Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #16

[Ben Holmes]

Amusingly, when believers don't have much of anything at all, they
start trying to throw a MASS of sentences and speculation to cover up
the fact that they don't have any evidence.

This one is a perfect example... and interestingly, this one even
CONTRADICTS David's claim of the "sole guilt" of anyone.


> 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
> murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.

**SHEER** speculation on David's part - he offers practically
*nothing* in support of it. Ironically, we *do* have a witness in this
case, who described *TWO* men running to their cars, both driving off
immediately after the shooting. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was
shown a photo of Oswald, and DENIED THAT OSWALD LOOKED LIKE EITHER
SUSPECT.

Another witness, Robert Surrey, stated that he'd seen two men acting
suspiciously outside Walker's house just two days prior.

So the **REAL** evidence is for **TWO** suspects, not the "sole guilt"
of anyone at all.

And you won't hear about this evidence from David.


> Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had
> shot at General Walker."

Marina lied on a rather large number of issues. Indeed, the HSCA
actually compiled a lengthy report on the lies that she'd told.

An *honest* person wouldn't convict Oswald of jaywalking based *ONLY*
on Marina's testimony.

But David isn't an honest man.

The honesty of Marina was well known to the Warren Commission as well,
A Commission’s attorney, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee
Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation
of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has
repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission
on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country
and the world.”

Knowing this, David *STILL* puts forth Marina as a witness... and
hides from everyone witnesses that contradict his theory.


> Another key fact surrounding Oswald and his killing of JFK is the
> Walker murder attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the
> case objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
> tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
> up to November 22nd.

This is something that David does *ALL THE TIME*... he presumes guilt,
then looks at all other actions as the actions of a guilty man.

In this case, he's presuming guilt of one crime, presuming guilt of
ANOTHER crime... then using the presumption of guilt from one crime to
act as "evidence" of guilt in another crime.

But where's the evidence?

Why isn't David providing EVIDENCE for all this speculation he's
doing?

Could it be that David knows full well that speculation is the best
he's got to offer?


> To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if
> this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
> sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself
> seven months later.

Yep... let's see just how *HIGH* we can pile this speculation.

The *EVIDENCE* will demolish everything David is sputtering, so we
don't see any of it.

It's left to *me* to point out the *REAL* eyewitnesses...

Why is David so afraid of the actual witnesses in this case?


> The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and rejected
> authority at just about every turn in life cannot be underestimated
> when talking of motive.

More presumptions piled on top of speculation. David offers no
evidence for his slanderous insults on someone he never knew, but it
doesn't apparently bother him.


> He admitted that he hated America (in general
> terms) for not being able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia
> and Cuba whenever it pleased him in the months just prior to November
>22.

An empty claim with no citation given. Is David afraid that honest
people will view the evidence and come to a different conclusion?

Why is David making claims that he fails to document?

Why aren't we seeing citations?

Could it be that, as in his original claim, David is simply lying
again?

Unless David steps up to the plate, and starts citing for his claims,
I'll just presume that he's doing here what he's done so many times
before, simply lying.


> As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always
> thought he was a little better than everyone else." This statement
> speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background
> and possible motive in the JFK murder.

The statement was made, of course, *after* Oswald was convicted in
public opinion of murdering the President, Tippit, wounding Connally,
and shooting at Walker.

David doesn't mention that.

Had David wanted to, I'm sure he could have come up with *TONS* of
quotes from people eager to disassociate themselves from Oswald.

But David would have an incredibly DIFFICULT time doing the same prior
to 11/22/63. And this fact tells the tale.

But did anyone notice the immense amount of speculation, and the
rather total lack of any evidence or citation in David's post?

And will any believer be honest enough to publicly acknowledge this?

For David won't... he's a coward that won't respond to this critique.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Amusingly, when believers don't have much of anything at all, they
> start trying to throw a MASS of sentences and speculation to cover up
> the fact that they don't have any evidence.
>
> This one is a perfect example... and interestingly, this one even
> CONTRADICTS David's claim of the "sole guilt" of anyone.
>
>
> > 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
> > murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.
>
> **SHEER** speculation on David's part - he offers practically
> *nothing* in support of it. Ironically, we *do* have a witness in this
> case, who described *TWO* men running to their cars, both driving off
> immediately after the shooting. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was
> shown a photo of Oswald, and DENIED THAT OSWALD LOOKED LIKE EITHER
> SUSPECT.

What makes them suspects, lurkers. Did Coleman see either person shoot at Walker?

When Oswald is seen walking away from a murder in broad daylight with a gun in his hand by numerous people this is not incriminating in the least to the retards.

> Another witness, Robert Surrey, stated that he'd seen two men acting
> suspiciously outside Walker's house just two days prior.

Which might have nothing to do with the murder attempt, lurkers. And how exactly were they acting suspiciously?

And again, when Oswald is seen in broad daylight by Brewer acting suspiciously outside his store shorty after the Tippit murder, this is nothing to these tards. They are just playing silly games.

> So the **REAL** evidence is for **TWO** suspects, not the "sole guilt"
> of anyone at all.

What makes this the *real* evidence, lurkers? Has Ben been able to establish any of these events had anything to do with the attempt on Walker`s life?

> And you won't hear about this evidence from David.

Why does Ben feel this is the correct information to focus on, lurkers? Isn`t he just *speculating* that these events were tied to the attempt on Walker`s life?

> > Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had
> > shot at General Walker."
>
> Marina lied on a rather large number of issues. Indeed, the HSCA
> actually compiled a lengthy report on the lies that she'd told.

What lies did the HSCA say Marina told the WC in her testimony, lurkers?

> An *honest* person wouldn't convict Oswald of jaywalking based *ONLY*
> on Marina's testimony.

Nobody is, lurkers.

> But David isn't an honest man.
>
> The honesty of Marina was well known to the Warren Commission as well,
> A Commission’s attorney, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee
> Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation
> of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has
> repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission
> on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country
> and the world.”

What lies, lurkers? What context?

> Knowing this, David *STILL* puts forth Marina as a witness... and
> hides from everyone witnesses that contradict his theory.

The retards want desperately to disregard Marina as a witness not because she lied, but because she is a great witness to how this event really came about, lurkers. She had a front row seat to the sicknesses of Oswald`s mind.

> > Another key fact surrounding Oswald and his killing of JFK is the
> > Walker murder attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the
> > case objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
> > tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
> > up to November 22nd.
>
> This is something that David does *ALL THE TIME*... he presumes guilt,
> then looks at all other actions as the actions of a guilty man.

Of course looking at his prior attempt at assassination lends weight to the idea that he killed Walker, lurkers. Just like his defection shows he was willing to take extreme action based on his political beliefs. Of course when you spin tarns about these things you can make pretend everything is a mystery but you make reasonable conclusions where these conclusions lead is inevitable.

> In this case, he's presuming guilt of one crime, presuming guilt of
> ANOTHER crime... then using the presumption of guilt from one crime to
> act as "evidence" of guilt in another crime.

A totally inaccurate assessment of what DVP did, lurkers. He made a series of reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. If everyone could do this there would be no conspiracy retards.

> But where's the evidence?

<snicker> The evidence has been on the table for over 50 years and the retards are still playing these "Evidence, what evidence" games, lurkers.

> Why isn't David providing EVIDENCE for all this speculation he's
> doing?

Why is Ben pretending to be unaware of the photographs of Oswald`s house in with Oswald`s possessions and the letter Oswald left his wife with instructions how to proceed if he was caught, lurkers? Watch the lengths he goes to dismiss this evidence, lurkers.

> Could it be that David knows full well that speculation is the best
> he's got to offer?
>
>
> > To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if
> > this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
> > sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself
> > seven months later.
>
> Yep... let's see just how *HIGH* we can pile this speculation.

Obviously when you make reasonable conclusions you can use them when you consider other aspects of the case, lurkers. You only need to weigh the available information correctly and resist playing the silly retards games this idiots play with that information and you`re fine.

> The *EVIDENCE* will demolish everything David is sputtering, so we
> don't see any of it.
>
> It's left to *me* to point out the *REAL* eyewitnesses...

Eyewitnesses to what, lurkers? What criminal activity connected to the Walker attempt did they observe?

> Why is David so afraid of the actual witnesses in this case?

Witnesses who may have witnessed activity totally unrelated to the crime, lurkers.

Lurkers take note how witnesses are treated if the retards think what they related helps Oswald`s case. They become the *real* evidence. If Coleman said he saw Oswald running from the scene he would be just another witness to attack or disregard. They are merely playing silly games.

