No-one Can Say That They Can't Learn...

[Ben Holmes]

It's true, believers are capable of learning.

No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...

But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.

So they've simply stopped doing so.

David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.

And this merely demonstrates what I've said for years... there are honest believers ... but they aren't knowledgeable.

There are knowledgeable believers, but they aren't honest... nor, quite clearly, are they courageous.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> It's true, believers are capable of learning.
>
> No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
>
> But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
>
> So they've simply stopped doing so.
>
> David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.

I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:36:51 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> >
> > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> >
> > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> >
> > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> >
> > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
>
> I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?

You're lying again, "Bud."

Red or Green?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:36:51 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

Anyone notice that "Bud" is willing to answer a post with ad hominem, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address posts that deal with the evidence in this case?

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> >
> > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> >
> > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> >
> > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> >
> > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
>
> I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
>

And being called a "coward" and a "liar" in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > >
> > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > >
> > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > >
> > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > >
> > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> >
> > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> >
>
> And being called a "coward" and a "liar"

Tut tut tut, David... I'm not *CALLING* you a coward and a liar...

I'm merely pointing out YOUR LIES AND YOUR COWARDICE.

It's *YOUR* actions that are merely being correctly labeled.


When you state something that you cannot cite for - what do you want people to do? Merely ignore your lie? Is that what you want?

The only place that lies are ignored are in the censored forum that John McAdams runs, and only because John censors any critics who point out a believer telling a lie.

In the real world, however - things get called for what they are. And if you're willing to repeatedly lie, then *certainly* you're going to need the "thick skin" you've developed.


What do *YOU* call someone who refuses to merely say "red" or "green?"

Now, I know you won't answer that question, because the only honest answer indicts you as a coward.

> in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)

Interestingly, you virtually *NEVER* attempt to argue the point when I label you a liar or a coward. Why is that, David?

And why are you so interested (as was "Bud") in answering a post that HAS NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

Could it be because debating someone's character is far more interesting to you than debating THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

Red or Green, coward... (Yep, I'm labeling you a coward in advance, in this case, because you've repeatedly proven yourself unwilling to answer this question.)

> > > And this merely demonstrates what I've said for years... there are honest believers ... but they aren't knowledgeable.
> > >
> > > There are knowledgeable believers, but they aren't honest... nor, quite clearly, are they courageous.

Notice that neither David nor "Bud" attempted to refute these facts.

[Bud]

You bring up issues and when I comment on those ideas you cut and run from my responses. You brought up the the Parkland doctors opinions that the throat wounds was an entrance and you cut and ran from what I wrote. You said that Mark Lane was honest, I posted things that showed he was not and you cut and ran from those observations. You brought up the witnesses who thought shots came from the knoll, and when I put that information in the proper context you cut and ran from my response. Since you have proven yourself to be an intellectual coward who is afraid to engage on ideas I`ve limited my responses to you. I will respond when I feel like making a response. You haven`t figured out that you aren`t running shit here and that you don`t set conditions. This is still The House of Bud and just because I let you swim in the cesspool doesn`t make you a lifeguard.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > >
> > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > >
> > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > >
> > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > >
> > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > >
> >
> > And being called a "coward" and a "liar"
>
>
> Tut tut tut, David... I'm not *CALLING* you a coward and a liar...
>
> I'm merely pointing out YOUR LIES AND YOUR COWARDICE.
>
> It's *YOUR* actions that are merely being correctly labeled.
>
>
> When you state something that you cannot cite for - what do you want people to do? Merely ignore your lie? Is that what you want?
>
> The only place that lies are ignored are in the censored forum that John McAdams runs, and only because John censors any critics who point out a believer telling a lie.
>
> In the real world, however - things get called for what they are. And if you're willing to repeatedly lie, then *certainly* you're going to need the "thick skin" you've developed.
>
>
> What do *YOU* call someone who refuses to merely say "red" or "green?"
>
> Now, I know you won't answer that question, because the only honest answer indicts you as a coward.
>

Yep. Just as I said above in my last post. Ben just can't help himself.

