Witnesses Documented In The First Two Days...

[Ben Holmes]

Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.

This is simple historical fact.

Patrick Collins has denied this, and labeled it a lie.

Anyone else care to do so?

"Bud?"

Davy Von Molester?

Anyone?

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.

Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?

Conspiracy retards focus on the wrong information, which is why they can`t go anywhere.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
>
> Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?

Ah! Evidence that "Bud" is smarter than Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that it comes from Mark Lane... then "Bud" would reflexively label it a lie.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> >
> > Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?
>
> Ah! Evidence that "Bud" is smarter than Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true.

The assertion is meaningless. It only supports my contention that conspiracy retards look at the wrong things, and then they look at the wrong things incorrectly. Lets see you put a feasible shooting scenario of three loud shots fired from the knoll that explains the wounds of the victims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 3:54:20 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> > >
> > > Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?
> >
> > Ah! Evidence that "Bud" is smarter than Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true.
>
> The assertion is meaningless.

Oh, my mistake.

I'll admit you're as stupid as Patrick is.

Does that make you happy?

>It only supports my contention that conspiracy retards look at the wrong things, and then they look at the wrong things incorrectly. Lets see you put a feasible shooting scenario of three loud shots fired from the knoll that explains the wounds of the victims.

I'd be happy to, if that were my contention.

In fact, I'll go into just as much detail, and with just as much evidence as you're willing to post here.

Sadly, you're a coward, and will never dare post your theory of the case.

> > Perhaps I should have mentioned that it comes from Mark Lane... then "Bud" would reflexively label it a lie.

Too late! "Bud" has decided that Mark Lane was telling the truth, as am I for reference

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:04:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 3:54:20 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> > > >
> > > > Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?
> > >
> > > Ah! Evidence that "Bud" is smarter than Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true.
> >
> > The assertion is meaningless.
>
> Oh, my mistake.
>
> I'll admit you're as stupid as Patrick is.

Are you too stupid to know what assertion you yourself were talking about?

> Does that make you happy?
>
> >It only supports my contention that conspiracy retards look at the wrong things, and then they look at the wrong things incorrectly. Lets see you put a feasible shooting scenario of three loud shots fired from the knoll that explains the wounds of the victims.
>
> I'd be happy to, if that were my contention.

You seemed to be going with the knoll witnesses. Of course if they really were good witnesses you could use the information they gave and come up with a feasible scenario. You can`t come up with a feasible scenario because the information they provided wasn`t useful for determining what occurred.

> In fact, I'll go into just as much detail, and with just as much evidence as you're willing to post here.
>
> Sadly, you're a coward, and will never dare post your theory of the case.

Its been on the table for over 50 years. Despite frequenting forums devoted to this topic for years you are blissfully unaware of it. You are truly a stump.

> > > Perhaps I should have mentioned that it comes from Mark Lane... then "Bud" would reflexively label it a lie.
>
> Too late! "Bud" has decided that Mark Lane was telling the truth, as am I for reference

"Desperation is a stinky cologne."

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:39:45 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:04:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 3:54:20 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?
> > > >
> > > > Ah! Evidence that "Bud" is smarter than Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true.
> > >
> > > The assertion is meaningless.
> >
> > Oh, my mistake.
> >
> > I'll admit you're as stupid as Patrick is.
>
> Are you too stupid to know what assertion you yourself were talking about?

Of course I am.

I tried to assert that you were smarter than Patrick Collins.

You didn't like it...

So I admitted that you were not.

You still aren't happy.

What a kook!

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:04:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:39:45 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:04:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 3:54:20 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:21:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who cares where people *thought* the shots came from after the place the shots were actually fired from is discovered?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah! Evidence that "Bud" is smarter than Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true.
> > > >
> > > > The assertion is meaningless.
> > >
> > > Oh, my mistake.
> > >
> > > I'll admit you're as stupid as Patrick is.
> >
> > Are you too stupid to know what assertion you yourself were talking about?
>
> Of course I am.

I know that now.

> I tried to assert that you were smarter than Patrick Collins.

That wasn`t the assertion you made, or the assertion I addressed.

You said "... Patrick Collins, who thinks I can't cite the evidence proving the assertion true."

The assertion you were referring to was about the knoll witnesses, stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

Looks like I can't find any suckers...

Everyone here knows full well that when I say something, I can cite for it.

And no-one here has any explanation for why the majority of witnesses who were DOCUMENTED in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Before any intimidation... before any "consensus" could be pretended...

No explanation will EVER be forthcoming for this fact.

[Bud]

The explanation is simple, they were wrong. Sound is invisible. Sound bounces of objects. Stupid people stare slack jawed at this information for decades. Smart people look at the information, easily determine it to be erroneous and move on.

What proves what I just said is the fact that conspiracy folk have done nothing with this information. If it was good, solid reliable information you would see it as the foundation of a reasonable three shot from the knoll theory that explains both what witnesses related and the wounds on the victims. Has anyone ever seen such a thing?

