Why Is David Von Pein Afraid To Cite?

[Ben Holmes]

David made a claim about April 10, 1963 and the "Walker note"... yet
refuses to support it.

Why the cowardice, David?

Your fellow believers are doing a poor job of defending you...

Lied, didn't you?

[Bud]

Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?

<snicker? What are you asking for? Get Pussy Von Pissant in here to speak for himself. It's so cute when retards come to the defense of other retards.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
>
> <snicker? What are you asking for?

For Ben to admit he lied when he said that DVP said the note was written on the 10th.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > <snicker? What are you asking for?
>
> For Ben to admit he lied when he said that DVP said the note was written on the 10th.

Is that what you think happened?

[Bud]

I think it will never happen.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker" letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.

And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker" letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.
>
> And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?

Supposing Oswald did it with the aid of his Camp Street comrades? One shooter, one lookout guy, one getaway driver. You can speculate all you want about the note alluding to April 10th, but you could never speculate in any way about Oswald having any confederates, could you? Antithetical to your religion, isn't it? Deadly sin number 3, I believe?

[David Von Pein]

Why does he need to bury the rifle if he's got a "getaway driver"?

Let me guess---Marina lied about that too, right?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Why does he need to bury the rifle if he's got a "getaway driver"?

This is your problem, David. You operate from a point of assumption, then beg the question backwards. What rifle did he bury? How do you know he buried it? Because someone said so? Did it without a shovel too, I guess?

Here's a "gotcha": how does Santa Claus get into houses that don't have chimneys? I know that's how he gets in, because that's what I've been told. I have sources that told me, so I don't need evidence of any kind.

>
> Let me guess---Marina lied about that too, right?

No! She never lied, ever. You know that. And since you know that...you might as well say so officially.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:36:53 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Why does he need to bury the rifle if he's got a "getaway driver"?
>
> This is your problem, David. You operate from a point of assumption, then beg the question backwards.

But you somehow *aren't* engaging in a "point of assumption" when you imply that LHO's "Camp Street comrades" were involved with Oswald in the Walker shooting, is that it?

Looks to me like standards have just been doubled.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:49:35 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 8:36:53 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Why does he need to bury the rifle if he's got a "getaway driver"?
> >
> > This is your problem, David. You operate from a point of assumption, then beg the question backwards.
>
> But you somehow *aren't* engaging in a "point of assumption" when you imply that LHO's "Camp Street comrades" were involved with Oswald in the Walker shooting, is that it?

No, that was a hypothetical.

You, as always, are being literal.

Just like it's not a "theory" that Oswald was alone and buried his gun, I guess using his fingers to dig a two-foot-long hole. For you, this is fact. Just like even though two people were seen running from the scene towards a car, you've simply decided it's fact they weren't involved and it's completely unrelated. No hypothetical from you. Not even the option of the possibility that they could be linked. You've just gone straight for the "nah" with no evidence whatsoever supporting your theory, or denying the alternative.

Yours is the dictionary definition of faith, and faith-based persecution. And this is just me in casual observation mode, since to me there is no skin in the game as to whether or not he shot Walker, because it has nothing to do with the JFK assassination other than the WC arbitrarily mentioned the former, and so you are forced to believe it.

Now try saying something factual (as in backed by EVIDENCE, and not the hearsay of 'wut Marina sed') without your dipshit shrugs and moronic "orb-rolls", you sellout wasteland.

>
> Looks to me like standards have just been doubled.

Now the standards have been tripled, asshole.

>
>
> > What rifle did he bury? How do you know he buried it? Because someone said so? Did it without a shovel too, I guess?
> >
> > Here's a "gotcha": how does Santa Claus get into houses that don't have chimneys? I know that's how he gets in, because that's what I've been told. I have sources that told me, so I don't need evidence of any kind.

Your silence here signals to me you're not a fan of my logic. Even though you use it regularly yourself.

> >
> > >
> > > Let me guess---Marina lied about that too, right?
> >
> > No! She never lied, ever. You know that. And since you know that...you might as well say so officially.

Being a LNer means ignoring inconvenient discrepancies like these, and pretending you didn't.

[David Von Pein]

Why not try PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER, Boris? (Can't hurt, can it?)

---Oswald receives a rifle via mail order in late March.

---Oswald takes pictures of Walker's house.

---Oswald comes home very late on April 10th. (Was Marina lying about that too? Why of course you think she was. Per CT Fantasists the world over, Marina Oswald was trying to frame her husband for yet *another* murder attempt that she really has no reason to want to frame him for at all--the Walker shooting. But she did it nonetheless, per the ABO Brigade.)

---The Oswalds move to New Orleans very shortly after the Walker incident.

And the above doesn't even include Lee Oswald's confession to his wife about the Walker murder attempt and the fact that the Walker bullet (CE573) looks exactly like CE399 in many physical respects.

And isn't the TIMING of Oswald's rifle purchase just a tad bit interesting to even an ABO clown like yourself, "Boris"? Or do you want to pretend that all of the rifle-purchase documents are fakes too?

BTW, the term "bury" doesn't have to mean that Oswald needed to dig to China to hide his rifle from the view of others. "Bury", in this case, could merely mean "placed in a ditch and covered over with leaves and debris". Lee didn't necessarily need a shovel to keep his rifle out of the sight of others.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Why not try PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER, Boris? (Can't hurt, can it?)
>
> ---Oswald receives a rifle via mail order in late March.