>
>
> > in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)
>
>
> Interestingly, you virtually *NEVER* attempt to argue the point when I label you a liar or a coward. Why is that, David?
>
> And why are you so interested (as was "Bud") in answering a post that HAS NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>
> Could it be because debating someone's character is far more interesting to you than debating THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>

If you really think I've never "debated the evidence" in the JFK case, you're lost deeper in the woods than even I had thought.

> Red or Green, coward... (Yep, I'm labeling you a coward in advance, in this case, because you've repeatedly proven yourself unwilling to answer this question.)
>

There he goes again.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:47:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > >
> > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > >
> > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > >
> > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > >
> > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> >
> > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> >
>
> And being called a "coward" and a "liar" in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)

<snicker> *That* I don`t mind. But if I try to engage on an idea and he just snips and runs as if I didn`t say anything at all, then I wonder why bother. He asserted Mark Lane was honest (and if his "Blood of the Lamb" nonsense has any validity he will have to account for statements like this someday, because every time someone says Mark Lane is honest an angel hangs itself), and when I show the dishonesty in what Lane wrote he either snips and runs or does the "NAA NAA NAA, I CAN`T HEAR YOU" routine. The question really isn`t why did I stop wasting time on him, the better question is why did I waste so much time on him previously. I still might start a few posts showing the lurkers why Ben`s brain is where rational thoughts go to die, if I can overcome my laziness.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud."

Produce *ANYTHING* from 11/22/63 that shows that the Parkland doctors said *ANYTHING* other than entry... as just one example.

You won't, of course... because you're a lying coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:15:30 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > > >
> > > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > > >
> > > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > > >
> > > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > > >
> > > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > And being called a "coward" and a "liar"
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David... I'm not *CALLING* you a coward and a liar...
> >
> > I'm merely pointing out YOUR LIES AND YOUR COWARDICE.
> >
> > It's *YOUR* actions that are merely being correctly labeled.
> >
> >
> > When you state something that you cannot cite for - what do you want people to do? Merely ignore your lie? Is that what you want?
> >
> > The only place that lies are ignored are in the censored forum that John McAdams runs, and only because John censors any critics who point out a believer telling a lie.
> >
> > In the real world, however - things get called for what they are. And if you're willing to repeatedly lie, then *certainly* you're going to need the "thick skin" you've developed.
> >
> >
> > What do *YOU* call someone who refuses to merely say "red" or "green?"

Dead silence... still the coward, eh David?

> > Now, I know you won't answer that question, because the only honest answer indicts you as a coward.
> >
>
> Yep. Just as I said above in my last post. Ben just can't help himself.

Notice that David didn't answer the question - JUST AS I PREDICTED!!!

That *IS* the action of a coward.

Tell us David, why are you whining about having your PROVABLE cowardice pointed out?

> > > in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)
> >
> >
> > Interestingly, you virtually *NEVER* attempt to argue the point when I label you a liar or a coward. Why is that, David?

Dead silence...

> > And why are you so interested (as was "Bud") in answering a post that HAS NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

More silence...

> > Could it be because debating someone's character is far more interesting to you than debating THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
> >
>
> If you really think I've never "debated the evidence" in the JFK case, you're lost deeper in the woods than even I had thought.

Tut tut tut, David... your websites aren't "debate" - you simply refuse to even answer most of the critical reviews I post here on your website posts.

YOU RUN AWAY LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE - then complain when I point out that you're running.

> > Red or Green, coward... (Yep, I'm labeling you a coward in advance, in this case, because you've repeatedly proven yourself unwilling to answer this question.)
> >
>
> There he goes again.

There's that cowardice again.

As I've previously pointed out, YOU'RE SCARED TO DEATH of the evidence in this case, and simply refuse to debate.

> > > > > And this merely demonstrates what I've said for years... there are honest believers ... but they aren't knowledgeable.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are knowledgeable believers, but they aren't honest... nor, quite clearly, are they courageous.
> >
> > Notice that neither David nor "Bud" attempted to refute these facts.