Notice that the WC and LNers are called upon to explain things in minute detail, but conspiracy folk only have to take an issue as far as they feel it shows conspiracy, with no in depth detail required. Because any detailed idea they put on the table can be scrutinized and destroyed. Most would be absurd on the face of them, but of course I am arguing against an event that will never happen.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:04:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:15:06 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> > >
> > > This is simple historical fact.
> > >
> > > Patrick Collins has denied this, and labeled it a lie.
> > >
> > > Anyone else care to do so?
> > >
> > > "Bud?"
> > >
> > > Davy Von Molester?
> > >
> > > Anyone?
> >
> > Looks like I can't find any suckers...
> >
> > Everyone here knows full well that when I say something, I can cite for it.
> >
> > And no-one here has any explanation for why the majority of witnesses who were DOCUMENTED in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
> >
> > Before any intimidation... before any "consensus" could be pretended...
> >
> > No explanation will EVER be forthcoming for this fact.
>
> The explanation is simple, they were wrong.

Yep... EVERY SINGLE WITNESS IN THIS CASE WAS WRONG.

Believers can't name even *one* witness whom they accept completely in their 1963-1964 statements & testimony about what they saw and heard.

Which means that they believe a story, not anything BASED on the evidence. They don't believe the evidence.

>Sound is invisible. Sound bounces of objects. Stupid people stare slack jawed at this information for decades. Smart people look at the information, easily determine it to be erroneous and move on.

By using ad hominem argument you've simply admitted that you've lost.

> What proves what I just said is the fact that conspiracy folk have done nothing with this information. If it was good, solid reliable information you would see it as the foundation of a reasonable three shot from the knoll theory that explains both what witnesses related and the wounds on the victims. Has anyone ever seen such a thing?

Nope, and you never will. Because the EVIDENCE doesn't support such a thing.

> Notice that the WC and LNers are called upon to explain things in minute detail, but conspiracy folk only have to take an issue as far as they feel it shows conspiracy, with no in depth detail required. Because any detailed idea they put on the table can be scrutinized and destroyed. Most would be absurd on the face of them, but of course I am arguing against an event that will never happen.

You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.

The FACT that you continue to refuse to do so demonstrates that you *KNOW* you've lost.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:04:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:15:06 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first two days, by a majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> > > >
> > > > This is simple historical fact.
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Collins has denied this, and labeled it a lie.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone else care to do so?
> > > >
> > > > "Bud?"
> > > >
> > > > Davy Von Molester?
> > > >
> > > > Anyone?
> > >
> > > Looks like I can't find any suckers...
> > >
> > > Everyone here knows full well that when I say something, I can cite for it.
> > >
> > > And no-one here has any explanation for why the majority of witnesses who were DOCUMENTED in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
> > >
> > > Before any intimidation... before any "consensus" could be pretended...
> > >
> > > No explanation will EVER be forthcoming for this fact.
> >
> > The explanation is simple, they were wrong.
>
> Yep... EVERY SINGLE WITNESS IN THIS CASE WAS WRONG.

No, stupid. The correct way to look at witness testimony is with a realistic and reasonable approach. The fact is that any witness can be wrong about any detail at any time. People misspeak, misremember, misconstrue questions, misinterpret, mishear, ect.

Reality doesn`t change because conspiracy retards refuse to accept it.

> Believers can't name even *one* witness whom they accept completely in their 1963-1964 statements & testimony about what they saw and heard.

I`vw addressed this loaded question. You ran from my response. You demanded an explanation on this particular issue. You ran from my response. Why do you keep demanding that I explain thing when you are only going to run when I do?

> Which means that they believe a story, not anything BASED on the evidence. They don't believe the evidence.
>
>
> >Sound is invisible. Sound bounces of objects. Stupid people stare slack jawed at this information for decades. Smart people look at the information, easily determine it to be erroneous and move on.
>
> By using ad hominem argument you've simply admitted that you've lost.

You could have inserted between the ad hominen to the points I made and addressed them. You didn`t because you can`t argue ideas. I may as well insult you since I can`t get you to honestly discuss ideas.

>
> > What proves what I just said is the fact that conspiracy folk have done nothing with this information. If it was good, solid reliable information you would see it as the foundation of a reasonable three shot from the knoll theory that explains both what witnesses related and the wounds on the victims. Has anyone ever seen such a thing?
>
> Nope, and you never will. Because the EVIDENCE doesn't support such a thing.

You admit to being unable to put a three shot scenario from the knoll on the table. So what is the big deal about a lot of people saying they thought the shots came from the knoll?