> > The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and rejected
> > authority at just about every turn in life cannot be underestimated
> > when talking of motive.
>
> More presumptions piled on top of speculation. David offers no
> evidence for his slanderous insults on someone he never knew, but it
> doesn't apparently bother him.

Besides covering up for Oswald`s crimes the retards also try to cover up the fact that he was a weirdo, lurkers. Many of these conspiracy types are social misfits themselves, so they aren`t very attuned to what abnormal behavior is.

I found these things in a brief search for the consideration of you lurkers...

Charlie Kertz, the constable that evicted him from the Magazine St said "The guy was so weird. He didn`t say a word. There was a woman with him who had a child.He came down the steps, took a right, and headed toward Audubon Park".

The book "Who`s Who is the Kennedy Assassination" has...

"Neighbor`s of Oswald`s when he lived on the Magazine street apartment in New Orleans remember him as an odd duck. There are reports Oswald was often seen walking backwards."

Geneva Hine asked Shelley about Oswald...

"Miss HINE. One day I said to Mr. Shelley, "Who is that queer duck you have working down here"..."

Watch as Ben make excuses for the weirdo, lurkers.

> > He admitted that he hated America (in general
> > terms) for not being able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia
> > and Cuba whenever it pleased him in the months just prior to November
> >22.
>
> An empty claim with no citation given. Is David afraid that honest
> people will view the evidence and come to a different conclusion?

Hard to imagine anyone less suited to say what honest people will conclude than Ben, lurkers.

> Why is David making claims that he fails to document?
>
> Why aren't we seeing citations?
>
> Could it be that, as in his original claim, David is simply lying
> again?
>
> Unless David steps up to the plate, and starts citing for his claims,
> I'll just presume that he's doing here what he's done so many times
> before, simply lying.
>
>
> > As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always
> > thought he was a little better than everyone else." This statement
> > speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background
> > and possible motive in the JFK murder.

Mary Bledsoe, the woman who rented Oswald a room had a similar opinion of Oswald...

"Mrs. BLEDSOE - I didn't like his attitude. He was just kind of like this, you know, just big shot, you know, and I didn't have anything to say to him, and--but, I didn't like him. There was just something about him I didn't like or want him-- just wasn't the kind of person I wanted. Just didn't want him around me."

She got those weirdo vibes from him.

> The statement was made, of course, *after* Oswald was convicted in
> public opinion of murdering the President, Tippit, wounding Connally,
> and shooting at Walker.

Why would anyone ask him about Oswald prior to hi killing the President, lurkers?

But it is good of Ben to admit that what Marines say can`t be trusted, that has been my experience also.

> David doesn't mention that.
>
> Had David wanted to, I'm sure he could have come up with *TONS* of
> quotes from people eager to disassociate themselves from Oswald.

They are already associated with Oswald by knowing him, lurkers. If they didn`t know him they wouldn`t be asked about him.

> But David would have an incredibly DIFFICULT time doing the same prior
> to 11/22/63. And this fact tells the tale.

How stupid is this, lurkers? Why in the world would anyone be asking the acquaintances of Oswald their opinions of him prior to the assassination?

> But did anyone notice the immense amount of speculation, and the
> rather total lack of any evidence or citation in David's post?

It was filled with reasoning, lurkers, the kind that doesn`t show up on the radars of conspiracy retards.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
> murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.

I love watching LNers scramble to pin the General Walker thing on Oswald. Despite witnesses who saw two men fleeing to their cars (Oswald neither drove, nor was two men), and despite the fact Oswald would have had to ride the bus with his Carcano in tow for everyone to see (which no one saw, and believers figure this was doable anyway!!!) the thing I love most about the Walker case is...even if Oswald 100% beyond doubt shot at the man...it's still not evidence of his involvement in the assassination.

In fact, it's evidence *against.*

Because Walker's shooter was aiming at a stationary target, from a much closer distance, with all the time in the world to aim...and still missed.

JFK's assassin achieved the impossible by comparison.

Yet because this assassination attempt became part of the Oswald lore, LNers are now stuck with it. Which is their burden forever. Because as a CTer, I don't care whether he shot at Walker or not. One crime has nothing to do with the other, frankly.

Disproving the Walker story is a bonus for critics, but they don't really NEED to.

Believers NEED to prove it.

And that's the difference.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 5:16:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
> > murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.
>
> I love watching LNers scramble to pin the General Walker thing on Oswald. Despite witnesses who saw two men fleeing to their cars (Oswald neither drove, nor was two men), and despite the fact Oswald would have had to ride the bus with his Carcano in tow for everyone to see (which no one saw, and believers figure this was doable anyway!!!) the thing I love most about the Walker case is...even if Oswald 100% beyond doubt shot at the man...it's still not evidence of his involvement in the assassination.

This is what passes for thinking among conspiracy types. Oswald attempting one political assassination doesn`t speak to whether he made another attempt at political assassination. How many people attempt political assassination?

> In fact, it's evidence *against.*
>
> Because Walker's shooter was aiming at a stationary target, from a much closer distance, with all the time in the world to aim...and still missed.

But he intended to hit. Give Oswald a break, this was his first attempt to kill a political figure. He took what he learned in this attempt and applied it to his second, successful attempt at political assassination. What he learned was not to have any window sashes between him and his intended victim, so he stuck the shooting end of his rifle *out* the window.

> JFK's assassin achieved the impossible by comparison.

This shows that if you take a stupid approach you can come to stupid conclusions.

A basketball player can miss an easy layup, but make a three pointer on the next play. One doesn`t preclude the other, nor does one really speak to the other.

> Yet because this assassination attempt became part of the Oswald lore, LNers are now stuck with it. Which is their burden forever. Because as a CTer, I don't care whether he shot at Walker or not. One crime has nothing to do with the other, frankly.

Which helps make the point that these conspiracy crackpots are terrible thinkers.

When a child`s body is found that shows signs of sexual molestation do you suppose actual crime investigators check the data of known sexual predators even though this data is compiled from completely different crimes?

> Disproving the Walker story is a bonus for critics, but they don't really NEED to.
>
> Believers NEED to prove it.
>
> And that's the difference.

We only need to weigh the available information correctly and make reasonable conclusions from it. We don`t need to play the childish games these retards do with the deaths of these men.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Amusingly, when believers don't have much of anything at all, they
>> start trying to throw a MASS of sentences and speculation to cover up
>> the fact that they don't have any evidence.
>>
>> This one is a perfect example... and interestingly, this one even
>> CONTRADICTS David's claim of the "sole guilt" of anyone.
>>
>>
>> > 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
>> > murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.
>>
>> **SHEER** speculation on David's part - he offers practically
>> *nothing* in support of it. Ironically, we *do* have a witness in this
>> case, who described *TWO* men running to their cars, both driving off
>> immediately after the shooting. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was
>> shown a photo of Oswald, and DENIED THAT OSWALD LOOKED LIKE EITHER
>> SUSPECT.
>
> What makes them suspects, lurkers. Did Coleman see either person
> shoot at Walker?

Nah, people routinely start running away in a neighborhood after a
shot is fired. Perfectly normal.

Moron!

> When Oswald is seen walking away from a murder in broad daylight
> with a gun in his hand by numerous people this is not incriminating in
> the least to the retards.

You're lying again, stump.

>> Another witness, Robert Surrey, stated that he'd seen two men acting
>> suspiciously outside Walker's house just two days prior.
>
> Which might have nothing to do with the murder attempt, lurkers.
> And how exactly were they acting suspiciously?

If someone had seen *Oswald* within a mile of Walker's house, you'd be
jumping up and down for joy at the "irrefutable evidence."

This merely shows your dishonesty.

> And again, when Oswald is seen in broad daylight by Brewer acting
> suspiciously outside his store shorty after the Tippit murder, this is
> nothing to these tards. They are just playing silly games.

It would be interesting to see what he'd have said in
cross-examination.

>> So the **REAL** evidence is for **TWO** suspects, not the "sole guilt"
>> of anyone at all.
>
> What makes this the *real* evidence, lurkers?

The fact that the police took these reports after the Walker shooting
is a good clue, stump.

> Has Ben been able to establish any of these events had anything to
> do with the attempt on Walker`s life?

Far better than a proven liar asserting that Oswald was involved.

>> And you won't hear about this evidence from David.
>
> Why does Ben feel this is the correct information to focus on,
> lurkers? Isn`t he just *speculating* that these events were tied to
> the attempt on Walker`s life?

Are you *really* a moron, or are you just trying to get people to
believe that you are?

Prior to the JFK assassination, THIS *WAS* THE EVIDENCE IN THE WALKER
SHOOTING - and David quite dishonestly omitted it all.

Lying by omission - and you don't *dare* call David on it.

>> > Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had
>> > shot at General Walker."
>>
>> Marina lied on a rather large number of issues. Indeed, the HSCA
>> actually compiled a lengthy report on the lies that she'd told.
>
> What lies did the HSCA say Marina told the WC in her testimony,
> lurkers?

You're a *GUTLESS* liar, stump.

You know for a *FACT* that I've stated the simple truth about the
Warren Commission & HSCA's reservations about Marina.

I've previously cited the actual report done by the HSCA - it's
available online if you search for it.

But dufus implies it doesn't exist.

>> An *honest* person wouldn't convict Oswald of jaywalking based *ONLY*
>> on Marina's testimony.
>
> Nobody is, lurkers.

You're lying again, dufus.

You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote the "evidence" that David listed.

>> But David isn't an honest man.

Neither is stump, of course...

>> The honesty of Marina was well known to the Warren Commission as well,
>> A Commission’s attorney, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee
>> Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation
>> of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has
>> repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission
>> on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country
>> and the world.”
>
> What lies, lurkers? What context?

Are you calling Rankin a liar?

>> Knowing this, David *STILL* puts forth Marina as a witness... and
>> hides from everyone witnesses that contradict his theory.
>

> I'm a retard that desperately wants Marina because she is a great
> witness.

You're as screwy as Marina.

>> > Another key fact surrounding Oswald and his killing of JFK is the
>> > Walker murder attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the
>> > case objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
>> > tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
>> > up to November 22nd.
>>
>> This is something that David does *ALL THE TIME*... he presumes guilt,
>> then looks at all other actions as the actions of a guilty man.
>
> Of course looking at his prior attempt at assassination lends
> weight to the idea that he killed Walker, lurkers.

This is something that stump does *ALL THE TIME* ... he presumes guilt
in one crime, then uses it to prove guilt in another crime, which
proves guilt in the first crime.

>> In this case, he's presuming guilt of one crime, presuming guilt of
>> ANOTHER crime... then using the presumption of guilt from one crime to
>> act as "evidence" of guilt in another crime.
>
> A totally inaccurate assessment of what DVP did, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

Prior to the JFK assassination, no-one had EVER considered Oswald a
suspect, nor did he fit the known evidence.

>> But where's the evidence?
>
> <snicker> The evidence has been on the table for over 50 years and
> the retards are still playing these "Evidence, what evidence" games,
> lurkers.

Anyone notice that stump refused, yet again, to cite any evidence?

>> Why isn't David providing EVIDENCE for all this speculation he's
>> doing?
>
> Why is Ben pretending to be unaware of the photographs of Oswald`s
> house in with Oswald`s possessions and the letter Oswald left his wife
> with instructions how to proceed if he was caught, lurkers? Watch the
> lengths he goes to dismiss this evidence, lurkers.

Don't need to "dismiss" what David never brought up. Had he done so,
I'd have easily refuted it as well.

Watch as David refuses to respond.

>> Could it be that David knows full well that speculation is the best
>> he's got to offer?
>>
>> > To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if
>> > this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
>> > sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself
>> > seven months later.
>>
>> Yep... let's see just how *HIGH* we can pile this speculation.
>
> Obviously when you make reasonable conclusions you can use them
> when you consider other aspects of the case, lurkers. You only need to
> weigh the available information correctly and resist playing the silly
> retards games this idiots play with that information and you`re fine.

You're a liar who refuses even to acknowledge that Marina is a proven
liar...

Go ahead, liar... WEIGH THE EVIDENCE FROM A PROVEN LIAR...

But you can't.

>> The *EVIDENCE* will demolish everything David is sputtering, so we
>> don't see any of it.
>>
>> It's left to *me* to point out the *REAL* eyewitnesses...
>
> Eyewitnesses to what, lurkers? What criminal activity connected to
> the Walker attempt did they observe?

Canvassing the future crime scene, and the getaway.

>> Why is David so afraid of the actual witnesses in this case?
>
> Witnesses who may have witnessed activity totally unrelated to the
> crime, lurkers.

Only a moron would think so.

Tell you what, stump... come on by my neighborhood, and when you hear
shooting, **YOU** start running. If you get stopped by the police, you
lose.

> Lurkers take note how witnesses are treated if the retards think
> what they related helps Oswald`s case. They become the *real*
> evidence. If Coleman said he saw Oswald running from the scene he
> would be just another witness to attack or disregard. They are merely
> playing silly games.

List all evidence in the Walker case known to have existed on
11/21/63.

But you won't.

Because everything you list STILL EXISTED ON 11/22/63.

You're simply a liar to suggest otherwise.

>> > The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and rejected
>> > authority at just about every turn in life cannot be underestimated
>> > when talking of motive.
>>
>> More presumptions piled on top of speculation. David offers no
>> evidence for his slanderous insults on someone he never knew, but it
>> doesn't apparently bother him.
>

> I'm a retard and a weirdo, lurkers.

No-one cares.

> I found these things in a brief search for the consideration of you lurkers...

You mean you found more "evidence" of the same sort that David sadly
offered... merely the presumption of his guilt, then looking at
everything he said and did as if he were actually guilty.

Nothing, unfortunately, that actually predate his "conviction" by the
mass media.

>> > He admitted that he hated America (in general
>> > terms) for not being able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia
>> > and Cuba whenever it pleased him in the months just prior to November
>> >22.
>>
>> An empty claim with no citation given. Is David afraid that honest
>> people will view the evidence and come to a different conclusion?
>

> Hard to imagine anyone better suited to say what honest people will
> conclude than Ben, lurkers.

Who cares what *your* opinion is?

>> Why is David making claims that he fails to document?

Dead silence...

>> Why aren't we seeing citations?

Dead silence...

>> Could it be that, as in his original claim, David is simply lying
>> again?
>>
>> Unless David steps up to the plate, and starts citing for his claims,
>> I'll just presume that he's doing here what he's done so many times
>> before, simply lying.
>>
>>
>> > As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always
>> > thought he was a little better than everyone else." This statement
>> > speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background
>> > and possible motive in the JFK murder.
>
> Mary Bledsoe, the woman who rented Oswald a room had a similar
> opinion of Oswald...

Mary Bledsoe is one of the real kooks in this case.

stump knows he doesn't believe her...

>> The statement was made, of course, *after* Oswald was convicted in
>> public opinion of murdering the President, Tippit, wounding Connally,
>> and shooting at Walker.
>
> Why would anyone ask him about Oswald prior to hi killing the
> President, lurkers?

You mean, "prior to his conviction in the mass media for the killing
of the President."

But you aren't honest enough to say it.



> I really *like* molesting neighborhood children.

No-one in this forum cares, stump.

>> David doesn't mention that.
>>
>> Had David wanted to, I'm sure he could have come up with *TONS* of
>> quotes from people eager to disassociate themselves from Oswald.
>
> They are already associated with Oswald by knowing him, lurkers.
> If they didn`t know him they wouldn`t be asked about him.

Woosh! Right over stump's head.

>> But David would have an incredibly DIFFICULT time doing the same prior
>> to 11/22/63. And this fact tells the tale.
>
> How stupid is this, lurkers? Why in the world would anyone be
> asking the acquaintances of Oswald their opinions of him prior to the
> assassination?

stump tries to explain why he can't do it...

You lose, stump!

>> But did anyone notice the immense amount of speculation, and the
>> rather total lack of any evidence or citation in David's post?
>
> It was filled with reasoning, lurkers, the kind that doesn`t show
> up on the radars of conspiracy retards.

"Reasoning" based on a proven liar is seldom worth paying any
attention to.

>> And will any believer be honest enough to publicly acknowledge this?
>>
>> For David won't... he's a coward that won't respond to this critique.

And yet *another* prediction that has thus far come true.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 5:16:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
>> > murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.
>>
>> I love watching LNers scramble to pin the General Walker thing on Oswald. Despite witnesses who saw two men fleeing to their cars (Oswald neither drove, nor was two men), and despite the fact Oswald would have had to ride the bus with his Carcano in tow for everyone to see (which no one saw, and believers figure this was doable anyway!!!) the thing I love most about the Walker case is...even if Oswald 100% beyond doubt shot at the man...it's still not evidence of his involvement in the assassination.
>
> This is what passes for thinking among conspiracy types. Oswald
> attempting one political assassination doesn`t speak to whether he
> made another attempt at political assassination. How many people
> attempt political assassination?

Walker wasn't a politician, nor was he even on the same side
politically as JFK.

However, *both* were men. Obviously, "Oswald" hated men, and was a
serial "man" killer.