Nor did they, even when their cowardice was pointed out...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > >
> > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > >
> > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > >
> > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > >
> > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > >
> >
> > And being called a "coward" and a "liar"
>
>
> Tut tut tut, David... I'm not *CALLING* you a coward and a liar...
>
> I'm merely pointing out YOUR LIES AND YOUR COWARDICE.
>
> It's *YOUR* actions that are merely being correctly labeled.

That is how I feel when I say you are retarded. I`m not really *CALLING* you retarded, I`m merely pointing out that you write retarded things and think retarded thoughts.

> When you state something that you cannot cite for - what do you want people to do? Merely ignore your lie? Is that what you want?
>
> The only place that lies are ignored are in the censored forum that John McAdams runs, and only because John censors any critics who point out a believer telling a lie.

Getting much activity in your little slice of heaven, Ben?

> In the real world, however - things get called for what they are.

Yes, they do. And your ideas are retarded. And if you ever wrote out what they are and presented them everyone would see just how retarded you really are.

> And if you're willing to repeatedly lie, then *certainly* you're going to need the "thick skin" you've developed.
>
>
> What do *YOU* call someone who refuses to merely say "red" or "green?"
>
> Now, I know you won't answer that question, because the only honest answer indicts you as a coward.

The fact that you need to badger people rather than just produce your ideas and the support for the on the table for consideration should tell anyone everything they need to know.

> > in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)
>
>
> Interestingly, you virtually *NEVER* attempt to argue the point when I label you a liar or a coward. Why is that, David?
>
> And why are you so interested (as was "Bud") in answering a post that HAS NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>
> Could it be because debating someone's character is far more interesting to you than debating THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>
> Red or Green, coward... (Yep, I'm labeling you a coward in advance, in this case, because you've repeatedly proven yourself unwilling to answer this question.)
>
> > > > And this merely demonstrates what I've said for years... there are honest believers ... but they aren't knowledgeable.
> > > >
> > > > There are knowledgeable believers, but they aren't honest... nor, quite clearly, are they courageous.
>
> Notice that neither David nor "Bud" attempted to refute these facts.

There are two kinds of people in these newsgroups. Those that can look at the case and determine Oswald was guilty and retards.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:47:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > >
> > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > >
> > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > >
> > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > >
> > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > >
> >
> > And being called a "coward" and a "liar" in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)
>
> <snicker> *That* I don`t mind. But if I try to engage on an idea and he just snips and runs as if I didn`t say anything at all, then I wonder why bother. He asserted Mark Lane was honest (and if his "Blood of the Lamb" nonsense has any validity he will have to account for statements like this someday, because every time someone says Mark Lane is honest an angel hangs itself), and when I show the dishonesty in what Lane wrote he either snips and runs or does the "NAA NAA NAA, I CAN`T HEAR YOU" routine. The question really isn`t why did I stop wasting time on him, the better question is why did I waste so much time on him previously. I still might start a few posts showing the lurkers why Ben`s brain is where rational thoughts go to die, if I can overcome my laziness.

I've challenged you time and time again to produce even a SINGLE statement from "Rush To Judgment" - then produce the citation to the evidence that contradicts Mark Lane's statement.

You've NEVER done so.

You'll CLAIM that you already have.

You'll NEVER cite any such example... and stick around to defend it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:29:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:01:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > > >
> > > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > > >
> > > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > > >
> > > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > > >
> > > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > And being called a "coward" and a "liar"
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David... I'm not *CALLING* you a coward and a liar...
> >
> > I'm merely pointing out YOUR LIES AND YOUR COWARDICE.
> >
> > It's *YOUR* actions that are merely being correctly labeled.
>
> That is how I feel when I say you are retarded. I`m not really *CALLING* you retarded, I`m merely pointing out that you write retarded things and think retarded thoughts.

Red or Green?

Refusal to answer demonstrate both dishonesty *AND* and amazing cowardice...

Run "Bud"... RUN!!!

[Bud]

It doesn`t matter, stupid. There isn`t one minute of time spent in medical school on how to determine whether a bullet wound is an entrance or exit.

> You won't, of course... because you're a lying coward.

Now I`m not going to let you use the pool.

[Ben Holmes]

Then you have no right at all to describe it as an exit wound.