>
> > Notice that the WC and LNers are called upon to explain things in minute detail, but conspiracy folk only have to take an issue as far as they feel it shows conspiracy, with no in depth detail required. Because any detailed idea they put on the table can be scrutinized and destroyed. Most would be absurd on the face of them, but of course I am arguing against an event that will never happen.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.

You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.

> The FACT that you continue to refuse to do so demonstrates that you *KNOW* you've lost.

I`ve linked to it, stupid. The Warren Commission Report is not Tinkerbell, it doesn`t disappear if you don`t believe in it.

[Ben Holmes]

Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Game and match...

You lose!

> > The FACT that you continue to refuse to do so demonstrates that you *KNOW* you've lost.
>
> I`ve linked to it, stupid. The Warren Commission Report is not Tinkerbell, it doesn`t disappear if you don`t believe in it.

You just need a link?

No problem!

https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Review-Board/dp/0984314407

Of course, that's merely the first of five volumes. If you need a link to the others, let me know, and I'll be happy to show a moron how to search Amazon.

Anytime you want to refute Douglas Horne ... well, first you'd need to buy his books... then you'd have to read 'em... then you'd have to understand 'em...

I think I'm quite safe from ever having to take apart any critique written by you.

What a kook!

[Bud]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> >
> > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
>
> Douglas Horne's five volume set.

I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of failure.

> Game and match...
>
> You lose!
>
>
> > > The FACT that you continue to refuse to do so demonstrates that you *KNOW* you've lost.
> >
> > I`ve linked to it, stupid. The Warren Commission Report is not Tinkerbell, it doesn`t disappear if you don`t believe in it.
>
> You just need a link?
>
> No problem!
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Review-Board/dp/0984314407
>
> Of course, that's merely the first of five volumes. If you need a link to the others, let me know, and I'll be happy to show a moron how to search Amazon.
>
> Anytime you want to refute Douglas Horne ... well, first you'd need to buy his books... then you'd have to read 'em... then you'd have to understand 'em...
>
> I think I'm quite safe from ever having to take apart any critique written by you.
>
> What a kook!

This proves as well as anything I could say that the conspiracy retards don`t have anything to explain this event to put on the table.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > >
> > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> >
> > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
>

> I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.

That you can't refute the five volumes?

Of course... everyone knows you've failed.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:25:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > > >
> > > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> > >
> > > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> >
> > I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.

Now Ben has gone about as low as he can go, changing what I said.

> That you can't refute the five volumes?
>
> Of course... everyone knows you've failed.

You guys have been failing for over 50 years now.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:49:40 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:25:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> > >
> > > I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.
>
> Now Ben has gone about as low as he can go, changing what I said.

If you're willing to change what I say, why would you object?

[Bud]

You are lying of course, I`ve never changed a word you said, I have only cut and pasted your words. I think we both agree that only a scumbag would change their opponents words, right?

[Ben Holmes]

Scumbag, aren't you?

Knowingly so... since you've continued to do so even after you've been corrected.

[Bud]

Nope. You earned that title by changing my words.

> Knowingly so... since you've continued to do so even after you've been corrected.

You are lying. I never changed a word you said. I always address the ideas you express. You are an intellectual coward who can`t discuss ideas honestly.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud."

[Bud]

You are doing a great job of representing the conspiracy faction. All you`ve been displaying to the lurkers is stupidity and dishonesty. Keep up the good work.

[Ben Holmes]

Of course. I know the evidence in this case.

> Keep up the good work.

I'm happy to keep embarrassing you and believers 'round the world.

[Bud]

Are you tall and handsome in this imaginary world?

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:49:40 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:25:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> > >
> > > I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.
>
> Now Ben has gone about as low as he can go, changing what I said.
>

That is pretty low alright. The scumbag even added the little arrow symbol [ > ] to make it look like he was quoting Bud's own words. Pathetic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:07 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:49:40 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:25:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> > > >
> > > > I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.
> >
> > Now Ben has gone about as low as he can go, changing what I said.
> >
>
> That is pretty low alright. The scumbag even added the little arrow symbol [ > ] to make it look like he was quoting Bud's own words. Pathetic.

Nah... what's "pathetic" is your quite cowardly refusal to defend Bugliosi on these refutations I've been posting.

[David Von Pein]

Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need me (or anybody else) to "defend" his perfectly logical and reasonable arguments. He does just fine all by himself. You, Ben, due to your status as a "Rabid Internet Conspiracy Monger", will forever refuse to admit I'm right when I said this....

"Ben will continue to disappoint, and that's because virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; 1/25/17

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:35:08 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:04:21 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:07 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:49:40 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:25:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.
> > > >
> > > > Now Ben has gone about as low as he can go, changing what I said.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is pretty low alright. The scumbag even added the little arrow symbol [ > ] to make it look like he was quoting Bud's own words. Pathetic.
> >
> >
> > Nah... what's "pathetic" is your quite cowardly refusal to defend Bugliosi on these refutations I've been posting.
>
> Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need me (or anybody else) to "defend" his perfectly logical and reasonable arguments. He does just fine all by himself.

