5 Days After Being Proven A Liar - Dufus Still Running

[Ben Holmes]

First posted five days ago, stump still refuses to retract his lie, or
apologize for falsely calling me a liar.

********************************************************
First, stump's lie:

> Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read
> the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did,
> lurkers

Now, the *first* citation says:

"On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a
newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50
A.M."
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=334


Now, *THIS* one citation says that Givens saw Oswald reading a
newspaper.

It says that it was in the Domino Room.

It says it was IN THE MORNING.

And dufus complains that this is a technicality.

And perhap it is, because stump *did* specify that it was "like he
usually did" - which was before work.

But this is only because of a poor reading of that FBI statement...

When people use the phrase "on the morning..." of such and such a day,
it is normally taken to REALLY mean the morning... not a time just
prior to the noon hour... so why was it phrased this way?


************************
There *IS* an explanation...
************************


So let's move on to the next cite to see how to reconcile this:

"Oswald was reading paper in the first floor Domino room seven fifty
am nov. twentytwo last when Givens came to work."
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

These were notes sent to the director on 11/23... and probably form
the basis of the first cite I gave. Yet when the second document was
written, they left *out* the 7:50 time, thus leading to the confusion.

And despite the fact that dufus is always complaining that critics
can't look at the evidence correctly... it's really simple to do.

I'm going to clearly show how these two apparently contradictory
statements can be reconciled. (Not that they need to be... I've just
PROVEN that Givens saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room
AT HIS CUSTOMARY TIME.)

Going back to the first citation, this is how it should be read:

"On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a
newspaper in the domino room (where employees eat lunch about 11:50
a.m.)"

Or, had it been written with full info, it might have looked like
this:

"On the morning of November 22, 1963 at 7:50am, GIVENS observed LEE
reading a newspaper in the domino room which was where employees eat
lunch about 11:50 a.m."

In other words, the 11:50 reference is *NOT* to when Givens saw
Oswald, as has long been assumed, but a reference to the Domino room -
explaining THE DOMINO ROOM's customary usage... not the time that
Givens saw Oswald.

This explains why the statement begins "On the morning..." it really
*WAS* on the morning of 11/22/63. The statement merely failed to
include the time of 07:50 - which would have made it clear.


************************************************************
I'm not the first to have seen this... Pat Speer discusses the same
topic about 6 years ago:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18746-givens-down-to-one-lie/
************************************************************

This simple reading reconciles *BOTH* FBI statements... and leaves
only the fact that Givens *LIED* in his testimony months later.

We know that Givens was *willing* to lie...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133#relPageId=304

The FBI records Givens asserting that he saw Oswald that morning in
the Domino room reading the newspaper.

His testimony, five months later, contradicted those earliest
statements.

But the fact that either the FBI lied, or Givens lied, has absolutely
NO effect on stump's claim that I can't produce evidence.

I PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE.

THAT STUMP CLAIMED I COULD NOT PRODUCE.

Stump didn't demand that I *PROVE* that Givens saw Oswald reading the
newspaper... he merely said I couldn't produce evidence for that.

I clearly have.

I showed Givens asserting that Oswald was reading a newspaper.

I showed that Givens asserted that it was in the Domino room.

I showed that it was in the morning.

AND I SHOWED THAT IT WAS AT OSWALD'S "CUSTOMARY" TIME BEFORE WORK
BEGAN.


And there's nothing left for stump to do but to retract his lies, and
apologize for them.

But he won't.

Chucky & Mark need to apologize too... as well as all other believers
who read what dufus posted, and refused to correct him.

But they won't.

Honesty isn't a major part of believer's character.

Watch as the believers scurry away...

And stump's been schooled again.

[Bud]

Top Post:

Starting a lot of separate posts on this issue to hide from the points in the original discussion isn`t going to work for this coward, lurkers. The discussion can be found in the post entitles "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and there is a response waiting for Ben there. When he can muster the balls we can resume.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Top Post:
>
> Starting a lot of separate posts on this issue to hide from the
> points in the original discussion isn`t going to work for this coward,

Running from the points I made in the *REAL* original thread didn't
get you anywhere, I simply posted them again.

And running in what you call the "original discussion" won't get you
anywhere either, because I simply keep posting.