>> In fact, it's evidence *against.*
>>
>> Because Walker's shooter was aiming at a stationary target, from a much closer distance, with all the time in the world to aim...and still missed.
>
> But he intended to hit.

Another empty claim ... sheer speculation on your part.

> Give Oswald a break, this was his first
> attempt to kill a political figure.

More speculation.

> He took what he learned in this
> attempt and applied it to his second, successful attempt at political
> assassination. What he learned was not to have any window sashes
> between him and his intended victim, so he stuck the shooting end of
> his rifle *out* the window.

This doesn't even make sense to someone who shoots. Clearly, you're
showing your ignorance of shooting in this silly claim.

>> JFK's assassin achieved the impossible by comparison.
>

> This shows that I'm stupid and can come to stupid conclusions.

No-one cares, stump.

> A basketball player can miss an easy layup, but make a three
> pointer on the next play. One doesn`t preclude the other, nor does one
> really speak to the other.

Non sequitur.

The shooter who shot at Walker revealed one of two things; either he
never intended to kill Walker, or he was an incredibly poor shot.

>> Yet because this assassination attempt became part of the Oswald lore, LNers are now stuck with it. Which is their burden forever. Because as a CTer, I don't care whether he shot at Walker or not. One crime has nothing to do with the other, frankly.
>

> I'm just a crackpot and terrible thinker.

Again, no-one cares...

>> Disproving the Walker story is a bonus for critics, but they don't really NEED to.
>>
>> Believers NEED to prove it.
>>
>> And that's the difference.
>
> We only need to weigh the available information correctly

Empty claim.

You can't even publicly acknowledge that Marina lied to the Warren
Commission & HSCA.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Amusingly, when believers don't have much of anything at all, they
> >> start trying to throw a MASS of sentences and speculation to cover up
> >> the fact that they don't have any evidence.
> >>
> >> This one is a perfect example... and interestingly, this one even
> >> CONTRADICTS David's claim of the "sole guilt" of anyone.
> >>
> >>
> >> > 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
> >> > murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.
> >>
> >> **SHEER** speculation on David's part - he offers practically
> >> *nothing* in support of it. Ironically, we *do* have a witness in this
> >> case, who described *TWO* men running to their cars, both driving off
> >> immediately after the shooting. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was
> >> shown a photo of Oswald, and DENIED THAT OSWALD LOOKED LIKE EITHER
> >> SUSPECT.
> >
> > What makes them suspects, lurkers. Did Coleman see either person
> > shoot at Walker?
>
> Nah,

Thats right, lurkers, he didn`t. Ben is willing to assume that the people Coleman saw must be connected to the shooting.

> people routinely start running away in a neighborhood after a
> shot is fired. Perfectly normal.

Yes, it is normal to start running when there is a shooting, lurkers.

Ben would have you believe that all the people who rushed up the grassy knoll were all involved in Kennedy`s murder.

> Moron!
>
> > When Oswald is seen walking away from a murder in broad daylight
> > with a gun in his hand by numerous people this is not incriminating in
> > the least to the retards.
>
>
> You're lying again, stump.

Let Ben say how what I said is not accurate, lurkers.

> >> Another witness, Robert Surrey, stated that he'd seen two men acting
> >> suspiciously outside Walker's house just two days prior.
> >
> > Which might have nothing to do with the murder attempt, lurkers.
> > And how exactly were they acting suspiciously?
>
>
> If someone had seen *Oswald* within a mile of Walker's house, you'd be
> jumping up and down for joy at the "irrefutable evidence."

I assume this means that Ben can say how they were acting suspicious and can`t connect them to the Walker shooting in any real way so has opted for misdirection, lurkers.

As far as an Oswald sighting around Walker`s house, I`d weigh that information like any other, on it`s merits. The photos among Oswald`s possessions speak to him being there. They also speak to this being a planned and reconnoitered operation. This might give weight to a sighting, and each one bolster the other. If a sighting was said to have been made at a time when Oswald could not have been there, I`d give it no weight at all.

> This merely shows your dishonesty.

I merely pointed out Ben`s inability to show a connection between the supposed suspicious people and the attempt on Walker`s life, lurkers. Everyone else can be convicted on nothing.

> > And again, when Oswald is seen in broad daylight by Brewer acting
> > suspiciously outside his store shorty after the Tippit murder, this is
> > nothing to these tards. They are just playing silly games.
>
>
> It would be interesting to see what he'd have said in
> cross-examination.

Ben is trying to trump what he did say with what he didn`t, lurkers.

> >> So the **REAL** evidence is for **TWO** suspects, not the "sole guilt"
> >> of anyone at all.
> >
> > What makes this the *real* evidence, lurkers?
>
> The fact that the police took these reports after the Walker shooting
> is a good clue, stump.

That only shows that the police took the reports, lurkers, it does nothing to show that it is the *real* evidence. Ben made his usual empty claim that this evidence is significant, but flounders whenever I challenge him to show the significance.

What these things *really* are is the things retards have collected to avoid facing the reality of these events.

> > Has Ben been able to establish any of these events had anything to
> > do with the attempt on Walker`s life?
>
> Far better than a proven liar asserting that Oswald was involved.

How did he do it *far better*, lurkers? He did nothing.

> >> And you won't hear about this evidence from David.
> >
> > Why does Ben feel this is the correct information to focus on,
> > lurkers? Isn`t he just *speculating* that these events were tied to
> > the attempt on Walker`s life?
>
> Are you *really* a moron, or are you just trying to get people to
> believe that you are?

I`m using Ben`s tactics against him, lurkers, look at him howl. He isn`t showing that the people who Coleman saw running and the suspicious people reported to be outside Walker`s house were connected to the shooting. He is merely *speculating* that they were, he is establishing nothing.

> Prior to the JFK assassination, THIS *WAS* THE EVIDENCE IN THE WALKER
> SHOOTING - and David quite dishonestly omitted it all.

Evidence of what, lurkers? People running. People outside of Walker`s house prior to the attempt on Walker`s life. No connection established at all to the attempt on Walker`s life. You can`t say it is evidence of the shooting unless you can show it is evidence of the shooting, even if you put it in all caps.

If the cops took down all the license plate numbers of the cars around Walker`s house, would those numbers be evidence of the attack? They would be evidence of what they are, the license plate numbers of the cars around Walker`s house, that wouldn`t show theyw ere connected to the attempt on his life. Just because police collect information doesn`t mean all the information they collect must have a connection to the crime.

> Lying by omission - and you don't *dare* call David on it.

It is called weighing information, lurkers. This regards disregarding weak information in favor of stronger information. The tards can`t do this, or more accurately don`t want to because it interferes with the silly games they wish to play.

> >> > Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had
> >> > shot at General Walker."
> >>
> >> Marina lied on a rather large number of issues. Indeed, the HSCA
> >> actually compiled a lengthy report on the lies that she'd told.
> >
> > What lies did the HSCA say Marina told the WC in her testimony,
> > lurkers?
>
> You're a *GUTLESS* liar, stump.

Notice the ad hominem used to avoid the question I asked, lurkers. This is why he stays out of the moderated forum.

> You know for a *FACT* that I've stated the simple truth about the
> Warren Commission & HSCA's reservations about Marina.

And here is the question Ben is running from once more, lurkers...

"What lies did the HSCA say Marina told the WC in her testimony, lurkers?"

> I've previously cited the actual report done by the HSCA - it's
> available online if you search for it.
>
> But dufus implies it doesn't exist.

Ben could cited from it saying what lies Marina told in her WC testimony if it actually exists, lurkers.

Any reasonable person can read Marina`s testimony and tell that she is just someone trying to relate events as she remembers them to the best of her ability.

> >> An *honest* person wouldn't convict Oswald of jaywalking based *ONLY*
> >> on Marina's testimony.
> >
> > Nobody is, lurkers.
>
> You're lying again, dufus.

Ben is, lurkers. Nobody is trying to convict Oswald just on what Marina said. It was a stupid thing to claim.

> You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote the "evidence" that David listed.

Who claimed that DVP listed all the evidence of the Walker attempt, lurkers? Who said he listed all the evidence in support of any of his ideas?

> >> But David isn't an honest man.
>
> Neither is stump, of course...
>
>
> >> The honesty of Marina was well known to the Warren Commission as well,
> >> A Commission’s attorney, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee
> >> Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation
> >> of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has
> >> repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission
> >> on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country
> >> and the world.”
> >
> > What lies, lurkers? What context?
>
> Are you calling Rankin a liar?

Again Ben runs, lurkers. What lies? What context? "Rankin said Marina was a liar, therefore everything she said is nullified" is just how retards look at things, this does mean that reasonable people should follow their lead.