Simply untrue. You're lying.

Believers keep trying to pretend that the Warren Commission, or "Reclaiming History" - is the final word, and cannot be disputed.

Yet critics prove time and time again that this simply isn't true.

> You, Ben, due to your status as a "Rabid Internet Conspiracy Monger",

Your ad hominem attack simply demonstrates that you know you've lost.

> will forever refuse to admit I'm right when I said this....
>
> "Ben will continue to disappoint, and that's because virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; 1/25/17

You can run, Davy, but you can't hide.

Each and EVERY ONE of his "reasonable arguments" aren't.

Numerous fake trees don't suddenly turn into a real forest when considered in the aggregate... your argument is false, and quite an example of the sort of logical errors believers make all the time in their effort to support the unsupportable.

As I've demonstrated, none of Bugliosi's bits of evidence mean very much at all, and you've run from them like the yellow coward you are.

The fact that you cannot defend Bugliosi shows that you know full well just where the truth lies.

[David Von Pein]

You should try collecting football cards or joining the chess club instead of embarrassing yourself with this JFK thing you're doing day after day, Ben. You have no capacity for properly assembling evidence whatsoever.

Oswald did a whole bunch of odd and unusual things on both Nov. 21 and 22, which, when strung together, add up to his guilt without question. And yet that super sleuth named Ben Holmes can't admit that even ONE of those things was odd or unusual at all. Can you, Ben?

Let's try this one on for size (and then we'll watch Ben bob and weave all over the ring)....

How about Lee Oswald's behavior as he was spotted by shoe store manager Johnny Brewer shortly after Officer Tippit was killed? Do Oswald's actions in the lobby of Brewer's shoe store signal anything "unusual" or "odd" to you, Ben?

It will be interesting to see how Ben turns Oswald's "scared" and "funny" behavior (per the testimony of Johnny Brewer) into the actions of a snow-white innocent "patsy".

Good luck in accomplishing that tricky feat, Ben H.

(Ben *could*, of course, resort to calling Johnny Calvin Brewer a big fat liar. Will he choose that road? Let's see.)

[Bud]

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:49:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:35:08 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:04:21 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:28:07 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:49:40 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:25:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:56:48 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:56:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud"... you can't provide a scenario that I cannot match in detail and supporting evidence.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You are lying, of course. My scenario has been on the table for decades. You scenario does not exist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I`m sure that everyone knows by now why this is an admission of my failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now Ben has gone about as low as he can go, changing what I said.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is pretty low alright. The scumbag even added the little arrow symbol [ > ] to make it look like he was quoting Bud's own words. Pathetic.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nah... what's "pathetic" is your quite cowardly refusal to defend Bugliosi on these refutations I've been posting.
> >
> > Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need me (or anybody else) to "defend" his perfectly logical and reasonable arguments. He does just fine all by himself.
>
> Simply untrue. You're lying.
>
> Believers keep trying to pretend that the Warren Commission, or "Reclaiming History" - is the final word, and cannot be disputed.
>
> Yet critics prove time and time again that this simply isn't true.

You`re lying again, Ben.

> > You, Ben, due to your status as a "Rabid Internet Conspiracy Monger",
>
>
> Your ad hominem attack simply demonstrates that you know you've lost.

You`re lying again, Ben.

> > will forever refuse to admit I'm right when I said this....
> >
> > "Ben will continue to disappoint, and that's because virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; 1/25/17
>
> You can run, Davy, but you can't hide.
>
> Each and EVERY ONE of his "reasonable arguments" aren't.

You`re lying again, Ben.

> Numerous fake trees don't suddenly turn into a real forest when considered in the aggregate... your argument is false, and quite an example of the sort of logical errors believers make all the time in their effort to support the unsupportable.

You`re lying again, Ben.

> As I've demonstrated, none of Bugliosi's bits of evidence mean very much at all, and you've run from them like the yellow coward you are.

You`re lying again, Ben.

> The fact that you cannot defend Bugliosi shows that you know full well just where the truth lies.

You`re lying again, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

Dead silence... Davy had no answer...

Embarrassing to be schooled on simple logic, isn't it Davy?

> > As I've demonstrated, none of Bugliosi's bits of evidence mean very much at all, and you've run from them like the yellow coward you are.
> >
> > The fact that you cannot defend Bugliosi shows that you know full well just where the truth lies.
>
> You should try collecting football cards or joining the chess club instead of embarrassing yourself with this JFK thing you're doing day after day, Ben. You have no capacity for properly assembling evidence whatsoever.

Your ad hominem attack simply demonstrates that you know you've lost. If you were capable of defending Bugliosi, you would.

But you can't.

So you simply insult me instead of actually addressing the evidence and logical argument I provide.