This means that there's no SBT, and therefore A PROVEN CONSPIRACY!!!

Welcome to the dark side, "Bud."


Of course, you're absolutely wrong. They do indeed teach basic elements of wounds, to include bullet wounds. And experience is the best teacher of all, and Parkland had a large number of bullet wound cases every year.

Red or Green?

Run "Bud"... RUN!!!

[Bud]

Alright, just to watch you dance I`ll use the one I pointed out a few days ago. You quoted Mark Lane from "Rush to Judgment saying...

"To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman."

Bowers actually said this...

"The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass"

Lane is lying when he asserts that Bowers is a knoll witness.

[Ben Holmes]

Which is, of course, the Grassy Knoll... as many others have recognized.

Mark Lane stated that these people "said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll" - and YOU'VE JUST PROVEN THAT MARK LANE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!


Anyone who reads his first day affidavit will notice a striking absence of anything about the TSBD, and a great deal of information about the Grassy Knoll. But you can't admit this provable fact, because it's contrary to your faith.

So "Bud," you're simply lying, and Mark Lane; who spoke with Lee Bowers, is merely telling the truth.

Interestingly, you don't mention *WHERE* Bowers was.

My guess is that you simply don't know... but his *LOCATION* is quite critical to his perceptions of where the shots came from.

Your attempt failed. You lose!


Red or Green?

Run "Bud," RUN!!!

[David Von Pein]

Almost all of Bowers' 11/22 affidavit is devoted to talking about the three cars that circled the parking lot.

Just like with Bill Newman, CTers have turned Bowers into a "conspiracy" witness, but he's really not such a witness at all (nor is Newman).

More here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html

[David Von Pein]

Any men that Bowers may have seen behind the picket fence on November 22, 1963, were so UNIMPORTANT to him on the day of the assassination itself that he didn't even bother to mention seeing those men in his voluntary statement that was written within hours of President Kennedy's assassination.

But Bowers did spend ample time in his affidavit explaining all about the three cars that circled the parking lot before the shooting. Obviously, THAT activity concerning the vehicles was much more important and significant to Mr. Bowers when it came to relating any pertinent details about the events of that day than were any of the men whom he might have seen hanging around the picket fence.

Conspiracy theorists who think Lee Bowers holds the key to unlocking the mystery that surrounds JFK's murder just might be wise to ask themselves why, in Mr. Bowers' mind on November 22, the information about CARS CIRCLING THE PARKING LOT trumped and superceded (in importance) A MAN SHOOTING AT THE PRESIDENT WITH A GUN NEAR THE PICKET FENCE?

Food for thought....isn't it?

David Von Pein
December 2007
January 2008

[Ben Holmes]

Where was the Grassy Knoll, in relation to Bowers and the TSBD?

Do you have enough honesty to publicly state it?

Do you have enough honesty to tell "Bud" that he's lying, and that Mark Lane didn't lie about Bowers *AT ALL*?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:44:20 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> Any men that Bowers may have seen behind the picket fence on November 22, 1963, were so UNIMPORTANT to him on the day of the assassination itself that he didn't even bother to mention seeing those men in his voluntary statement that was written within hours of President Kennedy's assassination.

Sheer speculation on your part.

> But Bowers did spend ample time in his affidavit explaining all about the three cars that circled the parking lot before the shooting. Obviously, THAT activity concerning the vehicles was much more important and significant to Mr. Bowers when it came to relating any pertinent details about the events of that day than were any of the men whom he might have seen hanging around the picket fence.

Why was *ANY* activity behind the fence so interesting to him?

> Conspiracy theorists who think Lee Bowers holds the key to unlocking the mystery that surrounds JFK's murder just might be wise to ask themselves why, in Mr. Bowers' mind on November 22, the information about CARS CIRCLING THE PARKING LOT trumped and superceded (in importance) A MAN SHOOTING AT THE PRESIDENT WITH A GUN NEAR THE PICKET FENCE?

Your speculation isn't evidence.

Nor is it particularly compelling.

> Food for thought....isn't it?

Nope... not at all.