> lurkers. The discussion can be found in the post entitles "What
> Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and there is a response waiting for
> Ben there. When he can muster the balls we can resume.

Dufus has for 5 days now RAN LIKE THE COWARD HE IS - and he has no
excuses left.

I'm sure he hates the fact that I'm going to be doing a countdown to
see how long it takes for him to answer...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Top Post:
> >
> > Starting a lot of separate posts on this issue to hide from the
> > points in the original discussion isn`t going to work for this coward,
>
>
> Running from the points I made in the *REAL* original thread didn't
> get you anywhere, I simply posted them again.
>
> And running in what you call the "original discussion" won't get you
> anywhere either, because I simply keep posting.

Then Ben should go to the thread in the post entitled "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and continue the discussion there, there is a response waiting for him.

> > lurkers. The discussion can be found in the post entitles "What
> > Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and there is a response waiting for
> > Ben there. When he can muster the balls we can resume.
>
>
> Dufus has for 5 days now RAN LIKE THE COWARD HE IS - and he has no
> excuses left.

I`m waiting for Ben to continue the discussion we were having on the issue, lurkers.

> I'm sure he hates the fact that I'm going to be doing a countdown to
> see how long it takes for him to answer...

No use talking about the same issue in dozens of posts, lurkers. We can continue the discussing the issue in the "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Top Post:
>> >
>> > Starting a lot of separate posts on this issue to hide from the
>> > points in the original discussion isn`t going to work for this coward,
>>
>>
>> Running from the points I made in the *REAL* original thread didn't
>> get you anywhere, I simply posted them again.
>>
>> And running in what you call the "original discussion" won't get you
>> anywhere either, because I simply keep posting.
>
> Then Ben should go to the thread in the post entitled "What Does It
> Mean To Be A Believer?" and continue the discussion there, there is a
> response waiting for him.

There's no response there where you admit you lied. Today is the 5th
day that you've evaded your own PROVEN lies.

I note for the record that you refused to publicly acknowledge your
lie about where the *ORIGINAL* thread is at.

>> > lurkers. The discussion can be found in the post entitles "What
>> > Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and there is a response waiting for
>> > Ben there. When he can muster the balls we can resume.
>>
>>
>> Dufus has for 5 days now RAN LIKE THE COWARD HE IS - and he has no
>> excuses left.
>
> I`m waiting for Ben to continue the discussion we were having on
> the issue, lurkers.

Nothing left to wait for dufus.

I've quoted your lie.

I've PROVEN that it's a lie by providing evidence.

After a bunch of whining from you about the authenticity of that
quote, you now accept that you said it.

What's left?

YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU LIED.

Today is the 5th day you've ran from that.

>> I'm sure he hates the fact that I'm going to be doing a countdown to
>> see how long it takes for him to answer...
>
> No use talking about the same issue in dozens of posts, lurkers.
> We can continue the discussing the issue in the "What Does It Mean To
> Be A Believer?" post.

You didn't answer in the *ORIGINAL* post.

You didn't answer in the thread you're referring to.

You *STILL* refuse to admit that you lied.

This is day five.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 3:15:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Top Post:
> >> >
> >> > Starting a lot of separate posts on this issue to hide from the
> >> > points in the original discussion isn`t going to work for this coward,
> >>
> >>
> >> Running from the points I made in the *REAL* original thread didn't
> >> get you anywhere, I simply posted them again.
> >>
> >> And running in what you call the "original discussion" won't get you
> >> anywhere either, because I simply keep posting.
> >
> > Then Ben should go to the thread in the post entitled "What Does It
> > Mean To Be A Believer?" and continue the discussion there, there is a
> > response waiting for him.
>
>
> There's no response there where you admit you lied.

<snicker> Ben doesn`t want to go back to that thread where we were discussing this issue, lurkers. His hypocrisy was laid bare.

> Today is the 5th
> day that you've evaded your own PROVEN lies.

Empty declarations is all the guys has, lurkers. Why is he afraid to resume the discussion?

> I note for the record that you refused to publicly acknowledge your
> lie about where the *ORIGINAL* thread is at.

This is where I remember discussing the issue at length, lurkers, this is where Ben unveiled the information he was hinting at. Why is Ben avoiding that thread?

