Another Miserably Blatant Lie Told By David Von Pein...

[Ben Holmes]

>> It's a FACT that Lt. Day claims he could still see what the FBI states that they could not.
>>
>> You either provide a credible explanation for this ... or you admit that someone was lying. Which is it?
>>
>> DVP whines piteously... but fails to answer the question...
>>
>> Tell us DVP... why the cowardice?


David Von Pein:

>Holmes should know by now that Lt. J.C. Day told the FBI's Nat Pinkston on 11/22/63 (the day of the assassination) that he (Day) had been "successful in raising a partial latent print" off of Rifle C2766. [See Pinkston's FBI report below.]

Here's the relevant section:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697#relPageId=179

The report, of course, only states that Lt. Day "...had been successful in raising a partial latent print." And, as it was "dictated" on the 24th, the rifle was already back in Dallas on that date.

David knows quite well that it's the *PALMPRINT* that allegedly connects Oswald to the rifle. This FBI document does not refer to a palmprint, nor does the date help the believer's faith if one were to assume that it did refer to the palmprint.

David's a liar.

He publishes these lies in his websites, where no critical review ever takes place... it's the only way he can operate, since he gets spanked every time he tries to defend his lies in an open forum.

[David Von Pein]

Holmes can't read. The Pinkston FBI report clearly indicates the DATE when Lt. Day was successful in "raising a partial latent print" -- that date being "November 22, 1963". And that same date (11/22/63) is indicated in the lower left corner of the report, after the word "ON" --- meaning: Nat Pinkston is referring to something he did (interview Lt. Day) ON NOV. 22.

Therefore, the top date of 11/24/63 means nothing when it comes to determining WHEN things were being done that are referred to in the report. It's always the LOWER-LEFT date that is the KEY date on all of the FBI's FD-302 reports. I guess Holmes didn't know this basic fact. Now he does. (You're welcome, Ben.)

[David Von Pein]

Related discussion....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1185.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 9:57:53 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> It's a FACT that Lt. Day claims he could still see what the FBI states that they could not.
> > >>
> > >> You either provide a credible explanation for this ... or you admit that someone was lying. Which is it?
> > >>
> > >> DVP whines piteously... but fails to answer the question...
> > >>
> > >> Tell us DVP... why the cowardice?
> >
> >
> > David Von Pein:
> >
> > >Holmes should know by now that Lt. J.C. Day told the FBI's Nat Pinkston on 11/22/63 (the day of the assassination) that he (Day) had been "successful in raising a partial latent print" off of Rifle C2766. [See Pinkston's FBI report below.]
> >
> > Here's the relevant section:
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57697#relPageId=179
> >
> > The report, of course, only states that Lt. Day "...had been successful in raising a partial latent print." And, as it was "dictated" on the 24th, the rifle was already back in Dallas on that date.
> >
> > David knows quite well that it's the *PALMPRINT* that allegedly connects Oswald to the rifle. This FBI document does not refer to a palmprint, nor does the date help the believer's faith if one were to assume that it did refer to the palmprint.
> >
> > David's a liar.
> >
> > He publishes these lies in his websites, where no critical review ever takes place... it's the only way he can operate, since he gets spanked every time he tries to defend his lies in an open forum.
>
> Holmes can't read.

You're LYING again, David...

Why can't you address WHAT I ACTUALLY STATED???

> The Pinkston FBI report clearly indicates the DATE when Lt. Day was successful in "raising a partial latent print" -- that date being "November 22, 1963". And that same date (11/22/63) is indicated in the lower left corner of the report, after the word "ON" --- meaning: Nat Pinkston is referring to something he did (interview Lt. Day) ON NOV. 22.

And only a moron would think I didn't know that...

The problem, AS I STATED, was that this was actually documented AFTER the rifle had been returned to DPD control.

> Therefore, the top date of 11/24/63 means nothing when it comes to determining WHEN things were being done that are referred to in the report. It's always the LOWER-LEFT date that is the KEY date on all of the FBI's FD-302 reports. I guess Holmes didn't know this basic fact. Now he does. (You're welcome, Ben.)

Nope... you're lying again, David.

Tell us, do you really expect people to swallow the garbage you spew?

[David Von Pein]

So you're now calling Nat Pinkston a liar, right? Great.