> >> Knowing this, David *STILL* puts forth Marina as a witness... and
> >> hides from everyone witnesses that contradict his theory.
> >
> > I'm a retard that desperately wants Marina because she is a great
> > witness.
>
> You're as screwy as Marina.

Ben has to change my words because he is afraid of them, lurkers. He knows they are true so he changes them to something he is more comfortable with, which is lies.

>
> >> > Another key fact surrounding Oswald and his killing of JFK is the
> >> > Walker murder attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the
> >> > case objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
> >> > tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
> >> > up to November 22nd.
> >>
> >> This is something that David does *ALL THE TIME*... he presumes guilt,
> >> then looks at all other actions as the actions of a guilty man.
> >
> > Of course looking at his prior attempt at assassination lends
> > weight to the idea that he killed Walker, lurkers.
>
> This is something that stump does *ALL THE TIME* ... he presumes guilt
> in one crime, then uses it to prove guilt in another crime, which
> proves guilt in the first crime.

I presume nothing, lurkers, I weigh the evidence and make reasonable deductions.If isn`t surprising to make reasonable deductions and have things support each other.

> >> In this case, he's presuming guilt of one crime, presuming guilt of
> >> ANOTHER crime... then using the presumption of guilt from one crime to
> >> act as "evidence" of guilt in another crime.
> >
> > A totally inaccurate assessment of what DVP did, lurkers.
>
> You're lying again, stump.
>
> Prior to the JFK assassination, no-one had EVER considered Oswald a
> suspect,

I wouldn`t say that, lurkers. From Wikipedia...

"On April 14, 1963, Mohrenschildt and his wife, Jeanne, visited the Oswalds' apartment. As Oswald's wife, Marina was showing Jeanne around the apartment, they discovered Oswald's rifle leaning against the wall inside a closet. Jeanne told George that Oswald had a rifle, and George joked to Oswald, "Were you the one who took a pot-shot at General Walker?"

But Marina didn`t turn her husband in for the Walker attempt and they hadn`t yet searched Oswald`s belongings so it isn`t surprising the police had nothing to tie Oswald to the attack. They were strangers.

> nor did he fit the known evidence.

The only evidence the police could be sure they has connected to the attack was the slug they recovered from Walker`s house, lurkers.

> >> But where's the evidence?
> >
> > <snicker> The evidence has been on the table for over 50 years and
> > the retards are still playing these "Evidence, what evidence" games,
> > lurkers.
>
> Anyone notice that stump refused, yet again, to cite any evidence?

"Evidence, what evidence?", lurkers. I mentioned what it was, the photographs of Walker`s house found among Oswald`s things, the "to-do" list he left his wife if he was caught and Marina`s testimony.

> >> Why isn't David providing EVIDENCE for all this speculation he's
> >> doing?
> >
> > Why is Ben pretending to be unaware of the photographs of Oswald`s
> > house in with Oswald`s possessions and the letter Oswald left his wife
> > with instructions how to proceed if he was caught, lurkers? Watch the
> > lengths he goes to dismiss this evidence, lurkers.
>
> Don't need to "dismiss" what David never brought up. Had he done so,
> I'd have easily refuted it as well.

The standard Ben wants to employ is "refuted to the satisfaction of a retard", which is a meaningless criteria, lurkers.

> Watch as David refuses to respond.
>
>
> >> Could it be that David knows full well that speculation is the best
> >> he's got to offer?
> >>
> >> > To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if
> >> > this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
> >> > sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself
> >> > seven months later.
> >>
> >> Yep... let's see just how *HIGH* we can pile this speculation.
> >
> > Obviously when you make reasonable conclusions you can use them
> > when you consider other aspects of the case, lurkers. You only need to
> > weigh the available information correctly and resist playing the silly
> > retards games this idiots play with that information and you`re fine.
>
> You're a liar who refuses even to acknowledge that Marina is a proven
> liar...

The retards are desperate to disregard what Marina said because Marina knew her husband better than anyone, lurkers. What she said interferes with the silly games these tards want to play with the deaths of these men.

> Go ahead, liar... WEIGH THE EVIDENCE FROM A PROVEN LIAR...
>
> But you can't.

Of course it can be done, lurkers. It isn`t even that hard if one has the ability to reason.

> >> The *EVIDENCE* will demolish everything David is sputtering, so we
> >> don't see any of it.
> >>
> >> It's left to *me* to point out the *REAL* eyewitnesses...
> >
> > Eyewitnesses to what, lurkers? What criminal activity connected to
> > the Walker attempt did they observe?
>
> Canvassing the future crime scene, and the getaway.

Ben can only imagine this is what was being done, lurkers. What were the actual suspicious actions taking place?

One might wonder what the benefit of doing this scouting in a suspicious manner was. Isn`t this something better done covertly? And was this suspicious behavior reported prior, or only retroactively deemed suspicious after the attempt?

> >> Why is David so afraid of the actual witnesses in this case?
> >
> > Witnesses who may have witnessed activity totally unrelated to the
> > crime, lurkers.
>
> Only a moron would think so.

Ben uses ad hom because he can`t support his assumptions in any real way, lurkers.

> Tell you what, stump... come on by my neighborhood, and when you hear
> shooting, **YOU** start running. If you get stopped by the police, you
> lose.

Were all the people who ran after the assassination stopped and questioned, lurkers?

> > Lurkers take note how witnesses are treated if the retards think
> > what they related helps Oswald`s case. They become the *real*
> > evidence. If Coleman said he saw Oswald running from the scene he
> > would be just another witness to attack or disregard. They are merely
> > playing silly games.
>
> List all evidence in the Walker case known to have existed on
> 11/21/63.

The bullet slug, lurkers. Maybe the mark on the fence. The window sash. Hole in the wall. That is about all the cops had that was solidly connected to the shooting.

> But you won't.
>
> Because everything you list STILL EXISTED ON 11/22/63.
>
> You're simply a liar to suggest otherwise.
>
>
> >> > The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and rejected
> >> > authority at just about every turn in life cannot be underestimated
> >> > when talking of motive.
> >>
> >> More presumptions piled on top of speculation. David offers no
> >> evidence for his slanderous insults on someone he never knew, but it
> >> doesn't apparently bother him.
> >
> > I'm a retard and a weirdo, lurkers.
>
> No-one cares.
>
>
> > I found these things in a brief search for the consideration of you lurkers...
>
> You mean you found more "evidence" of the same sort that David sadly
> offered... merely the presumption of his guilt, then looking at
> everything he said and did as if he were actually guilty.
>
> Nothing, unfortunately, that actually predate his "conviction" by the
> mass media.

Ben demands cites, but cut and runs from them when they are provided, lurkers. This is the flagship of the conspiracy retards here, a dishonest hypocrite.

>
> >> > He admitted that he hated America (in general
> >> > terms) for not being able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia
> >> > and Cuba whenever it pleased him in the months just prior to November
> >> >22.
> >>
> >> An empty claim with no citation given. Is David afraid that honest
> >> people will view the evidence and come to a different conclusion?
> >
> > Hard to imagine anyone better suited to say what honest people will
> > conclude than Ben, lurkers.
>
> Who cares what *your* opinion is?

Who elses matters, lurkers?

>
> >> Why is David making claims that he fails to document?
>
> Dead silence...

Ben wanted me to answer so he could change my words, lurkers.

>
> >> Why aren't we seeing citations?
>
> Dead silence...

Ben wants me to answer so he can cut and run from my answer, lurkers.

>
> >> Could it be that, as in his original claim, David is simply lying
> >> again?
> >>
> >> Unless David steps up to the plate, and starts citing for his claims,
> >> I'll just presume that he's doing here what he's done so many times
> >> before, simply lying.
> >>
> >>
> >> > As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always
> >> > thought he was a little better than everyone else." This statement
> >> > speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background
> >> > and possible motive in the JFK murder.
> >
> > Mary Bledsoe, the woman who rented Oswald a room had a similar
> > opinion of Oswald...
>
> Mary Bledsoe is one of the real kooks in this case.

She relates information that goes against the silly game playing of the retards, lurkers.

> stump knows he doesn't believe her...

Whatever that means, lurkers.

>
> >> The statement was made, of course, *after* Oswald was convicted in
> >> public opinion of murdering the President, Tippit, wounding Connally,
> >> and shooting at Walker.
> >
> > Why would anyone ask him about Oswald prior to hi killing the
> > President, lurkers?
>
> You mean, "prior to his conviction in the mass media for the killing
> of the President."

Ben can`t address what I actually said so he has to change it to something different, lurkers. There was no reason to ask anyone about Oswald`s personality until after he killed the President. This happens in just about every high profile murder. It is only strange that this is done to conspiracy retards.