Right, despite mail interception. Okay, I see where you're going with this:

A.) Ignore the points I made.
B.) Pass off assumptions as if they are facts.
C.) Silently ignore the money order discrepancies.

As seen below....

>
> ---Oswald takes pictures of Walker's house.
>
> ---Oswald comes home very late on April 10th. (Was Marina lying about that too?

Since she's as big a compulsive liar as you are, there is no way to know if what she's saying is true or not. We *know* she's a compromised witness. We know it for a fact. Receiving donations and threats of deportation. Kids to protect. And beyond that, presuming that because Oswald was out late, that it means he shot Walker. Because everyone who stays out late shoots at Walker. And also presuming he did it alone.

Your allegiance to the official narrative is so blind that you wouldn't pause for a second to ask even the most basic things, or question anything. You are, of course, a zealot...and one with monetary interest in the LN narrative.

>
> ---The Oswalds move to New Orleans very shortly after the Walker incident.

Perhaps necessitating the itinerary listicle known as "the note".

>
> And the above doesn't even include Lee Oswald's confession to his wife about the Walker murder attempt and the fact that the Walker bullet (CE573) looks exactly like CE399 in many physical respects.

They look nothing alike. One is mashed to shit, as if it had actually been shot at something and made contact. The other is so neatly shaped it would slide nicely up a baby's ass without the least bit discomfort, and come out looking the same.

Also, the caliber issue. You forgot that.

No you didn't forget. You omitted it.

>
> And isn't the TIMING of Oswald's rifle purchase just a tad bit interesting to even an ABO clown like yourself, "Boris"? Or do you want to pretend that all of the rifle-purchase documents are fakes too?

As strange as the timing as making plans for potential jail time on the eve of a move to New Orleans. Are you planning jail? Or planning a move?

>
> BTW, the term "bury" doesn't have to mean that Oswald needed to dig to China to hide his rifle from the view of others. "Bury", in this case, could merely mean "placed in a ditch and covered over with leaves and debris".

Not interested in your "coulds" or "maybes". Not interested in your speculation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bury

Not interested in your hypotheticals, because you ALWAYS and ONLY speak facts, otherwise you'd be the kook, not me. So what **did** "bury" mean? Not the dictionary definition, as we see.

>
> Lee didn't necessarily need a shovel to keep his rifle out of the sight of others.

Lee didn't need lots of things.

He didn't need a shovel to dig a hole.

He didn't need a means to conceal his weapon on a bus.

He didn't need to bring with him more bullets than he intended to use in DP.

He didn't need to show Albert Bogard the license he never had in order to test-drive the car he wasn't able to drive from the dealership.

He didn't need to mail-order a rifle from a store a thousand miles away.

He didn't need cleaning equipment for his rifle.

He didn't need the better-paying job at the airport once he was in the TSBD.

He didn't need more than three wallets.

He didn't need fingerprints to write his letter to Marina.

This list could go on forever. You're a fool.

[David Healy]

you are telling critic's what lone nut faithful fear, moron.

[David Healy]

Top Post Only: Holey-Moley DVP, you just got your ass handed to you.... BIG Ouch! Great post Boris!

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:49:19 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Why not try PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER, Boris? (Can't hurt, can it?)
> >
> > ---Oswald receives a rifle via mail order in late March.
>
> Right, despite mail interception. Okay, I see where you're going with this:
>
> A.) Ignore the points I made.

It comes down to you making demands that everything be explained to you or you will believe stupid things. You are going to believe stupid regardless.

> B.) Pass off assumptions as if they are facts.

Pretty ironic. When you say Marina lied about the Walker attempt, you just assume she did, right? I mean you don`t know it for a fact.

> C.) Silently ignore the money order discrepancies.

He addresses it at length on his blog, stupid.

> As seen below....
>
> >
> > ---Oswald takes pictures of Walker's house.
> >
> > ---Oswald comes home very late on April 10th. (Was Marina lying about that too?
>
> Since she's as big a compulsive liar as you are, there is no way to know if what she's saying is true or not. We *know* she's a compromised witness. We know it for a fact.

We know you are an idiot. And we know this for a fact.

> Receiving donations and threats of deportation. Kids to protect. And beyond that, presuming that because Oswald was out late, that it means he shot Walker. Because everyone who stays out late shoots at Walker.

Everyone comes how to their wife and admits they`ve taken a shot at a political figure?

> And also presuming he did it alone.
>
> Your allegiance to the official narrative is so blind that you wouldn't pause for a second to ask even the most basic things, or question anything.

Don`t need the official narrative at all, these are simple crimes.

> You are, of course, a zealot...and one with monetary interest in the LN narrative.

You are an idiot, and you perform for free.

> >
> > ---The Oswalds move to New Orleans very shortly after the Walker incident.
>
> Perhaps necessitating the itinerary listicle known as "the note".
>
> >
> > And the above doesn't even include Lee Oswald's confession to his wife about the Walker murder attempt and the fact that the Walker bullet (CE573) looks exactly like CE399 in many physical respects.
>
> They look nothing alike. One is mashed to shit, as if it had actually been shot at something and made contact. The other is so neatly shaped it would slide nicely up a baby's ass without the least bit discomfort, and come out looking the same.

That is the sickest metaphor I`ve ever heard.

> Also, the caliber issue. You forgot that.
>
> No you didn't forget. You omitted it.

You never say anything, why is that? You claim people don`t respond to your points, why not try making one?