And each and every time you evade the points raised, and merely insult me, you prove to any thinking man that you've understood that you lost.

> Oswald did a whole bunch of odd and unusual things on both Nov. 21 and 22, which, when strung together, add up to his guilt without question.

Nope.

You're a liar.

As I've demonstrated, he did quite ordinary things... and Bugliosi simply presumed his guilt, then used everything he could think of to support that "guilt."

When you can explain how reading a newspaper, or not reading a newspaper - is evidence of guilt in a murder case, then you might be on to something.

Until you do, you're simply a dishonest coward.

> And yet that super sleuth named Ben Holmes can't admit that even ONE of those things was odd or unusual at all. Can you, Ben?

Why should I do *YOUR* work for you?

It's up to *YOU* to prove that Bugliosi & the Warren Commission aren't liars.

Get a clue... You're failing...

> Let's try this one on for size (and then we'll watch Ben bob and weave all over the ring)....
>
> How about Lee Oswald's behavior as he was spotted by shoe store manager Johnny Brewer shortly after Officer Tippit was killed? Do Oswald's actions in the lobby of Brewer's shoe store signal anything "unusual" or "odd" to you, Ben?

Nope.

You'll have to do better than this, Davy Von Molester.

Why not cite the cross-examination of Johnny Brewer?

> It will be interesting to see how Ben turns Oswald's "scared" and "funny" behavior (per the testimony of Johnny Brewer) into the actions of a snow-white innocent "patsy".

This is the simple trick of "changing the topic" that believers have such faith in.

I've presented 22 posts for you to deal with thus far, and I have 31 more to go...

You'll have to either address the posts - or prove yourself a coward.

> Good luck in accomplishing that tricky feat, Ben H.
>
> (Ben *could*, of course, resort to calling Johnny Calvin Brewer a big fat liar. Will he choose that road? Let's see.)

Don't need to... his cross-examination will show the truth, won't it?

And until you cite the cross-examination - you'll have to get back to actually defending Bugliosi from my refutations...

Or run like the coward you are...

Your choice!

[Ben Holmes]

If I were, you'd be happy to prove it by defending Bugliosi against the refutations I post.

But you can't.

You're a yellow coward.

Ad hominem & lying is all you know.

But stick around, I'm happy to school you.

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, that's what I thought, Ben. You're so buried in your silly "Oswald Was Innocent" dung that you can't even admit that Oswald's actions while he stood in front of Brewer's shoe store were odd or suspicious. You're as predictable as a rainstorm after a car wash.

[Bud]

You failed to show that Oswald`s change in his newspaper reading routine was not significant.

> Until you do, you're simply a dishonest coward.
>
>
> > And yet that super sleuth named Ben Holmes can't admit that even ONE of those things was odd or unusual at all. Can you, Ben?
>
> Why should I do *YOUR* work for you?
>
> It's up to *YOU* to prove that Bugliosi & the Warren Commission aren't liars.
>
> Get a clue... You're failing...
>
>
> > Let's try this one on for size (and then we'll watch Ben bob and weave all over the ring)....
> >
> > How about Lee Oswald's behavior as he was spotted by shoe store manager Johnny Brewer shortly after Officer Tippit was killed? Do Oswald's actions in the lobby of Brewer's shoe store signal anything "unusual" or "odd" to you, Ben?
>
>
> Nope.

<snicker> Don`t quit your day job. Leave investigation to the professionals.

> You'll have to do better than this, Davy Von Molester.
>
> Why not cite the cross-examination of Johnny Brewer?

Ben has to call the witnesses liars, what they related doesn`t support his faith.

How many liars are we up to so far? Frazier, Bledsoe, Brennan, Whaley, Brewer, Gladys Johnson and I`m probably missing some. We haven`t even got to 10th and Patton, where Ben will be forced to call a bunch of other witnesses liars. You can always tell the liars, they are the ones who gave information implicating Oswald or gave information that go against the silly ideas of conspiracy hobbyists.

> > It will be interesting to see how Ben turns Oswald's "scared" and "funny" behavior (per the testimony of Johnny Brewer) into the actions of a snow-white innocent "patsy".
>
> This is the simple trick of "changing the topic" that believers have such faith in.
>
> I've presented 22 posts for you to deal with thus far, and I have 31 more to go...
>
> You'll have to either address the posts - or prove yourself a coward.
>
>
> > Good luck in accomplishing that tricky feat, Ben H.
> >
> > (Ben *could*, of course, resort to calling Johnny Calvin Brewer a big fat liar. Will he choose that road? Let's see.)
>
> Don't need to... his cross-examination will show the truth, won't it?

There was no trial, stupid. New retard rule "I don`t have to accept testimony I don`t like because there was no cross examination". But wait, was Dr Clark cross examined? You don`t expect consistency from retards, do you?