> But you aren't honest enough to say it.
>
>
>
> > I really *like* molesting neighborhood children.

Ben wrote the above, lurkers. Another shocking admission by him.

> No-one in this forum cares, stump.
>
>
> >> David doesn't mention that.
> >>
> >> Had David wanted to, I'm sure he could have come up with *TONS* of
> >> quotes from people eager to disassociate themselves from Oswald.
> >
> > They are already associated with Oswald by knowing him, lurkers.
> > If they didn`t know him they wouldn`t be asked about him.
>
>
> Woosh! Right over stump's head.

Ben used the word "disassociate", lurkers. "associate" means "connected". They were already connected to Oswald by knowing him. If Ben had a different concept in mind he should have used a different word.

>
> >> But David would have an incredibly DIFFICULT time doing the same prior
> >> to 11/22/63. And this fact tells the tale.
> >
> > How stupid is this, lurkers? Why in the world would anyone be
> > asking the acquaintances of Oswald their opinions of him prior to the
> > assassination?
>
>
> stump tries to explain why he can't do it...

Only an idiot would think this is something that would be done, lurkers.

> You lose, stump!
>
>
> >> But did anyone notice the immense amount of speculation, and the
> >> rather total lack of any evidence or citation in David's post?
> >
> > It was filled with reasoning, lurkers, the kind that doesn`t show
> > up on the radars of conspiracy retards.
>
> "Reasoning" based on a proven liar is seldom worth paying any
> attention to.

Reasoning based on the ability to think critically and weigh evidence properly, lurkers. Ben can`t even figure out why people weren`t interested in questioning Oswald acquaintances about him before the assassination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:28:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Amusingly, when believers don't have much of anything at all, they
>> >> start trying to throw a MASS of sentences and speculation to cover up
>> >> the fact that they don't have any evidence.
>> >>
>> >> This one is a perfect example... and interestingly, this one even
>> >> CONTRADICTS David's claim of the "sole guilt" of anyone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > 16.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
>> >> > murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on April 10, 1963.
>> >>
>> >> **SHEER** speculation on David's part - he offers practically
>> >> *nothing* in support of it. Ironically, we *do* have a witness in this
>> >> case, who described *TWO* men running to their cars, both driving off
>> >> immediately after the shooting. The witness, Walter Kirk Coleman, was
>> >> shown a photo of Oswald, and DENIED THAT OSWALD LOOKED LIKE EITHER
>> >> SUSPECT.
>> >
>> > What makes them suspects, lurkers. Did Coleman see either person
>> > shoot at Walker?
>>
>> Nah,
>
> Thats right, lurkers, he didn`t. Ben is willing to assume that the
> people Coleman saw must be connected to the shooting.

Lurkers need to keep in mind just who is always claiming that you need
to be able to judge the evidence correctly...

>> people routinely start running away in a neighborhood after a
>> shot is fired. Perfectly normal.
>
> Yes, it is normal to start running when there is a shooting,
> lurkers.

How many people were running, stump?

> Ben would have you believe that all the people who rushed up the
> grassy knoll were all involved in Kennedy`s murder.

Another good example of stump's inability to judge the evidence.

>> Moron!
>>
>> > When Oswald is seen walking away from a murder in broad daylight
>> > with a gun in his hand by numerous people this is not incriminating in
>> > the least to the retards.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.
>
> Let Ben say how what I said is not accurate, lurkers.

Your speculation & opinion isn't legally admissible, stump.

>> >> Another witness, Robert Surrey, stated that he'd seen two men acting
>> >> suspiciously outside Walker's house just two days prior.
>> >
>> > Which might have nothing to do with the murder attempt, lurkers.
>> > And how exactly were they acting suspiciously?
>>
>>
>> If someone had seen *Oswald* within a mile of Walker's house, you'd be
>> jumping up and down for joy at the "irrefutable evidence."
>
> I assume this means that Ben can say how they were acting
> suspicious and can`t connect them to the Walker shooting in any real
> way so has opted for misdirection, lurkers.

Anyone notice that stump couldn't deny what I'd stated?

> As far as an Oswald sighting around Walker`s house, I`d weigh that
> information like any other, on it`s merits. The photos among Oswald`s
> possessions speak to him being there. They also speak to this being a
> planned and reconnoitered operation. This might give weight to a
> sighting, and each one bolster the other. If a sighting was said to
> have been made at a time when Oswald could not have been there, I`d
> give it no weight at all.

stump all but admits that my statement is correct!!!

What a maroon!

>> This merely shows your dishonesty.
>
> I merely pointed out Ben`s inability to show a connection between
> the supposed suspicious people and the attempt on Walker`s life,
> lurkers. Everyone else can be convicted on nothing.

stump clearly believes that Oswald took the shot, then two random
people started running away, hopped in their cars, and drove away.

This is the stump who claims to judge the evidence correctly!

>> > And again, when Oswald is seen in broad daylight by Brewer acting
>> > suspiciously outside his store shorty after the Tippit murder, this is
>> > nothing to these tards. They are just playing silly games.
>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to see what he'd have said in
>> cross-examination.
>
> Ben is trying to trump what he did say with what he didn`t, lurkers.

You bring up a new topic, then complain because I hadn't *previously*
replied to it.

JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU DUFUS?

>> >> So the **REAL** evidence is for **TWO** suspects, not the "sole guilt"
>> >> of anyone at all.
>> >
>> > What makes this the *real* evidence, lurkers?
>>
>> The fact that the police took these reports after the Walker shooting
>> is a good clue, stump.
>
> That only shows that the police took the reports, lurkers, it does
> nothing to show that it is the *real* evidence. Ben made his usual
> empty claim that this evidence is significant, but flounders whenever
> I challenge him to show the significance.

Your *denial* that it's evidence is moronic.

You'll refuse to cite for your claim.


> I'm retarded and avoid facing the reality of these events.

Yep.

>> > Has Ben been able to establish any of these events had anything to
>> > do with the attempt on Walker`s life?
>>
>> Far better than a proven liar asserting that Oswald was involved.
>
> How did he do it *far better*, lurkers? He did nothing.

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> And you won't hear about this evidence from David.
>> >
>> > Why does Ben feel this is the correct information to focus on,
>> > lurkers? Isn`t he just *speculating* that these events were tied to
>> > the attempt on Walker`s life?
>>
>> Are you *really* a moron, or are you just trying to get people to
>> believe that you are?
>
> I`m using Ben`s tactics against him, lurkers,

I use the evidence.

What evidence are you using, dufus?

> look at him howl. He isn`t showing that the people who Coleman saw
> running and the suspicious people reported to be outside Walker`s
> house were connected to the shooting.

That's up to the district attorney. He takes the EVIDENCE compiled by
the police, and draws the correct conclusions.

For if they're not correct, the jury will decide.

> He is merely *speculating* that they were, he is
> establishing nothing.

I've established that the *EVIDENCE* that existed on 11/21 didn't
involve Oswald at all. I've established that you're a liar who refuses
to cite anything for your claim that this isn't evidence in the Walker
shooting.

>> Prior to the JFK assassination, THIS *WAS* THE EVIDENCE IN THE WALKER
>> SHOOTING - and David quite dishonestly omitted it all.
>
> Evidence of what, lurkers? People running. People outside of
> Walker`s house prior to the attempt on Walker`s life. No connection
> established at all to the attempt on Walker`s life. You can`t say it
> is evidence of the shooting unless you can show it is evidence of the
> shooting, even if you put it in all caps.

stump confuses "evidence" with "proof" - believers do this frequently.
It's one of the reasons that they refuse to cite for the meaning of
the term "evidence."

> If the cops took down all the license plate numbers of the cars
> around Walker`s house, would those numbers be evidence of the attack?
> They would be evidence of what they are, the license plate numbers of
> the cars around Walker`s house, that wouldn`t show theyw ere connected
> to the attempt on his life. Just because police collect information
> doesn`t mean all the information they collect must have a connection
> to the crime.

Amusingly, this *IS* one of the newer tactics of police, to be able to
track back in time the suspect.

stump admits that it's evidence.

>> Lying by omission - and you don't *dare* call David on it.
>
> It is called weighing information, lurkers.

Ah! So when a believer lies by omission, *YOU* think it's "weighing
information".

But when Mark Lane does it...

> I'm just a tard that can't weigh the evidence.

Yep.

>> >> > Marina Oswald herself testifies that "He [Lee]...told me that he had
>> >> > shot at General Walker."
>> >>
>> >> Marina lied on a rather large number of issues. Indeed, the HSCA
>> >> actually compiled a lengthy report on the lies that she'd told.
>> >
>> > What lies did the HSCA say Marina told the WC in her testimony,
>> > lurkers?
>>
>> You're a *GUTLESS* liar, stump.
>
> Notice the ad hominem used to avoid the question I asked, lurkers.
> This is why he stays out of the moderated forum.