The truth is simple, Lee Bowers described the shots as coming from the direction of the Grassy Knoll - EXACTLY AS MARK LANE STATED.

"Bud" lied and claimed that Mark Lane lied - *YOU* are lying by not correcting "Bud's" lie.

> David Von Pein
> December 2007
> January 2008

Speculation doesn't explain the fact that he spent time describing the activity in the direction WHERE HE ALSO SAID THAT THE SHOTS CAME FROM.

Go ahead, coward... you can run now...

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:44:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:40:07 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:31:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:30:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:47:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And being called a "coward" and a "liar" in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snicker> *That* I don`t mind. But if I try to engage on an idea and he just snips and runs as if I didn`t say anything at all, then I wonder why bother. He asserted Mark Lane was honest (and if his "Blood of the Lamb" nonsense has any validity he will have to account for statements like this someday, because every time someone says Mark Lane is honest an angel hangs itself), and when I show the dishonesty in what Lane wrote he either snips and runs or does the "NAA NAA NAA, I CAN`T HEAR YOU" routine. The question really isn`t why did I stop wasting time on him, the better question is why did I waste so much time on him previously. I still might start a few posts showing the lurkers why Ben`s brain is where rational thoughts go to die, if I can overcome my laziness.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've challenged you time and time again to produce even a SINGLE statement from "Rush To Judgment" - then produce the citation to the evidence that contradicts Mark Lane's statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've NEVER done so.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll CLAIM that you already have.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll NEVER cite any such example... and stick around to defend it.
> > > >
> > > > Alright, just to watch you dance I`ll use the one I pointed out a few days ago. You quoted Mark Lane from "Rush to Judgment saying...
> > > >
> > > > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman."
> > > >
> > > > Bowers actually said this...
> > > >

> > > > "The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."

> > >
> > >
> > > Which is, of course, the Grassy Knoll... as many others have recognized.
> > >
> > > Mark Lane stated that these people "said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll" - and YOU'VE JUST PROVEN THAT MARK LANE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone who reads his first day affidavit will notice a striking absence of anything about the TSBD, and a great deal of information about the Grassy Knoll. But you can't admit this provable fact, because it's contrary to your faith.
> > >
> > > So "Bud," you're simply lying, and Mark Lane; who spoke with Lee Bowers, is merely telling the truth.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, you don't mention *WHERE* Bowers was.
> > >
> > > My guess is that you simply don't know... but his *LOCATION* is quite critical to his perceptions of where the shots came from.
> > >
> > > Your attempt failed. You lose!
> > >
> > >
> > > Red or Green?
> > >
> > > Run "Bud," RUN!!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lane is lying when he asserts that Bowers is a knoll witness.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > And this merely demonstrates what I've said for years... there are honest believers ... but they aren't knowledgeable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are knowledgeable believers, but they aren't honest... nor, quite clearly, are they courageous.
> >
> > Almost all of Bowers' 11/22 affidavit is devoted to talking about the three cars that circled the parking lot.
> >
> > Just like with Bill Newman, CTers have turned Bowers into a "conspiracy" witness, but he's really not such a witness at all (nor is Newman).
> >
> > More here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html
>
>
> Where was the Grassy Knoll, in relation to Bowers and the TSBD?
>
> Do you have enough honesty to publicly state it?
>
> Do you have enough honesty to tell "Bud" that he's lying, and that Mark Lane didn't lie about Bowers *AT ALL*?

Mark Lane most certainly did--at the very least--bend the truth (to put it nicely) in order to get his readers to believe that Bowers thought shots had positively been fired from ONLY THE KNOLL, instead of telling his readers his actual testimony of Bowers, in which he said he thought shots came from EITHER the TSBD or "the mouth of the underpass" -- but not BOTH locations.

And since we know shots DID come from the TSBD, it doesn't take much intelligence to know WHICH of Bowers' two choices is the correct one.

Now, CTers can try and twist Bowers' words into meaning that maybe he thought shots had come from BOTH places (TSBD & Underpass), but the word he used is "OR" -- not "BOTH".