> >
> > And isn't the TIMING of Oswald's rifle purchase just a tad bit interesting to even an ABO clown like yourself, "Boris"? Or do you want to pretend that all of the rifle-purchase documents are fakes too?
>
> As strange as the timing as making plans for potential jail time on the eve of a move to New Orleans. Are you planning jail? Or planning a move?
>
> >
> > BTW, the term "bury" doesn't have to mean that Oswald needed to dig to China to hide his rifle from the view of others. "Bury", in this case, could merely mean "placed in a ditch and covered over with leaves and debris".
>
> Not interested in your "coulds" or "maybes". Not interested in your speculation.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bury
>
> Not interested in your hypotheticals, because you ALWAYS and ONLY speak facts, otherwise you'd be the kook, not me. So what **did** "bury" mean? Not the dictionary definition, as we see.

You can bury something under branches. You can bury something under trash. It doesn`t have to be dirt. The concept is that he took the rifle out there and concealed it.

But notice how high the bar is placed, each aspect has to be uncovered as a certainty or poor sweet Lee is an innocent man.

> >
> > Lee didn't necessarily need a shovel to keep his rifle out of the sight of others.
>
> Lee didn't need lots of things.
>
> He didn't need a shovel to dig a hole.
>
> He didn't need a means to conceal his weapon on a bus.
>
> He didn't need to bring with him more bullets than he intended to use in DP.
>
> He didn't need to show Albert Bogard the license he never had in order to test-drive the car he wasn't able to drive from the dealership.
>
> He didn't need to mail-order a rifle from a store a thousand miles away.
>
> He didn't need cleaning equipment for his rifle.
>
> He didn't need the better-paying job at the airport once he was in the TSBD.
>
> He didn't need more than three wallets.
>
> He didn't need fingerprints to write his letter to Marina.
>
> This list could go on forever. You're a fool.

This is where the WC went wrong, they couldn`t dispel every silly thought that popped into this idiot`s head. And even if they did he would just generate more.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:49:19 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >

> > Why not try PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER, Boris? (Can't hurt, can it?)
> >
> > ---Oswald receives a rifle via mail order in late March.
>
> Right, despite mail interception. Okay, I see where you're going with this:
>
> A.) Ignore the points I made.
> B.) Pass off assumptions as if they are facts.
> C.) Silently ignore the money order discrepancies.
>
> As seen below....
>
> >
> > ---Oswald takes pictures of Walker's house.
> >
> > ---Oswald comes home very late on April 10th. (Was Marina lying about that too?
>
> Since she's as big a compulsive liar as you are, there is no way to know if what she's saying is true or not. We *know* she's a compromised witness. We know it for a fact. Receiving donations and threats of deportation. Kids to protect. And beyond that, presuming that because Oswald was out late, that it means he shot Walker. Because everyone who stays out late shoots at Walker. And also presuming he did it alone.
>
> Your allegiance to the official narrative is so blind that you wouldn't pause for a second to ask even the most basic things, or question anything. You are, of course, a zealot...and one with monetary interest in the LN narrative.
>

The LN narrative is the only one that makes any sense at all. And it's a narrative that DOES fit the evidence --- CTer protests notwithstanding.

Conspiracy theorists have pretty much nothing but debunked myths and wishful thinking. But the physical evidence belongs in the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" camp. And it always has.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html

> >
> > ---The Oswalds move to New Orleans very shortly after the Walker incident.
>
> Perhaps necessitating the itinerary listicle known as "the note".
>
> >
> > And the above doesn't even include Lee Oswald's confession to his wife about the Walker murder attempt and the fact that the Walker bullet (CE573) looks exactly like CE399 in many physical respects.
>
> They look nothing alike. One is mashed to shit, as if it had actually been shot at something and made contact. The other is so neatly shaped it would slide nicely up a baby's ass without the least bit discomfort, and come out looking the same.
>

You're an idiot....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIN59nj-vbI/AAAAAAAAFQI/orGtgLLWo-E/s1600/CE573+&+CE399+Comparison.jpg

> Also, the caliber issue. You forgot that.
>
> No you didn't forget. You omitted it.
>
> >
> > And isn't the TIMING of Oswald's rifle purchase just a tad bit interesting to even an ABO clown like yourself, "Boris"? Or do you want to pretend that all of the rifle-purchase documents are fakes too?
>
> As strange as the timing as making plans for potential jail time on the eve of a move to New Orleans. Are you planning jail? Or planning a move?
>
> >
> > BTW, the term "bury" doesn't have to mean that Oswald needed to dig to China to hide his rifle from the view of others. "Bury", in this case, could merely mean "placed in a ditch and covered over with leaves and debris".
>
> Not interested in your "coulds" or "maybes". Not interested in your speculation.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bury
>
> Not interested in your hypotheticals, because you ALWAYS and ONLY speak facts, otherwise you'd be the kook, not me. So what **did** "bury" mean? Not the dictionary definition, as we see.
>

You're an idiot (again). Definition 2B fits my needs just fine -- "To cover from view"....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bury

> >
> > Lee didn't necessarily need a shovel to keep his rifle out of the sight of others.
>
> Lee didn't need lots of things.
>
> He didn't need a shovel to dig a hole.
>
> He didn't need a means to conceal his weapon on a bus.
>
> He didn't need to bring with him more bullets than he intended to use in DP.
>
> He didn't need to show Albert Bogard the license he never had in order to test-drive the car he wasn't able to drive from the dealership.
>
> He didn't need to mail-order a rifle from a store a thousand miles away.
>
> He didn't need cleaning equipment for his rifle.
>
> He didn't need the better-paying job at the airport once he was in the TSBD.
>
> He didn't need more than three wallets.
>
> He didn't need fingerprints to write his letter to Marina.
>
> This list could go on forever. You're a fool.