Notice the BLATANT lie that stump told? He quite clearly implied that
no lies were told by Marina. Yet I've cited in the past the document
written up by HSCA attorneys that DETAILED the lies she'd told.

stump continues to lie...

>> You know for a *FACT* that I've stated the simple truth about the
>> Warren Commission & HSCA's reservations about Marina.
>
> And here is the question Ben is running from once more, lurkers...
>
> "What lies did the HSCA say Marina told the WC in her testimony, lurkers?"

Simply read the HSCA report on those lies. It's titled "Marina Oswald
Porter's Statements of a Contradictory Nature."

But you're too dishonest to simply acknowledge historical truth.

Marina is a *PROVEN* liar.

>> I've previously cited the actual report done by the HSCA - it's
>> available online if you search for it.
>>
>> But dufus implies it doesn't exist.
>
> Ben could cited from it saying what lies Marina told in her WC
> testimony if it actually exists, lurkers.

Certainly. On the day of the alleged Walker shooting (Wednesday), she
told the WC that Oswald went to work as usual - that he didn't lose
his job until Friday - In "Marina & Lee" she'd stated that he'd
confessed losing his job on the morning of the 10th (Wednesday).

Those two statements are contradictory - one is a lie.

Feel free to look up "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements of a
Contradictory Nature." and view for yourself.

> Any reasonable person can read Marina`s testimony and tell that
> she is just someone trying to relate events as she remembers them to
> the best of her ability.

Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA would call you a liar. They
*BOTH* recognized the many lies told by Marina.

On what basis, or with what evidence do you contradict the attorneys
who actually questioned Marina for hours at a time?

>> >> An *honest* person wouldn't convict Oswald of jaywalking based *ONLY*
>> >> on Marina's testimony.
>> >
>> > Nobody is, lurkers.
>>
>> You're lying again, dufus.
>
> Ben is, lurkers. Nobody is trying to convict Oswald just on what
> Marina said. It was a stupid thing to claim.

Then you'll refuse to offer anything from Marina in the future as
evidence?

And use only *other* evidence to support your faith?


You can't do it.

Too much is dependent on Marina and her lies.

>> You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote the "evidence" that David listed.
>
> Who claimed that DVP listed all the evidence of the Walker attempt,
> lurkers? Who said he listed all the evidence in support of any of his
> ideas?

Yep... I said "You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote the "evidence" that
David listed."

And you obediently followed my order.

Good stump... good!

>> >> But David isn't an honest man.
>>
>> Neither is stump, of course...
>>
>>
>> >> The honesty of Marina was well known to the Warren Commission as well,
>> >> A Commission’s attorney, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee
>> >> Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation
>> >> of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has
>> >> repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission
>> >> on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country
>> >> and the world.”
>> >
>> > What lies, lurkers? What context?
>>
>> Are you calling Rankin a liar?
>
> Again Ben runs, lurkers.

Are you calling Rankin a liar?

It's a simple question.

Why are *YOU* running, stump?


> What lies? What context?

Some have been documented in the 29 page report that I've referred to
and cited a number of times now...




"Rankin said






> Marina was a liar isn't how a retard like me look at things.

Who cares about your empty claims? Why can't you cite?

>> >> Knowing this, David *STILL* puts forth Marina as a witness... and
>> >> hides from everyone witnesses that contradict his theory.
>> >
>> > I'm a retard that desperately wants Marina because she is a great
>> > witness.
>>
>> You're as screwy as Marina.
>
> Ben has to change my words because he is afraid of them, lurkers.

It's not me who's using ad hominem in place of evidence or logical
argument.

>> >> > Another key fact surrounding Oswald and his killing of JFK is the
>> >> > Walker murder attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the
>> >> > case objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
>> >> > tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
>> >> > up to November 22nd.
>> >>
>> >> This is something that David does *ALL THE TIME*... he presumes guilt,
>> >> then looks at all other actions as the actions of a guilty man.
>> >
>> > Of course looking at his prior attempt at assassination lends
>> > weight to the idea that he killed Walker, lurkers.
>>
>> This is something that stump does *ALL THE TIME* ... he presumes guilt
>> in one crime, then uses it to prove guilt in another crime, which
>> proves guilt in the first crime.
>
> I presume nothing, lurkers, I weigh the evidence and make
> reasonable deductions.If isn`t surprising to make reasonable
> deductions and have things support each other.

stump can't make the "reasonable conclusion" that Marina is a liar,
despite the many lies she told.

>> >> In this case, he's presuming guilt of one crime, presuming guilt of
>> >> ANOTHER crime... then using the presumption of guilt from one crime to
>> >> act as "evidence" of guilt in another crime.
>> >
>> > A totally inaccurate assessment of what DVP did, lurkers.
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.
>>
>> Prior to the JFK assassination, no-one had EVER considered Oswald a
>> suspect,
>
> I wouldn`t say that, lurkers. From Wikipedia...

Tut tut tut stump.

No "Wikipedia" cites allowed.

See if you can make your point by using *real* evidence.

>> nor did he fit the known evidence.
>
> The only evidence the police could be sure they has connected to
> the attack was the slug they recovered from Walker`s house, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> But where's the evidence?
>> >
>> > <snicker> The evidence has been on the table for over 50 years and
>> > the retards are still playing these "Evidence, what evidence" games,
>> > lurkers.
>>
>> Anyone notice that stump refused, yet again, to cite any evidence?
>
> "Evidence, what evidence?", lurkers. I mentioned what it was, the
> photographs of Walker`s house found among Oswald`s things, the "to-do"
> list he left his wife if he was caught and Marina`s testimony.

If you can document the photo *BEFORE* the FBI altered the evidence,
then I'll take a look at it. But the FBI confiscated all the evidence
in this case early on, then returned it later - but when it was
returned, the numbers didn't match up - what they "returned" was far
more than what was taken.

"After the FBI returned the evidence to the Dallas Police on November
26, the FBI and Dallas Police jointly photographed, numbered, and
inventoried all items. Each item was listed and numbered individually,
line by line, and appear on Warren Commission Exhibit CE 2003, pp
263-283. But CE 2003 shows 455 items of evidence—not the 225 items of
evidence originally sent to the FBI on November 23—but 455 items of
evidence!! From November 23 through November 26 the FBI added over 230
items of evidence to the original 225 items, and then quietly returned
the “evidence” to the Dallas Police."
http://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html

As for the "to-do" list, it doesn't mention Walker, and cannot be
connected to the alleged shooting. Indeed, I'd wonder if this document
was ever handled by Oswald & Marina - since their fingerprints weren't
found on it, and 7 other prints were (that couldn't be identified.)
Only one of the three HSCA handwriting experts thought that this was
authentic.

See how easy it is to turn your "evidence" into garbage?

>> >> Why isn't David providing EVIDENCE for all this speculation he's
>> >> doing?
>> >
>> > Why is Ben pretending to be unaware of the photographs of Oswald`s
>> > house in with Oswald`s possessions and the letter Oswald left his wife
>> > with instructions how to proceed if he was caught, lurkers? Watch the
>> > lengths he goes to dismiss this evidence, lurkers.
>>
>> Don't need to "dismiss" what David never brought up. Had he done so,
>> I'd have easily refuted it as well.
>

> The standard Ben wants to employ is:

Simple. Refute what David actually said. Not what he didn't say.

WHERE ARE YOU DAVID???

SPEAK UP!

>> Watch as David refuses to respond.
>>
>>
>> >> Could it be that David knows full well that speculation is the best
>> >> he's got to offer?
>> >>
>> >> > To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's imagination to think that if
>> >> > this guy is willing to bump off Walker, then he might just set his
>> >> > sights a little higher when the perfect opportunity presents itself
>> >> > seven months later.
>> >>
>> >> Yep... let's see just how *HIGH* we can pile this speculation.
>> >
>> > Obviously when you make reasonable conclusions you can use them
>> > when you consider other aspects of the case, lurkers. You only need to
>> > weigh the available information correctly and resist playing the silly
>> > retards games this idiots play with that information and you`re fine.
>>
>> You're a liar who refuses even to acknowledge that Marina is a proven
>> liar...
>

> I'm a retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men.


Yep.


How much longer will it take you to figure out that I don't respond to
ad hominem?

>> Go ahead, liar... WEIGH THE EVIDENCE FROM A PROVEN LIAR...
>>
>> But you can't.
>
> Of course it can be done, lurkers. It isn`t even that hard if one
> has the ability to reason.