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:31:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:30:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:47:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > It's true, believers are capable of learning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No... not the evidence, they're quite afraid of most of the evidence in this case...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But they've learned that it's painful to debate a knowledgeable critic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So they've simply stopped doing so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Von Pein and "Bud" aren't the first believers to run from me, nor will they be the last.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn`t run from you Ben, you got boring. You`re an intellectual coward who runs from every point I make. If you aren`t going to engage on ideas, why are you here?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And being called a "coward" and a "liar" in virtually every single post is not exactly a policy that's likely to make your opponent want to stick around to take such abuse--day after day. (Bud and I *do* have pretty thick skins, though. But still.)
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> *That* I don`t mind. But if I try to engage on an idea and he just snips and runs as if I didn`t say anything at all, then I wonder why bother. He asserted Mark Lane was honest (and if his "Blood of the Lamb" nonsense has any validity he will have to account for statements like this someday, because every time someone says Mark Lane is honest an angel hangs itself), and when I show the dishonesty in what Lane wrote he either snips and runs or does the "NAA NAA NAA, I CAN`T HEAR YOU" routine. The question really isn`t why did I stop wasting time on him, the better question is why did I waste so much time on him previously. I still might start a few posts showing the lurkers why Ben`s brain is where rational thoughts go to die, if I can overcome my laziness.
> > >
> > >
> > > I've challenged you time and time again to produce even a SINGLE statement from "Rush To Judgment" - then produce the citation to the evidence that contradicts Mark Lane's statement.
> > >
> > > You've NEVER done so.
> > >
> > > You'll CLAIM that you already have.
> > >
> > > You'll NEVER cite any such example... and stick around to defend it.
> >
> > Alright, just to watch you dance I`ll use the one I pointed out a few days ago. You quoted Mark Lane from "Rush to Judgment saying...
> >
> > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman."
> >
> > Bowers actually said this...
> >
> > "The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass"
>
>
> Which is, of course, the Grassy Knoll... as many others have recognized.

You`re lying, of course. The mouth of the "triple underpass" is where Chief Curry was.

> Mark Lane stated that these people "said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll" - and YOU'VE JUST PROVEN THAT MARK LANE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!

Mark lied lied. Bowers said this...

"The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass"

Lane represented him as a witness to shots from the knoll. He lied.

> Anyone who reads his first day affidavit will notice a striking absence of anything about the TSBD, and a great deal of information about the Grassy Knoll. But you can't admit this provable fact, because it's contrary to your faith.

Nothing Bowers related has the slightest impact on any beliefs I have about this event.

> So "Bud," you're simply lying, and Mark Lane; who spoke with Lee Bowers, is merely telling the truth.

See, even when Lane lies Ben thinks he is being honest.

> Interestingly, you don't mention *WHERE* Bowers was.

I always go here...

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm

Gives the witnesses`s location and links to the information they related.

> My guess is that you simply don't know... but his *LOCATION* is quite critical to his perceptions of where the shots came from.

Perhaps these are approaches Lane should have opted for rather than lying.

> Your attempt failed. You lose!

See lurkers, I told you we would be treated to some dancing.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, David.

> And since we know shots DID come from the TSBD, it doesn't take much intelligence to know WHICH of Bowers' two choices is the correct one.

You're lying again, David.

> Now, CTers can try and twist Bowers' words into meaning that maybe he thought shots had come from BOTH places (TSBD & Underpass), but the word he used is "OR" -- not "BOTH".

You're lying again, David.

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.

Tell us David... why do you hate being called a liar so much, THEN POST LIES?

[Bud]

If this is something he noticed when they were renovating the TSBD the noise he heard would have been originating from there, stupid.

[David Von Pein]

It's a LIE to quote Bowers' testimony where he clearly says "OR", not "BOTH"??

[Ben Holmes]

Non-sequitur...

You clearly have problems reading and understanding what you've read, don't you "Bud."

Perhaps it's your illiteracy that explains much of your dishonesty...

Red or Green?

[Bud]

<snicker> Speaks directly to the information Bowers related.

> You clearly have problems reading and understanding what you've read, don't you "Bud."