Nothing there but a pile of red herrings being put forth by an ABO conspiracy clown who will continue to totally ignore something known as "The Sum Total" of evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, with that Sum Total clearly indicating the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer in 1963.

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> The LN narrative is the only one that makes any sense at all.

Yeah. That he could have gotten a drive to Walker's makes no sense whatsoever, for example.

You see, there is ****no deviation whatsoever*** from the official narrative that computes in your mind. You're literally a zealot.

>
> Conspiracy theorists have pretty much nothing but debunked myths and wishful thinking.

And evidence.

>
> But the physical evidence belongs in the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" camp. And it always has.

Such as?

>
> > >
> > > ---The Oswalds move to New Orleans very shortly after the Walker incident.
> >
> > Perhaps necessitating the itinerary listicle known as "the note".

Why do you ignore everything I say, spineless?

> >
> > >
> > > And the above doesn't even include Lee Oswald's confession to his wife about the Walker murder attempt and the fact that the Walker bullet (CE573) looks exactly like CE399 in many physical respects.
> >
> > They look nothing alike. One is mashed to shit, as if it had actually been shot at something and made contact. The other is so neatly shaped it would slide nicely up a baby's ass without the least bit discomfort, and come out looking the same.
> >
>
> You're an idiot....
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIN59nj-vbI/AAAAAAAAFQI/orGtgLLWo-E/s1600/CE573+&+CE399+Comparison.jpg

Literally as I described.

>
>
>
> > Also, the caliber issue. You forgot that.
> >
> > No you didn't forget. You omitted it.

And still did.

> >
> > Lee didn't need lots of things.
> >
> > He didn't need a shovel to dig a hole.
> >
> > He didn't need a means to conceal his weapon on a bus.
> >
> > He didn't need to bring with him more bullets than he intended to use in DP.
> >
> > He didn't need to show Albert Bogard the license he never had in order to test-drive the car he wasn't able to drive from the dealership.
> >
> > He didn't need to mail-order a rifle from a store a thousand miles away.
> >
> > He didn't need cleaning equipment for his rifle.
> >
> > He didn't need the better-paying job at the airport once he was in the TSBD.
> >
> > He didn't need more than three wallets.
> >
> > He didn't need fingerprints to write his letter to Marina.
> >
> > This list could go on forever. You're a fool.
>
> Nothing there but a pile of red herrings

No, asshole. Not red herrings. They are facts. Every one of them. FACTS. The same facts you just claimed belong in the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" camp. The same facts the just seconds ago led you to claim "The LN narrative is the only one that makes any sense at all."

You're a fucking looney zealot, Von Pissant. The only difference between you and a Scientologist is, you haven't figured out how to make money off your religion.

[David Von Pein]

Yes. They are red herrings. Every single one of them.

But continue to ignore all the evidence that points to OSWALD ALONE as Kennedy's and Tippit's killer. After all, ignoring the evidence (or pretending it's all fake) is what conspiracy-happy zealots do best, 24/7.

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that David used ad hominems and logical fallacies to
evade answering the question?

Why the cowardice, David? Why are you CONTINUING to refuse to support
your lie?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:41:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:49:19 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Why not try PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER, Boris? (Can't hurt, can it?)
>> >
>> > ---Oswald receives a rifle via mail order in late March.
>>
>> Right, despite mail interception. Okay, I see where you're going with this:
>>
>> A.) Ignore the points I made.
>> B.) Pass off assumptions as if they are facts.
>> C.) Silently ignore the money order discrepancies.
>>
>> As seen below....
>>
>> >
>> > ---Oswald takes pictures of Walker's house.
>> >
>> > ---Oswald comes home very late on April 10th. (Was Marina lying about that too?
>>
>> Since she's as big a compulsive liar as you are, there is no way to know if what she's saying is true or not. We *know* she's a compromised witness. We know it for a fact. Receiving donations and threats of deportation. Kids to protect. And beyond that, presuming that because Oswald was out late, that it means he shot Walker. Because everyone who stays out late shoots at Walker. And also presuming he did it alone.
>>
>> Your allegiance to the official narrative is so blind that you wouldn't pause for a second to ask even the most basic things, or question anything. You are, of course, a zealot...and one with monetary interest in the LN narrative.
>>
>
>The LN narrative is the only one that makes any sense at all.

You're lying again, David.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:19:59 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


> Yes. Red herrings. Every single one of them.

>
> But continue to ignore all the evidence that points to OSWALD ALONE

> as Kennedy's and Tippit's killer. After all, it's what
> conspiracy-happy zealots do best. 24/7.

If this is true, why do you have to lie about the evidence, David?

Then run away when I point it out?

[Bud]

Are you afraid someone might steal your moves?

> Why the cowardice, David? Why are you CONTINUING to refuse to support
> your lie?

Loaded question. Is this all you have?

[Bud]

Why do you have to lie about DVP lying about the evidence?

> Then run away when I point it out?