> >> > lurkers. The discussion can be found in the post entitles "What
> >> > Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and there is a response waiting for
> >> > Ben there. When he can muster the balls we can resume.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dufus has for 5 days now RAN LIKE THE COWARD HE IS - and he has no
> >> excuses left.
> >
> > I`m waiting for Ben to continue the discussion we were having on
> > the issue, lurkers.
>
> Nothing left to wait for dufus.
>
> I've quoted your lie.
>
> I've PROVEN that it's a lie by providing evidence.

From a source he refuses to attest to the validity of the information it contains, lurkers. But we can cover that in the discussion we were having, no use having multiple discussions on the same issue.

> After a bunch of whining from you about the authenticity of that
> quote, you now accept that you said it.

Yes, that issue has been resolved. Now we can continue the discussion we were having here...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ

> What's left?

Continue the discussion we were having, lurkers.

> YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU LIED.

That discussion is ongoing, lurkers.

> Today is the 5th day you've ran from that.

That is about how long Ben has been running from my last response in the post we were discussing this in, lurkers.

>
> >> I'm sure he hates the fact that I'm going to be doing a countdown to
> >> see how long it takes for him to answer...
> >
> > No use talking about the same issue in dozens of posts, lurkers.
> > We can continue the discussing the issue in the "What Does It Mean To
> > Be A Believer?" post.
>
> You didn't answer in the *ORIGINAL* post.

> You didn't answer in the thread you're referring to.

The discussion is ongoing there, lurkers. Unless Ben is afraid.

If Ben doesn`t respond there at some point I`ll start posts highlighting the things he is running from in that thread, lurkers.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:59:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Your explanation above is nonsense, Ben.

First of all, to think that a report would state the specific time of "11:50" for when employees normally ate their lunch is absurd. If the report had *really* been attempting to convey the information of when the Book Depository employees normally ate their lunch, the report would have stated it in looser and more broad terms with respect to the time --- such as: "Where employees eat lunch about 12 noon". There's no way that anybody writing such a report would narrow it down to such an exacting (and oddball) time like "11:50".

Secondly, Ben's explanation fails on another level....because the TSBD employees did NOT normally start their lunch break until 12:00 Noon every day, not 11:50. Just check Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony for confirmation of this (below). The employees did, however, break a little early for lunch on November 22nd, so that they would have time to eat first and then watch the President's motorcade pass by the building.

From Wesley Frazier's testimony....

MR. FRAZIER -- "12 o'clock is when we always eat lunch."

MR. BALL -- "12 to 12:45?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Right."

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 3:15:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:54:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Top Post:
>> >> >
>> >> > Starting a lot of separate posts on this issue to hide from the
>> >> > points in the original discussion isn`t going to work for this coward,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Running from the points I made in the *REAL* original thread didn't
>> >> get you anywhere, I simply posted them again.
>> >>
>> >> And running in what you call the "original discussion" won't get you
>> >> anywhere either, because I simply keep posting.
>> >
>> > Then Ben should go to the thread in the post entitled "What Does It
>> > Mean To Be A Believer?" and continue the discussion there, there is a
>> > response waiting for him.
>>
>>
>> There's no response there where you admit you lied.
>
><snicker> Ben doesn`t want to go back to that thread where we were
> discussing this issue, lurkers. His hypocrisy was laid bare.

Actually, I've already answered.

There's no "hypocrisy" involved. You said I couldn't cite.

I did.

You lied.

>> Today is the 5th
>> day that you've evaded your own PROVEN lies.
>
> Empty declarations is all the guys has, lurkers. Why is he afraid
> to resume the discussion?

Still the 5th day you've run from your provable lie.

>> I note for the record that you refused to publicly acknowledge your
>> lie about where the *ORIGINAL* thread is at.
>
> This is where I remember discussing the issue at length, lurkers,
> this is where Ben unveiled the information he was hinting at. Why is
> Ben avoiding that thread?

In the *ORIGINAL* thread, you repeatedly ran from the issue... so I
reposted it.

Just as I'm doing now with all the issues you're running from.