[Bud]

It isn`t logic, stupid, it is a fallacy. You presume as true what you haven`t shown, that the trees are fake. You haven`t proven that any of the things that Bugliosi has offered as significant and indicative of Oswald`s guilt to be insignificant and not indicative of Oswald`s guilt. All you did was *say* that you had proven them to be insignificant, but what you say doesn`t carry any weight. In fact, when you say something that is a strong indicator that the opposite is true.

> > > As I've demonstrated, none of Bugliosi's bits of evidence mean very much at all, and you've run from them like the yellow coward you are.
> > >
> > > The fact that you cannot defend Bugliosi shows that you know full well just where the truth lies.
> >
> > You should try collecting football cards or joining the chess club instead of embarrassing yourself with this JFK thing you're doing day after day, Ben. You have no capacity for properly assembling evidence whatsoever.
>
>
> Your ad hominem attack simply demonstrates that you know you've lost. If you were capable of defending Bugliosi, you would.
>
> But you can't.
>
> So you simply insult me instead of actually addressing the evidence and logical argument I provide.

You`ve run from every argument I`ve made and all the evidence I`ve produced.

> And each and every time you evade the points raised, and merely insult me, you prove to any thinking man that you've understood that you lost.
>
>
> > Oswald did a whole bunch of odd and unusual things on both Nov. 21 and 22, which, when strung together, add up to his guilt without question.
>
> Nope.
>
> You're a liar.
>
> As I've demonstrated, he did quite ordinary things...

As Bugliosi pointed out, they weren`t.

>and Bugliosi simply presumed his guilt, then used everything he could think of to support that "guilt."
>
> When you can explain how reading a newspaper, or not reading a newspaper - is evidence of guilt in a murder case, then you might be on to something.
>
> Until you do, you're simply a dishonest coward.
>
>
> > And yet that super sleuth named Ben Holmes can't admit that even ONE of those things was odd or unusual at all. Can you, Ben?
>
> Why should I do *YOUR* work for you?
>
> It's up to *YOU* to prove that Bugliosi & the Warren Commission aren't liars.

Ben shifting the burden again. He set out to refute Bugliosi. He set the bar high and has been limboing under it ever since.

[Ben Holmes]

You've got it backwards.

First, the evidence shows he *DID* read the newspaper that day.

Second, even had he not, it wouldn't IN THE SLIGHTEST demonstrate that he's guilty of murder.

You lost.

P.S. The fact that Davy Von Molester keeps running away from this simply proves which side is correct.

[Bud]

In the morning?

> Second, even had he not, it wouldn't IN THE SLIGHTEST demonstrate that he's guilty of murder.

That is just a strawman. Nobody took the position that this particular thing as a stand alone issue did demonstrate that Oswald was a murderer.

> You lost.
>
> P.S. The fact that Davy Von Molester keeps running away from this simply proves which side is correct.

Your silly figuring proves nothing.

[Ben Holmes]

You don't even know these facts, do you?

[Bud]

I know what Bugliosi`s actual argument was. Why are you afraid to address his actual arguments?

[Ben Holmes]

I did.

I DEFY you to quote his entire statement, then QUOTE MY ENTIRE RESPONSE - then show what hasn't been answered.

But you can't...

Davy Von Molester knows that...

[Bud]

Did you?

Here is Bugliosi`s full argument...

"9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."

Ben just claimed I didn`t know the facts, but the first two words of Bugliosi`s argument shows this to be just another lie. Ben used the general term "that day", but Bugliosi was very specific about what time if day the paper reading usually occurred.

On a side note, looking for the post on this issue I noticed that this issue is #9 on Bugliosi`s list, but Ben lists it as #8 (I`ve linked to Ben`s post below). He has no heading for #9. Seems to me that Ben missed one, I`ll check into this later.

> I DEFY you to quote his entire statement, then QUOTE MY ENTIRE RESPONSE - then show what hasn't been answered.

Here is the link to the discussion. Ben has now deceitfully changed the argument to "hasn`t been answered", when the real issue was whether he addressed Bugliosi`s *actual* arguments.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/fCsJoi9A8OM/rKfn4XcCAwAJ

You can look above and see the first two words of Bugliosi`s argument, "Every morning...". In the version of Bugliosi`s argument that Ben used nothing is mentioned about when the paper reading occurred. Now Ben claims he hasn`t been leaving out relevant information but this post shows that to be untrue. Clearly Ben goes on arguing against the strawman of afternoon paper reading when Bugliosi was referring to first thing in the morning.

Does any reader think that morning and afternoon are the same thing? Does any reader believe that Ben is not purposely leaving out pertinent information from Bugliosi`s arguments and arguing against strawmen?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:44:09 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 7:05:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:43:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > > I know what Bugliosi`s actual argument was. Why are you afraid to address his actual arguments?
> >
> > I did.
>
> Did you?
>
> Here is Bugliosi`s full argument...
>
> "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."