Is he supposed to keep repeating things until you accept them?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Why do you have to lie about DVP lying about the evidence?
>
> > Then run away when I point it out?
>
> Is he supposed to keep repeating things until you accept them?

If he keeps repeating the wrong things incorrectly, we're just going to keep going back to all the wrong things incorrectly, into infinity.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:53:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The LN narrative is the only one that makes any sense at all.
>
> Yeah. That he could have gotten a drive to Walker's makes no sense whatsoever, for example.

He could've got a ride.

But almost assuredly he didn't.

>
> You see, there is ****no deviation whatsoever*** from the official narrative that computes in your mind. You're literally a zealot.

It's not a matter of deviation. It's a matter of what's the most likely or the most plausible. You say a cast of thousands killed Camelot culminating with LBJ ordering RFK's murder five years later, we say show us what you've got.

So far, it's been a disappointment.

>
>
> >
> > Conspiracy theorists have pretty much nothing but debunked myths and wishful thinking.
>
> And evidence.

And an inability to structure the evidence into a narrative. This is called conspiracism.

>
> >
> > But the physical evidence belongs in the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" camp. And it always has.
>
> Such as?

This is called a Fringe Reset. Boris literally wants to go over every. piece. of. evidence, again and again, and again, never satisfied with the explanations, never man enough to step up to the plate and tell us what it all means.

>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > ---The Oswalds move to New Orleans very shortly after the Walker incident.
> > >
> > > Perhaps necessitating the itinerary listicle known as "the note".
>
> Why do you ignore everything I say, spineless?

You don't say anything. Ever. You ask others to answer your begged questions.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the above doesn't even include Lee Oswald's confession to his wife about the Walker murder attempt and the fact that the Walker bullet (CE573) looks exactly like CE399 in many physical respects.
> > >
> > > They look nothing alike. One is mashed to shit, as if it had actually been shot at something and made contact. The other is so neatly shaped it would slide nicely up a baby's ass without the least bit discomfort, and come out looking the same.
> > >
> >
> > You're an idiot....
> >
> > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIN59nj-vbI/AAAAAAAAFQI/orGtgLLWo-E/s1600/CE573+&+CE399+Comparison.jpg
>
> Literally as I described.

Has anyone ever noticed the amount of references kooks make about molesting kids? Weird.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 6:38:48 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 9:53:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The LN narrative is the only one that makes any sense at all.
> >
> > Yeah. That he could have gotten a drive to Walker's makes no sense whatsoever, for example.
>
> He could've got a ride.
>
> But almost assuredly he didn't.

Why not?

>
> It's not a matter of deviation. It's a matter of what's the most likely or the most plausible.

You simply think it's implausible because it doesn't mirror the WC narrative. That's the only reason. Because the historical **standard** in large-scale assassination is confederates. Lone nuts are a deviation of the standard.

>
> You say a cast of thousands killed Camelot

No I don't, you fucking simp. I feel occasionally you need a reminder, as I've become more convinced that you truly believe this retarded shit.

>
> culminating with LBJ ordering RFK's murder five years later, we say show us what you've got.

Jesus! See above.

> >
> > >
> > > But the physical evidence belongs in the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" camp. And it always has.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> This is called

Running.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Lee didn't need lots of things.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need a shovel to dig a hole.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need a means to conceal his weapon on a bus.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need to bring with him more bullets than he intended to use in DP.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need to show Albert Bogard the license he never had in order to test-drive the car he wasn't able to drive from the dealership.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need to mail-order a rifle from a store a thousand miles away.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need cleaning equipment for his rifle.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need the better-paying job at the airport once he was in the TSBD.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need more than three wallets.
> > > >
> > > > He didn't need fingerprints to write his letter to Marina.
> > > >
> > > > This list could go on forever. You're a fool.

No comment here? Meh. Must be more of Chuck's "plausible" scenario.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:38:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>You say a cast of thousands killed Camelot...


Chuckles is telling another whopper that he'll never cite for...


When will these trolls learn that you can't convince people with lies?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Boris the Truther is typical of most kooks in that he will never come out and say what he thinks happened and how it went down. He bawls like the little toddlers he fantasizes about with pristine bullets up their rectum when it's shoved in his face that what he really believes is that THOUSANDS killed JFK by either actively planning it, carrying it out, or covering it up.

For what Boris alleges occurred would require the planning on a par with invading an island in the Pacific in WW2.

Boris has LBJ involved. Hoover. The CIA, including rank-and-file and higher ups. The FBI agents investigating the crime, and their superiors.

How many people would be involved just here, lurkers?

Evidence planters and forgers and fakers, altering films and photos and windshields and so on.

How many people, lurkers?

Mystery assassins killing Karyn Kupcinet and mystery plotters threatening a fifteen year old black kid, Amos Euins for unknown reasons. An LBJ acquiesced hit on RFK five years later through a secret mind control project to keep the lid on his involvement in JFK's assassination.

How many more people, lurkers?

A pliable press that has kept the lid on the most damaging aspects of the case that would cause riots in the streets if revealed. Involvement by the military-industrial "complex" and parallel missions with separate hit squads, spotters, etc. in Florida and Chicago.

How many more people here, lurkers?


Of course the Mob is involved, and the DPD, too. Hell, Oswald didn't even kill Tippit. All of THAT evidence is faked too.

How may more people, lurkers, and the list could go on and on and on. And none of these people have come forward in approaching six decades and laid out a specific theory. Zero. Nada. Zip.