But you *DON'T* have the ability to reason!

You absolutely REFUSE to accept the Warren Commission and HSCA's
judgment concerning Marina's honesty!

>> >> The *EVIDENCE* will demolish everything David is sputtering, so we
>> >> don't see any of it.
>> >>
>> >> It's left to *me* to point out the *REAL* eyewitnesses...
>> >
>> > Eyewitnesses to what, lurkers? What criminal activity connected to
>> > the Walker attempt did they observe?
>>
>> Canvassing the future crime scene, and the getaway.
>
> Ben can only imagine this is what was being done, lurkers. What
> were the actual suspicious actions taking place?

The police accepted this evidence. *THEY* didn't throw it away as
worthless.

But stump does.

> One might wonder what the benefit of doing this scouting in a
> suspicious manner was.

It takes a moron to think that someone *intentionally* scouted out a
location in a "suspicious manner."

Just how stupid are you, stump?

> Isn`t this something better done covertly?

What does "covertly" look like when seen? Could "suspicious" be the
appropriate adjective to use?

> And was this suspicious behavior reported prior, or only retroactively
> deemed suspicious after the attempt?

Doesn't matter at all.

If we restrict *ALL* evidence against Oswald to only that gathered
PRIOR to the assassination - you'd have nothing at all.

You lose!

>> >> Why is David so afraid of the actual witnesses in this case?
>> >
>> > Witnesses who may have witnessed activity totally unrelated to the
>> > crime, lurkers.
>>
>> Only a moron would think so.
>
> Ben uses ad hom because he can`t support his assumptions in any
> real way, lurkers.

Of course I can. IT'S A FACT THAT THE POLICE KEPT THIS EVIDENCE ON
FILE WITH THIS CASE.

And *that* proves the evidential value.

You lose!

>> Tell you what, stump... come on by my neighborhood, and when you hear
>> shooting, **YOU** start running. If you get stopped by the police, you
>> lose.
>
> Were all the people who ran after the assassination stopped and
> questioned, lurkers?

Anyone with a gun in their hands certainly *WOULD* have been.

stump is a moron that can't tell the difference between strangers in a
neighborhood running away from a shooting, and the Dealey Plaza crowd.

>> > Lurkers take note how witnesses are treated if the retards think
>> > what they related helps Oswald`s case. They become the *real*
>> > evidence. If Coleman said he saw Oswald running from the scene he
>> > would be just another witness to attack or disregard. They are merely
>> > playing silly games.
>>
>> List all evidence in the Walker case known to have existed on
>> 11/21/63.
>
> The bullet slug, lurkers. Maybe the mark on the fence. The window
> sash. Hole in the wall. That is about all the cops had that was
> solidly connected to the shooting.

So your claim is that if an eyewitness had seen someone that fit the
description of Oswald running away, it would not be evidence.

YOU LOSE AGAIN!

>> But you won't.
>>
>> Because everything you list STILL EXISTED ON 11/22/63.
>>
>> You're simply a liar to suggest otherwise.
>>
>>
>> >> > The fact that Oswald was a kind of loner, oddball, and rejected
>> >> > authority at just about every turn in life cannot be underestimated
>> >> > when talking of motive.
>> >>
>> >> More presumptions piled on top of speculation. David offers no
>> >> evidence for his slanderous insults on someone he never knew, but it
>> >> doesn't apparently bother him.
>> >
>> > I'm a retard and a weirdo, lurkers.
>>
>> No-one cares.
>>
>>
>> > I found these things in a brief search for the consideration of you lurkers...
>>
>> You mean you found more "evidence" of the same sort that David sadly
>> offered... merely the presumption of his guilt, then looking at
>> everything he said and did as if he were actually guilty.
>>
>> Nothing, unfortunately, that actually predate his "conviction" by the
>> mass media.
>

> I'm just a retard here, a dishonest hypocrite.


Yep.

A rather slow thinking one, too.

>> >> > He admitted that he hated America (in general
>> >> > terms) for not being able to just come and go as he pleased to Russia
>> >> > and Cuba whenever it pleased him in the months just prior to November
>> >> >22.
>> >>
>> >> An empty claim with no citation given. Is David afraid that honest
>> >> people will view the evidence and come to a different conclusion?
>> >
>> > Hard to imagine anyone better suited to say what honest people will
>> > conclude than Ben, lurkers.
>>
>> Who cares what *your* opinion is?
>
> Who elses matters, lurkers?

To your mother, probably little.

But if you believe your lies are convincing anyone - feel free to take
a look at the polls you hate so much.

>> >> Why is David making claims that he fails to document?
>>
>> Dead silence...
>
> Ben wanted me to answer so he could change my words, lurkers.

Ran again...

Why is David making claims that he failed to document?

Why are *YOU* failing to document his claims?

>> >> Why aren't we seeing citations?
>>
>> Dead silence...
>
> Ben wants me to answer so he can cut and run from my answer, lurkers.

Ran again, eh dufus?

Why do you refuse to offer any citations?

>> >> Could it be that, as in his original claim, David is simply lying
>> >> again?
>> >>
>> >> Unless David steps up to the plate, and starts citing for his claims,
>> >> I'll just presume that he's doing here what he's done so many times
>> >> before, simply lying.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > As a former Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always
>> >> > thought he was a little better than everyone else." This statement
>> >> > speaks volumes, in my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background
>> >> > and possible motive in the JFK murder.
>> >
>> > Mary Bledsoe, the woman who rented Oswald a room had a similar
>> > opinion of Oswald...
>>
>> Mary Bledsoe is one of the real kooks in this case.
>

> I'm just a retard, lurkers.


Non-responsive.

>> stump knows he doesn't believe her...
>
> Whatever that means, lurkers.

It's simple. You don't believe what she testified to.

>> >> The statement was made, of course, *after* Oswald was convicted in
>> >> public opinion of murdering the President, Tippit, wounding Connally,
>> >> and shooting at Walker.
>> >
>> > Why would anyone ask him about Oswald prior to hi killing the
>> > President, lurkers?
>>
>> You mean, "prior to his conviction in the mass media for the killing
>> of the President."
>
> Ben can`t address what I actually said so he has to change it to
> something different, lurkers.

Yep. Something accurate. I include the omission you make...

> There was no reason to ask anyone about Oswald`s personality until
> after he killed the President.

Presumption... empty speculation...


> It is only strange that I"m a retard.

No.

>> But you aren't honest enough to say it.
>>
>> > I really *like* molesting neighborhood children.
>

> I wrote the above, lurkers. Another shocking admission.


Yep.

>> No-one in this forum cares, stump.
>>
>> >> David doesn't mention that.
>> >>
>> >> Had David wanted to, I'm sure he could have come up with *TONS* of
>> >> quotes from people eager to disassociate themselves from Oswald.
>> >
>> > They are already associated with Oswald by knowing him, lurkers.
>> > If they didn`t know him they wouldn`t be asked about him.
>>
>>
>> Woosh! Right over stump's head.
>
> Ben used the word "disassociate", lurkers. "associate" means
> "connected". They were already connected to Oswald by knowing him. If
> Ben had a different concept in mind he should have used a different
> word.

Even after being warned, stump *STILL* couldn't read and understand
what was said!

AMUSING!!!


WOOSH!!!

>> >> But David would have an incredibly DIFFICULT time doing the same prior
>> >> to 11/22/63. And this fact tells the tale.
>> >
>> > How stupid is this, lurkers? Why in the world would anyone be
>> > asking the acquaintances of Oswald their opinions of him prior to the
>> > assassination?
>>
>> stump tries to explain why he can't do it...
>
> Only an idiot would think this is something that would be done,
> lurkers.

Only stump thinks that history is impossible to document.

>> You lose, stump!
>>
>> >> But did anyone notice the immense amount of speculation, and the
>> >> rather total lack of any evidence or citation in David's post?
>> >
>> > It was filled with reasoning, lurkers, the kind that doesn`t show
>> > up on the radars of conspiracy retards.
>>
>> "Reasoning" based on a proven liar is seldom worth paying any
>> attention to.
>
> Reasoning based on the ability to think critically and weigh
> evidence properly, lurkers.

From the moron who can't accept that Marina lied...

> Ben can`t even figure out why people weren`t interested in
> questioning Oswald acquaintances about him before the
> assassination.

Who said anything of the sort?

You're just a moron who can't figure out what I said. You've
documented this twice now.

>> >> And will any believer be honest enough to publicly acknowledge this?
>> >>
>> >> For David won't... he's a coward that won't respond to this critique.
>>
>> And yet *another* prediction that has thus far come true.

Watch as David runs...

And watch as David lies on his website...