I know exactly what he said. He said that he noticed that when they were renovating the TSBD *at that time* he couldn`t tell if the sound was coming from the TSBD or the underpass. But if they were renovating the TSBD the sound would have been coming from the TSBD. Just like on the day of the assassination, when the sound of the shots were coming from the TSBD, and he couldn`t tell which of the two locations the sound originated from.

[Ben Holmes]

Once again, you clearly have problems reading and understanding...

> > You clearly have problems reading and understanding what you've read, don't you "Bud."
>
> I know exactly what he said. He said that he noticed that when they were renovating the TSBD *at that time* he couldn`t tell if the sound was coming from the TSBD or the underpass. But if they were renovating the TSBD the sound would have been coming from the TSBD. Just like on the day of the assassination, when the sound of the shots were coming from the TSBD, and he couldn`t tell which of the two locations the sound originated from.

And despite this, you *STILL* can't figure it out!

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

Sure I can. At both times the sound came from the TSBD, during the renovations and during the shooting.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud."

And ironically, *YOU* produced the quote that proves it.


ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

Even when the retard loses he claims victory.

[Ben Holmes]

It's really a simple matter... you quote Mark Lane from "Rush To Judgment" - then you CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT **CONTRADICTS** WHAT HE SAID.

I think you apparently have problems understanding that.

But feel free to try again!

[Bud]

Lets hear you tell the same lie Mark Lane did. Is Bowers a knoll witness, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that "Bud" didn't deny this?

Indeed, each time "Bud" or David gets caught in a blatant lie, THEY JUST PRETEND THAT I'VE NEVER POINTED IT OUT, AND NEVER TRY TO DEFEND IT.

"Bud" clearly knows that there's no defense to the lie he just told, and clearly knows he's been truly caught lying.

But unlike an honest man, who would either refute the statement that they lied, OR WOULD PUBLICLY RETRACT THE STATEMENT - "Bud" simply ignores it.

> > > Even when the retard loses he claims victory.
> >
> >
> > It's really a simple matter... you quote Mark Lane from "Rush To Judgment" - then you CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT **CONTRADICTS** WHAT HE SAID.
> >
> > I think you apparently have problems understanding that.
> >
> > But feel free to try again!
>
> Lets hear you tell the same lie Mark Lane did. Is Bowers a knoll witness, Ben?

Of course he is... read his first day affidavit... pay attention to what he was trying to say when the Warren Commission cut him off.

You see, it's real simple... you produce a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - THEN YOU **CITE** THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT MARK LANE SAID.

Now, can you quote what Mark Lane said?

Then **CITE** the *CONTRARY* evidence?


The best you've been able to do is claim that he's a witness to multiple locations... and that's simply not good enough.

At least for an honest man.

[Bud]

Bud hasn`t the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Once more you seem to have idea that you can only vaguely allude to.

> But unlike an honest man, who would either refute the statement that they lied, OR WOULD PUBLICLY RETRACT THE STATEMENT - "Bud" simply ignores it.
>
>
> > > > Even when the retard loses he claims victory.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's really a simple matter... you quote Mark Lane from "Rush To Judgment" - then you CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT **CONTRADICTS** WHAT HE SAID.
> > >
> > > I think you apparently have problems understanding that.
> > >
> > > But feel free to try again!
> >
> > Lets hear you tell the same lie Mark Lane did. Is Bowers a knoll witness, Ben?
>
>
> Of course he is... read his first day affidavit... pay attention to what he was trying to say when the Warren Commission cut him off.

Now you mission is to somehow show that the information contained in Bowers` affidavit somehow makes the lie that Mark Lane told into the truth.

> You see, it's real simple... you produce a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - THEN YOU **CITE** THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT MARK LANE SAID.

Did that.

> Now, can you quote what Mark Lane said?

Did that.

> Then **CITE** the *CONTRARY* evidence?

Did that.

> The best you've been able to do is claim that he's a witness to multiple locations... and that's simply not good enough.

Yes, it is not good enough to make a claim him as a witness to one or the other. Yet that is what Mark Lane did.

> At least for an honest man.

That leaves Mark Lane out.