What's the line attributed to many, including Benjamin Franklin? Three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead.

Boris doesn't have a conspiracy THEORY. He has the disease of conspiracism, whether he wants to admit it or not.

Think about it: we probably have 99.99% of all the documents out in the public domain that have been generated by the various investigations, and thousands of books have been written on the subject, with countless online posts and magazine articles and so on, and yet these turds can't even get out of the starting blocks and explain ANY of the freaky looking sh!t they see. Instead, they're reduced to asking OTHERS to explain it to their satisfaction, which is a fool's game.

So keep trying, Boris the Truther. The Midget and the Drunk buy into the hobby, but your numbers are dwindling.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Well, that was a whole lot of nothing. All's I wondered was how the imbecile could know Oswald didn't get a ride.

And we get a tantrum in response.

All LNers have "tells" that give away their frustration and defeat. Chuck's is loquacity.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:16:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Boris the Truther is typical of most kooks in that he will never
> come out and say what he thinks happened and how it went down.

Of course, if you separate the people in this forum into critics and
believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a scenario - and
defended it.

Conan was the sole believer willing to post his scenario - then
promptly ran away when it was challenged.

These are FACTS - facts that Chuckles cannot refute.

And that fact tells the tale...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:48:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:16:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Boris the Truther is typical of most kooks in that he will never
> > come out and say what he thinks happened and how it went down.
>
> Of course, if you separate the people in this forum into critics and
> believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a scenario - and
> defended it.

Who killed JFK? And if the "plot" had gone off without a hitch and there were no suspicions of additional gunmen, how does that advance your claim that it needed to be a public execution to send a message?

>
> Conan was the sole believer willing to post his scenario - then
> promptly ran away when it was challenged.
>
> These are FACTS - facts that Chuckles cannot refute.
>
> And that fact tells the tale...

Who killed JFK?

Ben: "The snipers."

And they wonder why historians laugh at them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 21:37:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:48:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:16:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Boris the Truther is typical of most kooks in that he will never
>> > come out and say what he thinks happened and how it went down.
>>
>> Of course, if you separate the people in this forum into critics and
>> believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a scenario - and
>> defended it.
>
>Who killed JFK?

You evaded what I stated. Why is that, coward? Why can't you address
the FACT that believers have repeatedly failed to offer their scenario
even as critics have.

> And if the "plot" had gone off without a hitch and there were no
> suspicions of additional gunmen, how does that advance your claim that
> it needed to be a public execution to send a message?

Let's hear you publicly refute what I stated, or publicly agree with
it, then we can change the topic (as you're desperately trying to do.)

>> Conan was the sole believer willing to post his scenario - then
>> promptly ran away when it was challenged.
>>
>> These are FACTS - facts that Chuckles cannot refute.
>>
>> And that fact tells the tale...
>
>Who killed JFK?

Logical fallacy.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:51:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 21:37:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:48:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:16:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Boris the Truther is typical of most kooks in that he will never
> >> > come out and say what he thinks happened and how it went down.
> >>
> >> Of course, if you separate the people in this forum into critics and
> >> believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a scenario - and
> >> defended it.
> >
> >Who killed JFK?
>
>
> You evaded what I stated. Why is that, coward? Why can't you address
> the FACT that believers have repeatedly failed to offer their scenario
> even as critics have.

Read the Warren Commission Report. And you've never offered a scenario. Ever. Offering a scenario would knock out all of the OTHER conspiracy scenarios that differ from yours.

>
>
> > And if the "plot" had gone off without a hitch and there were no
> > suspicions of additional gunmen, how does that advance your claim that
> > it needed to be a public execution to send a message?
>
>
> Let's hear you publicly refute what I stated,

I publicly refute what you stated.

or publicly agree with
> it, then we can change the topic (as you're desperately trying to do.)

Accomplished. Now answer the question. If it's made to look like a Lone Nut, how does your claim hold up that it needed to be a public execution to send a message?

>
>
> >> Conan was the sole believer willing to post his scenario - then
> >> promptly ran away when it was challenged.
> >>
> >> These are FACTS - facts that Chuckles cannot refute.
> >>
> >> And that fact tells the tale...
> >
> >Who killed JFK?
>
>
> Logical fallacy.

Lol, in your world, I suppose that is a logical fallacy! Answering the question would end your hobby.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:39:57 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 9:51:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 21:37:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 11:48:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:16:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Boris the Truther is typical of most kooks in that he will never
>>>>> come out and say what he thinks happened and how it went down.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if you separate the people in this forum into critics and
>>>> believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a scenario - and
>>>> defended it.
>>>
>>>Who killed JFK?
>>
>> You evaded what I stated. Why is that, coward? Why can't you address
>> the FACT that believers have repeatedly failed to offer their scenario
>> even as critics have.
>
> Read the Warren Commission Report.

I've previously refuted that.

Here you go again, the perfect refutation:
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Lie-Earth-Proof-Moving/dp/1943056013/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=flat+earth&qid=1563121440&s=gateway&sr=8-1

> And you've never offered a scenario. Ever. Offering a scenario
> would knock out all of the OTHER conspiracy scenarios that differ from
> yours.

You're lying again, Chuckles.


And *STILL* the fact remains: If you separate the people in this forum

into critics and believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a
scenario - and defended it.

>>> And if the "plot" had gone off without a hitch and there were no
>>> suspicions of additional gunmen, how does that advance your claim that
>>> it needed to be a public execution to send a message?
>>
>> Let's hear you publicly refute what I stated,
>
>I publicly refute what you stated.

