and start one of your pathetic threads about my #15 point, so that I won't have a gap in the links at the bottom of my page below. (The thread that say's "#15" is really for #14.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html
David Von Pein
Apr 11, 2018, 8:55:37 PM4/11/18
to
See pages 193 and 194 of the Warren Report to see the truth of the matter concerning "Accuracy Of Weapon"....
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
borisba...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2018, 9:10:31 PM4/11/18
to
> See...the Warren Report to see the truth
Ha! I just wanted to isolate that part of the quote, so I could have a good laugh. But of course I edited it down. That's not DVP's full quote. Citing a partial quote while omitting other parts is something a liar would do. It's something David Von Pein would do. So I'll C&P it again, in full...
> See pages 193 and 194 of the Warren Report to see the truth of the matter concerning "Accuracy Of Weapon"....
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2018, 9:36:07 AM4/12/18
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:37:46 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>You skipped "Part 15"...
You snipped my entire refutation and refuse to defend your lies.
Why is that, David?
And why are you posting **PROVABLE** lies?
Doesn't it embarrass you to be known as a provable liar?
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>You skipped "Part 15"...
You snipped my entire refutation and refuse to defend your lies.
Why is that, David?
And why are you posting **PROVABLE** lies?
Doesn't it embarrass you to be known as a provable liar?
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2018, 9:41:39 AM4/12/18
to
that giving a cite supports your lie.
>See pages 193 and 194 of the Warren Report to see the truth of the matter concerning "Accuracy Of Weapon"....
>
>https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
stated.
But you won't... you're simply lying again.
Why do you think you can posts lies without it being pointed out in an
uncensored forum? Have you gotten used to being protected by Johnny?
0 new messages