Amusingly, you failed to quote my rebuttal - so here it is again:

You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' – but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.

But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.

I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newspaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.

And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"

Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply went over the edge on this one...

> Ben just claimed I didn`t know the facts, but the first two words of Bugliosi`s argument shows this to be just another lie. Ben used the general term "that day", but Bugliosi was very specific about what time if day the paper reading usually occurred.

You clearly *DON'T* know the facts... you've failed to mentions Givens.

Nor does the time of day HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS ARGUMENT BY BUGLIOSI.

The regular newspaper reading CANNOT have taken place in the afternoon - because Bugliosi's nonsense would be even MORE nonsensical...

Tell me you understand that fact...

Or run again.

> On a side note, looking for the post on this issue I noticed that this issue is #9 on Bugliosi`s list, but Ben lists it as #8 (I`ve linked to Ben`s post below). He has no heading for #9. Seems to me that Ben missed one, I`ll check into this later.

Yep... this is actually #9.

> > I DEFY you to quote his entire statement, then QUOTE MY ENTIRE RESPONSE - then show what hasn't been answered.
>
> Here is the link to the discussion. Ben has now deceitfully changed the argument to "hasn`t been answered", when the real issue was whether he addressed Bugliosi`s *actual* arguments.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/fCsJoi9A8OM/rKfn4XcCAwAJ

Here we see "Bud's" illiteracy again. I challenged him to QUOTE my reply, but he was too stupid to follow these simple directions.

Everyone can see that my refutation of Bugliosi loses ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when appended to his full statement.

Meaning, of course, that "Bud" has lost again...

> You can look above and see the first two words of Bugliosi`s argument, "Every morning...". In the version of Bugliosi`s argument that Ben used nothing is mentioned about when the paper reading occurred. Now Ben claims he hasn`t been leaving out relevant information but this post shows that to be untrue. Clearly Ben goes on arguing against the strawman of afternoon paper reading when Bugliosi was referring to first thing in the morning.

You're a liar, "Bud." You cannot quote me arguing for an "afternoon" newspaper reading.

YOU CANNOT QUOTE ANY SUCH THING!!!

Now you're simply making things up.

If you continue to put words in my mouth that I've never said, then don't be surprised if I do the same thing to you.

> Does any reader think that morning and afternoon are the same thing?

My refutation has absolutely NOTHING to do with the time of day.

>Does any reader believe that Ben is not purposely leaving out pertinent information from Bugliosi`s arguments and arguing against strawmen?

If you did... then you'd have included Bugliosi's full statement, THEN APPENDED MY REFUTATION - then point out any problems with it.

But you can't.

And if you lie just one more time about what I actually argued, you'll deserve whatever you get.

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:05:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:44:09 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 7:05:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:43:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > > I know what Bugliosi`s actual argument was. Why are you afraid to address his actual arguments?
> > >
> > > I did.
> >
> > Did you?
> >
> > Here is Bugliosi`s full argument...
> >
> > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
>
> Amusingly, you failed to quote my rebuttal - so here it is again:

Your rebuttal doesn`t address the point I made. Bugliosi was clearly talking about first thing in the morning. You talked about lunchtime, a clear strawman.

> You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>
> Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.
>
> But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch.

How do we *know* this?

And why this misdirection to lunchtime?

> Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' – but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.
>
> But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

Even if true, Bugliosi was talking about his usual reading of the paper in the morning, so this does not apply.

> Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.
>
> I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newspaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.
>
> And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

Real investigators know that changes in a suspect`s routine can be very significant. Hobbyists don`t. A real investigator would know that it was very likely that Oswald brought his rifle in in the morning. So not reading the newspaper first thing could be very significant, as he would need to stash the rifle. I explained this to you before.

> And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"

The way you are proceeding is how an investigation would proceed if it was intent on not figuring anything out. Which is exactly what the conspiracy folk have been doing for decades. The exhibit no aptitude for investigation. You see this in sports, where the slobs in the stands criticize the ones who can actually play the game.

> Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with someone being guilty of murder -

Something I did when you first raised the issue, and just did again. You are just a stump, the words I write don`t enter your consciousness.

> a "lone assassin" at that... nor will any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply went over the edge on this one...

He is building a case.

>
> > Ben just claimed I didn`t know the facts, but the first two words of Bugliosi`s argument shows this to be just another lie. Ben used the general term "that day", but Bugliosi was very specific about what time if day the paper reading usually occurred.
>
> You clearly *DON'T* know the facts... you've failed to mentions Givens.

I made no point that needed him mentioned.

> Nor does the time of day HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS ARGUMENT BY BUGLIOSI.

What are the first two words of his argument, Ben? You know, the ones that were left out of the version you are stupidly working from.