You don't understand what a refutation is, do you?

>> or publicly agree with
>> it, then we can change the topic (as you're desperately trying to do.)
>
> Accomplished. Now answer the question. If it's made to look like a
> Lone Nut, how does your claim hold up that it needed to be a public
> execution to send a message?

Utilizing your EXACT tactic, I refute what you said.

Back to the topic... If you separate the people in this forum into

critics and believers, only the critics have **EVER** provided a
scenario - and defended it.

>>>> Conan was the sole believer willing to post his scenario - then
>>>> promptly ran away when it was challenged.
>>>>
>>>> These are FACTS - facts that Chuckles cannot refute.
>>>>
>>>> And that fact tells the tale...
>>>
>>>Who killed JFK?
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>
> Lol, in your world, I suppose that is a logical fallacy! Answering
> the question would end your hobby.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

Lies aren't very convincing. You need to carry your burden.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:57:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> David made a claim about April 10, 1963 and the "Walker note"... yet
>>>> refuses to support it.
>>>>
>>>> Why the cowardice, David?
>>>>
>>>> Your fellow believers are doing a poor job of defending you...
>>>>
>>>> Lied, didn't you?
>>>
>>> It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to
>>> totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker"
>>> letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the
>>> note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.
>>>
>>> And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue
>>> notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?
>>
>>
>> Anyone notice that David used ad hominems and logical fallacies to
>> evade answering the question?
>
> Are you afraid someone might steal your moves?

Anyone notice that "Chickenshit" evaded the question and posted an
empty and unsupportable claim?

>> Why the cowardice, David? Why are you CONTINUING to refuse to support
>> your lie?
>
> Loaded question. Is this all you have?

It's "loaded" because it presumes a lie. It's provably a lie because
David refuses to support it.

Nor can *you* support it - so you're lying too.

It's amusing how I point out PROVABLE lies, and you morons just run
away ...

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:10:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:00:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:19:59 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes. Red herrings. Every single one of them.
>>>
>>> But continue to ignore all the evidence that points to OSWALD ALONE
>>> as Kennedy's and Tippit's killer. After all, it's what
>>> conspiracy-happy zealots do best. 24/7.
>>
>> If this is true, why do you have to lie about the evidence, David?
>
> Why do you have to lie about DVP lying about the evidence?

David hasn't supported his date claim, neither have you. It's
therefore a *PROVEN* lie.

Indeed, I cited the WCR demonstrating that the so-called "Walker" note
had no date on it.

David ran... You ran.

>> Then run away when I point it out?
>
> Is he supposed to keep repeating things until you accept them?

No "Chickenshit"... he's supposed to do what any honest man can do
when challenged... CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT HE'S RELYING ON TO MAKE HIS
CLAIM.

But he can't.

And you can't.

You're lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
>>
>> <snicker? What are you asking for?
>
> For Ben to admit he lied when he said that DVP said the note was written on the 10th.


I didn't.

"It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
in jail or the morgue."

If the note were written on ANY OTHER DATE WHATSOEVER, David's
argument falls apart.

It **ONLY** makes sense if the note immediately preceeded April 10th.

You can't make a logical argument otherwise.


And the proof of this is simple - you won't even try.


>> Get Pussy Von Pissant in here to speak for himself. It's so cute when retards come to the defense of other retards.


David's learned his lesson about trying to debate against a
knowledgeable critic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:48:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> David made a claim about April 10, 1963 and the "Walker note"... yet
>> refuses to support it.
>>
>> Why the cowardice, David?
>>
>> Your fellow believers are doing a poor job of defending you...
>>
>> Lied, didn't you?
>

> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?

What did David say about that date?

Can you *CITE* for that date?

Can you demonstrate that the so called "Walker note" and that date
have anything in common?

Lied, didn't you, when you claimed I couldn't cite for the fact that
there's no date on that note.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:57:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:12:54 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> David made a claim about April 10, 1963 and the "Walker note"... yet
> >>>> refuses to support it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why the cowardice, David?
> >>>>
> >>>> Your fellow believers are doing a poor job of defending you...
> >>>>
> >>>> Lied, didn't you?
> >>>
> >>> It's just like a conspiracy clown (such as Benjamin Holmes) to
> >>> totally ignore the main thrust of my comments regarding the "Walker"
> >>> letter and focus only on a side issue of exactly WHEN Oswald wrote the
> >>> note. A typical diversion by a typical Anybody-But-Oswald fantasist.
> >>>
> >>> And I'm sure Holmes is willing to totally ignore Oswald's blue
> >>> notebook with the photos of Walker's backyard too. Right, Benny?
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyone notice that David used ad hominems and logical fallacies to
> >> evade answering the question?
> >
> > Are you afraid someone might steal your moves?
>
>
> Anyone notice that "Chickenshit" evaded the question and posted an
> empty and unsupportable claim?

Much of what you write is fallacious, and I point it out all the time.

>
> >> Why the cowardice, David? Why are you CONTINUING to refuse to support
> >> your lie?
> >
> > Loaded question. Is this all you have?
>
>
> It's "loaded" because it presumes a lie.

Correct.

> It's provably a lie because
> David refuses to support it.

That doesn`t follow.

And are you saying that you are lying when you refuse to support the many, many, many things I challenge you to support which you don`t?