[Ben Holmes]

Still busy molesting children, aren't you David?

I quite CLEARLY pointed out the fact that "This FBI document does not refer to a palmprint, nor does the date help the believer's faith if one were to assume that it did refer to the palmprint."

Instead of addressing what I ACTUALLY said - you simply lied.

And molesting children is quite despicable - you should seek help.

[David Von Pein]

You're a VERY sick person, Holmes. You're a disgusting and filthy human being. (Yuck!)

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that David didn't feel any requirement to tell the truth about what I'd said?

Tell us David, if you're willing to BLATANTLY LIE about what I've stated, why are you so upset that I do the same to you?

At *NO TIME* did I ever even *imply* that Nat Pinkston was a liar. Such a thing never crossed my mind BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Every single time you try to put words in my mouth that I've never said, I'm going to do the same to you... I *LEARN* from -you-.

So feel free to use ad hominem - it all reflects on you.

[David Von Pein]

I was merely pointing out that Pinkston's FBI report definitely pinpoints the DATE when Lt. Day said he found the latent print on Rifle C2766. And this statement made by you below, Ben, is NOT a fair statement at all (unless, as I said, you want to call Pinkston a liar when he wrote "November 22, 1963" in his FBI report....

"...nor does the date help the believer's faith if one were to assume that it did refer to the palmprint."

The reason the above statement is wholly unfair is because Ben has told us tonight that he KNOWS that the text within Pinkston's report (plus the "on" date in the lower left corner) make it crystal clear that Lt. Day told Pinkston ON NOV. 22 that Day had seen a "latent print" on the rifle ON NOV. 22. Not Nov. 23 or Nov. 24. But NOV. 22. Which is why I said this in my article on this matter a few years back....

"So the people who like to claim that there's no record whatsoever of Lt. Day ever telling anybody that he found a print on Oswald's rifle PRIOR to the rifle being returned by the FBI to Dallas on 11/24/63 are just flat wrong--as the FBI document shown above readily establishes." -- DVP

Ben wants to theorize that just because the Pinkston report was "dictated" on Nov. 24, this indicates the POSSIBILITY of some kind of foul play on the part of *somebody* in connection to the print on the rifle.

But I will also point out to Ben that Pinkston's FD-302 report was actually dated a day AFTER his original "memorandum" on this matter was filed. The "memo" version of that report was dated "11/23/63" at the top, which was still a day PRIOR to the rifle ever being sent back to Dallas. And the INK STAMP in the lower right part of Pinkston's memo is dated "Nov. 22, 1963"....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D72AQDuJ86U/UpqjV-JlWWI/AAAAAAAAxSg/FZTf3zwBgcc/s1600-h/Memo-Dated-11-23-63-Regarding-Lt-Day-Finding-Print-On-Rifle.jpg

So Ben's argument about the "Nov. 24" date is rendered worthless when we compare the FD-302 report to Pinkston's original memo, which is identical in its verbiage with the later FD-302 version.

[Ben Holmes]

You're a liar, David.

Here was your assertion again: "So you're now calling Nat Pinkston a liar, right? Great."

Now - you've refused to retract that lie, and you've CERTAINLY not quoted anything by me that would lead *ANY* honest person to think I was calling Nat Pinkston a liar.

Clearly... YOU LIED!


? And this statement made by you below, Ben, is NOT a fair statement at all (unless, as I said, you want to call Pinkston a liar when he wrote "November 22, 1963" in his FBI report....

>
> "...nor does the date help the believer's faith if one were to assume that it did refer to the palmprint."
>
> The reason the above statement is wholly unfair is because Ben has told us tonight that he KNOWS that the text within Pinkston's report (plus the "on" date in the lower left corner) make it crystal clear that Lt. Day told Pinkston ON NOV. 22 that Day had seen a "latent print" on the rifle ON NOV. 22. Not Nov. 23 or Nov. 24. But NOV. 22. Which is why I said this in my article on this matter a few years back....

"latent print"... not palmprint.

No-one has *EVER* denied that Lt. Day found latent fingerprints on the rifle on 11/22/63.

You won't admit that fact, of course... because you're a rather degenerate liar.


Now, do you plan to retract your claim that I was calling Nat Pinkston a liar?

Or do you prefer to prove yourself degenerate?