> The regular newspaper reading CANNOT have taken place in the afternoon - because Bugliosi's nonsense would be even MORE nonsensical...
>
> Tell me you understand that fact...
>
> Or run again.

The fact is that Bugliosi`s argument was about Oswald breaking his *morning* ritual of reading the paper in the domino room. Just because you want me to address your strawman doesn`t mean I have to.

> > On a side note, looking for the post on this issue I noticed that this issue is #9 on Bugliosi`s list, but Ben lists it as #8 (I`ve linked to Ben`s post below). He has no heading for #9. Seems to me that Ben missed one, I`ll check into this later.
>
> Yep... this is actually #9.

Did you miss one?

>
> > > I DEFY you to quote his entire statement, then QUOTE MY ENTIRE RESPONSE - then show what hasn't been answered.
> >
> > Here is the link to the discussion. Ben has now deceitfully changed the argument to "hasn`t been answered", when the real issue was whether he addressed Bugliosi`s *actual* arguments.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/fCsJoi9A8OM/rKfn4XcCAwAJ
>
>
> Here we see "Bud's" illiteracy again. I challenged him to QUOTE my reply, but he was too stupid to follow these simple directions.

You don`t set conditions. I didn`t even need to link to it.

> Everyone can see that my refutation of Bugliosi loses ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when appended to his full statement.

Everyone can see that Ben went on about "lunchtime" when Bugliosi`s real argument was about first thing in the morning. Why is Ben afraid to address Bugliosi`s actual arguments?

> Meaning, of course, that "Bud" has lost again...
>
>
> > You can look above and see the first two words of Bugliosi`s argument, "Every morning...". In the version of Bugliosi`s argument that Ben used nothing is mentioned about when the paper reading occurred. Now Ben claims he hasn`t been leaving out relevant information but this post shows that to be untrue. Clearly Ben goes on arguing against the strawman of afternoon paper reading when Bugliosi was referring to first thing in the morning.
>
>
> You're a liar, "Bud." You cannot quote me arguing for an "afternoon" newspaper reading.

You produced information from Givens about a 11:50 newspaper reading. Why did you bring that up when Bugliosi was talking about a morning ritual?

> YOU CANNOT QUOTE ANY SUCH THING!!!
>
> Now you're simply making things up.
>
> If you continue to put words in my mouth that I've never said, then don't be surprised if I do the same thing to you.

Are you really this stupid? If I quote you I will put quote marks around the quote. But I will retract that argument, it does seem sloppily worded. I`ll replace it with an argument with more precise wording. Bugliosi`s actual argument was about an event in the morning. that was not included in the version Ben produced for the reader. His arguments all focused on afternoon issues. They were all strawmen. For example, Ben said this...

"But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' – but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch."

Three references to afternoon activities (presumably the building of the lair would have been done after the flooring crew left, if it was done at all). In his rebuttal of Bugliosi why did Ben launch into things that were in the afternoon?

> > Does any reader think that morning and afternoon are the same thing?
>
>
> My refutation has absolutely NOTHING to do with the time of day.

Thanks for that admission. Unfortunately for you Bugliosi`s actual argument did. The time of day was material to his argument.

> >Does any reader believe that Ben is not purposely leaving out pertinent information from Bugliosi`s arguments and arguing against strawmen?
>
> If you did... then you'd have included Bugliosi's full statement, THEN APPENDED MY REFUTATION - then point out any problems with it.
>
> But you can't.
>
> And if you lie just one more time about what I actually argued, you'll deserve whatever you get.

You don`t set conditions and fuck your threats of punishment.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:01:01 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:05:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:44:09 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:18:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 7:05:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:43:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > > I know what Bugliosi`s actual argument was. Why are you afraid to address his actual arguments?
> > > >
> > > > I did.
> > >
> > > Did you?
> > >
> > > Here is Bugliosi`s full argument...
> > >
> > > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
> >
> > Amusingly, you failed to quote my rebuttal - so here it is again:
>
> Your rebuttal doesn`t address the point I made. Bugliosi was clearly talking about first thing in the morning. You talked about lunchtime, a clear strawman.

Quite the gutless yellow coward, aren't you "Bud?"

What does reading or not reading a paper - AT ANY HOUR OF THE DAY OR NIGHT - have to do with committing a murder?

[Bud]

Unfortunately you have to address Bugliosi`s actual arguments. To do that you have to address Bugliosi`s actual words. The version you addressed did not mention that Bugliosi was talking about a morning routine of Oswald`s. You then went off addressing a lot of afternoon issues. For some reason you don`t see anything wrong with this. I think I`ve explained the problem well enough for any lurkers to catch the point.

[Ben Holmes]

What an AMUSING coward you turn out to be, "Bud!"

[Bud]

It matters that you address Buglisoi`s actual arguments.

> What an AMUSING coward you turn out to be, "Bud!"

Just keeping the lurkers up to date on your deceit.