> Nor can *you* support it - so you're lying too.
>
> It's amusing how I point out PROVABLE lies, and you morons just run
> away ...
>
> EVERY.
>
> SINGLE.
>
> TIME.

Why are you bothering to play silly games when you should be making the case that a conspiracy took JFK`s life?

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:10:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:00:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:19:59 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Yes. Red herrings. Every single one of them.
> >>>
> >>> But continue to ignore all the evidence that points to OSWALD ALONE
> >>> as Kennedy's and Tippit's killer. After all, it's what
> >>> conspiracy-happy zealots do best. 24/7.
> >>
> >> If this is true, why do you have to lie about the evidence, David?
> >
> > Why do you have to lie about DVP lying about the evidence?
>
>
> David hasn't supported his date claim, neither have you.

I`ve supported it to my satisfaction using the person the note was written to.

> It's
> therefore a *PROVEN* lie.
>
> Indeed, I cited the WCR demonstrating that the so-called "Walker" note
> had no date on it.

When did Marina say she got the note? What did she say her husband told her on his return?

> David ran... You ran.
>
>
> >> Then run away when I point it out?
> >
> > Is he supposed to keep repeating things until you accept them?
>
>
> No "Chickenshit"... he's supposed to do what any honest man can do
> when challenged... CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT HE'S RELYING ON TO MAKE HIS
> CLAIM.

How often do you do this?

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
> >>
> >> <snicker? What are you asking for?
> >
> > For Ben to admit he lied when he said that DVP said the note was written on the 10th.
>
>
> I didn't.
>
> "It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> in jail or the morgue."
>
> If the note were written on ANY OTHER DATE WHATSOEVER, David's
> argument falls apart.
>
> It **ONLY** makes sense if the note immediately preceeded April 10th.

He could have written it any time. It is when the note was given and when the attempt was made on Walker`s life that make the 10th significant. You purposely ignore all the correct context to focus on the wrong thing.

> You can't make a logical argument otherwise.

No logic needed, DVP didn`t say the note was written on the 10th. You merely lied about it.

>
> And the proof of this is simple - you won't even try.
>
>
> >> Get Pussy Von Pissant in here to speak for himself. It's so cute when retards come to the defense of other retards.
>
>
> David's learned his lesson about trying to debate against a
> knowledgeable critic.

Or a delusional idiot.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:48:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:48:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> David made a claim about April 10, 1963 and the "Walker note"... yet
> >> refuses to support it.
> >>
> >> Why the cowardice, David?
> >>
> >> Your fellow believers are doing a poor job of defending you...
> >>
> >> Lied, didn't you?
> >
> > Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
>
>
> What did David say about that date?

Doesn`t speak to the issue of you lying about what he said.

> Can you *CITE* for that date?

Why would I?

> Can you demonstrate that the so called "Walker note" and that date
> have anything in common?

To whose satisfaction?

> Lied, didn't you, when you claimed I couldn't cite for the fact that
> there's no date on that note.

You lied when you claimed that DVP said the note was written on the 10th. You should retract that lie.

[David Healy]

and here I thought they taught you how to dance at .john mcadams boot camp. You are a disgrace. Supporting a composite DVP is a worthless adventure, he (DVP) might as well be a bot! Maybe he is, eh? LMFAO!

[David Healy]

Bud we own you, Chuckles the chief squaw of the Pale White Thighs Tribe, and DVP and his deep chicken fryer. We'll with the support of Lane's RTJ dismantle your WCR lies one at a time when deemed worthy of our efforts...

You are a disinfo agent not worth a bucket of warm spit... but never leave.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
>> >>
>> >> <snicker? What are you asking for?

>> >On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
>>>>
>>>> <snicker? What are you asking for?
>>>
>>> For Ben to admit he lied when he said that DVP said the note was written on the 10th.
>>
>>
>> I didn't.
>>
>> "It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
>> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
>> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
>> in jail or the morgue."
>>
>> If the note were written on ANY OTHER DATE WHATSOEVER, David's
>> argument falls apart.
>>
>> It **ONLY** makes sense if the note immediately preceeded April 10th.
>
> He could have written it any time.

A provably false statement.

Make a credible argument that he wrote it yesterday.

If you can't, then you lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:54:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:48:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:48:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> David made a claim about April 10, 1963 and the "Walker note"... yet
>>>> refuses to support it.
>>>>
>>>> Why the cowardice, David?
>>>>
>>>> Your fellow believers are doing a poor job of defending you...
>>>>
>>>> Lied, didn't you?
>>>
>>> Did he say the note was written on the 10th, or did you lie about that?
>>
>> What did David say about that date?
>
> Doesn`t speak to the issue of you lying about what he said.

"Chickenshit" is simply TERRIFIED of the actual evidence for ANY
statement.

You can't debate cowards, all you see is them running away...

What did David say abou that date? Don't presume what I'm about to say
in order to evade answering...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:10:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 11:00:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:19:59 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Red herrings. Every single one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But continue to ignore all the evidence that points to OSWALD ALONE
>>>>> as Kennedy's and Tippit's killer. After all, it's what
>>>>> conspiracy-happy zealots do best. 24/7.
>>>>
>>>> If this is true, why do you have to lie about the evidence, David?
>>>
>>> Why do you have to lie about DVP lying about the evidence?
>>
>> David hasn't supported his date claim, neither have you.
>

> I`ve supported it....


David hasn't supported his date claim, neither have you...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:39:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>