[Ben Holmes]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

> Once more you seem to have idea that you can only vaguely allude to.

Nothing "vague" at all... you lied, you got caught at it, you refuse to defend the lie, you refute to retract.

What's "vague?"

> > But unlike an honest man, who would either refute the statement that they lied, OR WOULD PUBLICLY RETRACT THE STATEMENT - "Bud" simply ignores it.
> >
> >
> > > > > Even when the retard loses he claims victory.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's really a simple matter... you quote Mark Lane from "Rush To Judgment" - then you CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT **CONTRADICTS** WHAT HE SAID.
> > > >
> > > > I think you apparently have problems understanding that.
> > > >
> > > > But feel free to try again!
> > >
> > > Lets hear you tell the same lie Mark Lane did. Is Bowers a knoll witness, Ben?
> >
> >
> > Of course he is... read his first day affidavit... pay attention to what he was trying to say when the Warren Commission cut him off.
>
> Now you mission is to somehow show that the information contained in Bowers` affidavit somehow makes the lie that Mark Lane told into the truth.

Nope... don't need to.

*YOU* quoted him in support of what Mark Lane stated.

> > You see, it's real simple... you produce a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - THEN YOU **CITE** THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT MARK LANE SAID.
>
> Did that.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > Now, can you quote what Mark Lane said?
>
> Did that.
>
> > Then **CITE** the *CONTRARY* evidence?
>
> Did that.

I understand why you're embarrassed to try to defend your lies.

> > The best you've been able to do is claim that he's a witness to multiple locations... and that's simply not good enough.
>
> Yes, it is not good enough to make a claim him as a witness to one or the other. Yet that is what Mark Lane did.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > At least for an honest man.
>
> That leaves Mark Lane out.

Look in a mirror, "Bud."

> > > > > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it's your illiteracy that explains much of your dishonesty...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Red or Green?

Still afraid to answer... Red or Green?

[Bud]

Yes, that is what Mark Lane did, he told an untruth in order to deceive his readers.

> > Once more you seem to have idea that you can only vaguely allude to.
>
>
> Nothing "vague" at all... you lied, you got caught at it, you refuse to defend the lie, you refute to retract.
>
> What's "vague?"

What you are talking about.

> > > But unlike an honest man, who would either refute the statement that they lied, OR WOULD PUBLICLY RETRACT THE STATEMENT - "Bud" simply ignores it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Even when the retard loses he claims victory.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's really a simple matter... you quote Mark Lane from "Rush To Judgment" - then you CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT **CONTRADICTS** WHAT HE SAID.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you apparently have problems understanding that.
> > > > >
> > > > > But feel free to try again!
> > > >
> > > > Lets hear you tell the same lie Mark Lane did. Is Bowers a knoll witness, Ben?
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course he is... read his first day affidavit... pay attention to what he was trying to say when the Warren Commission cut him off.
> >
> > Now you mission is to somehow show that the information contained in Bowers` affidavit somehow makes the lie that Mark Lane told into the truth.
>
>
> Nope... don't need to.
>
> *YOU* quoted him in support of what Mark Lane stated.

A retard might think that.

> > > You see, it's real simple... you produce a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - THEN YOU **CITE** THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT MARK LANE SAID.
> >
> > Did that.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You`re dancing Ben. This is what happens every time I show that you or Mark Lane lied.

> > > Now, can you quote what Mark Lane said?
> >
> > Did that.
> >
> > > Then **CITE** the *CONTRARY* evidence?
> >
> > Did that.
>
>
> I understand why you're embarrassed to try to defend your lies.

I understand you are are too stupid to realize I already cited the information that shows that Mark Lane lied.

> > > The best you've been able to do is claim that he's a witness to multiple locations... and that's simply not good enough.
> >
> > Yes, it is not good enough to make a claim him as a witness to one or the other. Yet that is what Mark Lane did.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Is Bowers a witness who indicated that the shots came from the grassy knoll, Ben?

>
> > > At least for an honest man.
> >
> > That leaves Mark Lane out.
>
>
> Look in a mirror, "Bud."

You should take that advice, you think Mark Lane was honest.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again...

Red or Green?