Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Hollywood" Runs When Confronted With James Chaney... (as do all believers)
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Mar 31, 2017, 11:35:07 AM3/31/17
to
Ben Holmes
>> The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Interestingly, you had absolutely nothing to say to this.
>> Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
>>
>> The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
"Hollywood" Wrote:
> And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim.
No - it doesn't. The most CREDIBLE witnesses simply weren't called. It would be silly to ask you to produce a case where a police officer was PHOTOGRAPHED watching the crime occur from less than a dozen feet away, then never asked a single question during the ensuing investigation of that crime.
It would be silly because there's a very good chance Hell will freeze over before such a thing ever happens... with the sole exception of Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
But rather than try to actually answer my question, you answer a similar, related question that I never asked. I didn't ask you if the Warren Commission took testimony from witnesses who's statements contradicted the Warren Commission's theory.
I asked you to give a credible reason why James Chaney was never even asked a single question for the Warren Commission's investigation.
You didn't answer that question... and indeed, I predict that you won't come back and try...
Another excellent witness that you cannot give a credible reason for the refusal of the Warren Commission to have testify would have been Kennedy's personal physician - the only doctor present at both Parkland and Bethesda, and the one who signed the Death Certificate. But no, once again the Warren Commission didn't want to hear anything from him.
"Hollywood" Wrote:
> Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.
Simply not true.
Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
*******************************************************
And unlike David Von Pein, who refuses to link much of his material to the original - here's the original for anyone to read:
http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-37-Refuted?pid=1888#pid1888
>> The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...
Interestingly, you had absolutely nothing to say to this.
>> Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.
>>
>> The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.
"Hollywood" Wrote:
> And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim.
No - it doesn't. The most CREDIBLE witnesses simply weren't called. It would be silly to ask you to produce a case where a police officer was PHOTOGRAPHED watching the crime occur from less than a dozen feet away, then never asked a single question during the ensuing investigation of that crime.
It would be silly because there's a very good chance Hell will freeze over before such a thing ever happens... with the sole exception of Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
But rather than try to actually answer my question, you answer a similar, related question that I never asked. I didn't ask you if the Warren Commission took testimony from witnesses who's statements contradicted the Warren Commission's theory.
I asked you to give a credible reason why James Chaney was never even asked a single question for the Warren Commission's investigation.
You didn't answer that question... and indeed, I predict that you won't come back and try...
Another excellent witness that you cannot give a credible reason for the refusal of the Warren Commission to have testify would have been Kennedy's personal physician - the only doctor present at both Parkland and Bethesda, and the one who signed the Death Certificate. But no, once again the Warren Commission didn't want to hear anything from him.
"Hollywood" Wrote:
> Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.
Simply not true.
Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.
*******************************************************
And unlike David Von Pein, who refuses to link much of his material to the original - here's the original for anyone to read:
http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-37-Refuted?pid=1888#pid1888
David Von Pein
Mar 31, 2017, 11:54:51 AM3/31/17
to
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And unlike David Von Pein, who refuses to link much of his material to the original...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A bald-faced lie uttered by Holmes there. (Par for Holmes' course, of course.)
And unlike David Von Pein, who refuses to link much of his material to the original...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A bald-faced lie uttered by Holmes there. (Par for Holmes' course, of course.)
Ben Holmes
Mar 31, 2017, 1:00:37 PM3/31/17
to
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1185.html
And find the original posts that you quote.
I invite you to CUT AND PASTE from that URL - the links you claim you've posted.
Now, I'll accept either a CUT AND PASTE URL for each of my quoted statements on that page, OR AN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR CALLING ME A LIAR.
Message has been deleted
David Von Pein
Mar 31, 2017, 1:45:50 PM3/31/17
to
I'll expect your apology no later than 7:52 PM EDT on 3/31/17 AD.
Ben Holmes
Mar 31, 2017, 3:05:11 PM3/31/17
to
On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 10:45:50 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > And unlike David Von Pein, who refuses to link much of his material to the original...
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > A bald-faced lie uttered by Holmes there. (Par for Holmes' course, of course.)
> >
> > If it were actually a "bald-faced lie" - then lurkers could go here:
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1185.html
> >
> > And find the original posts that you quote.
> >
> > I invite you to CUT AND PASTE from that URL - the links you claim you've posted.
> >
> > Now, I'll accept either a CUT AND PASTE URL for each of my quoted statements on that page, OR AN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR CALLING ME A LIAR.
Notice that David failed to provide the cut & pasted link...
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > And unlike David Von Pein, who refuses to link much of his material to the original...
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > A bald-faced lie uttered by Holmes there. (Par for Holmes' course, of course.)
> >
> > If it were actually a "bald-faced lie" - then lurkers could go here:
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1185.html
> >
> > And find the original posts that you quote.
> >
> > I invite you to CUT AND PASTE from that URL - the links you claim you've posted.
> >
> > Now, I'll accept either a CUT AND PASTE URL for each of my quoted statements on that page, OR AN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR CALLING ME A LIAR.
> That "Part 1185" page has the two source links included -- one of them is hyperlinked to the words "January 8-10, 2014"; the other is attached to the date "March 29, 2017". Holmes is just too stupid to figure out how to click on them, I guess. But that's certainly not my fault.
>
> I'll expect your apology no later than 7:52 PM EDT on 3/31/17 AD.
There isn't any way that someone could have figured out which link goes where.
You INTENTIONALLY make it extremely difficult to find the original source material.
The normal rule is to link directly under any quotes used...
As I'm always happy to do.
Your apology isn't accepted...
Run David... RUN!!!
David Von Pein
Mar 31, 2017, 3:38:18 PM3/31/17
to
Ben Holmes
Mar 31, 2017, 5:19:53 PM3/31/17
to
David Von Pein
Mar 31, 2017, 5:22:07 PM3/31/17
to
Ben Holmes
Mar 31, 2017, 6:10:28 PM3/31/17
to
Now tell us David - would it have led to fame for any of the Warren Commission staffers to have leaked the information that Oswald was a paid FBI informant?
0 new messages