>> >> > lurkers. The discussion can be found in the post entitles "What
>> >> > Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" and there is a response waiting for
>> >> > Ben there. When he can muster the balls we can resume.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dufus has for 5 days now RAN LIKE THE COWARD HE IS - and he has no
>> >> excuses left.
>> >
>> > I`m waiting for Ben to continue the discussion we were having on
>> > the issue, lurkers.
>>
>> Nothing left to wait for dufus.
>>
>> I've quoted your lie.
>>
>> I've PROVEN that it's a lie by providing evidence.
>
> From a source he refuses to attest to the validity of the
> information it contains, lurkers.

Does my "belief" or "non-belief" alter the fact that the memo I cited
is evidence?

Did you call me a liar, and assert that I couldn't provide evidence?

Have you repeatedly refused to take responsibility for your provable
lie?

> But we can cover that in the discussion we were having, no use
> having multiple discussions on the same issue.

No, you'll run *there* too, just as you did in the *REAL* original
thread.

>> After a bunch of whining from you about the authenticity of that
>> quote, you now accept that you said it.
>
> Yes, that issue has been resolved. Now we can continue the
> discussion we were having here...
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ

That isn't the original thread.

You ran in the original thread, you'll run in the cited thread, you'll
run in this thread.

The facts are clear, and nothing you can do will change them... you
lied.

>> What's left?
>
> Continue the discussion we were having, lurkers.

I've **PROVEN** you a liar. The next step is for you to admit it, and
apologize.

>> YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU LIED.
>
> That discussion is ongoing, lurkers.

There's no new "facts" to discuss.

You asserted that I was a liar. You stated that I could NOT provide
evidence.

I did.

You lied.

Case closed.

>> Today is the 5th day you've ran from that.
>
> That is about how long Ben has been running from my last response
> in the post we were discussing this in, lurkers.

You've been running from this issue for dozens of posts...

Clearly, you'll keep doing so, and I'll keep posting it.

>> >> I'm sure he hates the fact that I'm going to be doing a countdown to
>> >> see how long it takes for him to answer...
>> >
>> > No use talking about the same issue in dozens of posts, lurkers.
>> > We can continue the discussing the issue in the "What Does It Mean To
>> > Be A Believer?" post.
>>
>> You didn't answer in the *ORIGINAL* post.
>
>> You didn't answer in the thread you're referring to.
>
> The discussion is ongoing there, lurkers. Unless Ben is afraid.

Notice that stump couldn't acknowledge that he PROVABLY RAN in the
original thread.

> If Ben doesn`t respond there at some point I`ll start posts
> highlighting the things he is running from in that thread, lurkers.

Feel free, moron.

It's on you, now.


Day Five of stump's continued cowardice and dishonesty...

[Ben Holmes]

That's fine. You don't believe it.

Then all you have to do is explain the two different times.

My explanation works.

What's yours?

WHAT'S YOURS?

*****************************************************

But, the REAL issue that you've run from David, is whether or not I
provided the evidence...

Did I provide the evidence?

Is the memo I referenced considered "evidence?"

You'll run from these questions, because you have no credible answers
that don't indict a fellow believer as a liar.

[Bud]

Top Post:

All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Top Post:
>

> All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ

That isn't the original thread.

Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
citation repeatedly.

This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.

No answer...

Dufus is TERRIFIED of answering this question. He knows for a FACT
that I provided the evidence that he claimed I couldn't provide.

Now he's running like the coward he is.


But I'll merely keep posting.

>> Did you call me a liar, and assert that I couldn't provide evidence?
>>
>> Have you repeatedly refused to take responsibility for your provable
>> lie?
>>
>>
>> > But we can cover that in the discussion we were having, no use
>> > having multiple discussions on the same issue.
>>
>>
>> No, you'll run *there* too, just as you did in the *REAL* original
>> thread.

Watch my prediction come true.

>> >> After a bunch of whining from you about the authenticity of that
>> >> quote, you now accept that you said it.
>> >
>> > Yes, that issue has been resolved. Now we can continue the
>> > discussion we were having here...
>> >
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
>>
>>
>> That isn't the original thread.

It's amusing that stump can't admit that this isn't the original
thread.

HE KNOWS WHERE IT IS... yet can't cite it.


Because he *provably* ran multiple times in that thread.


(Which is why I've been reposting...)

>> You ran in the original thread, you'll run in the cited thread, you'll
>> run in this thread.
>>
>> The facts are clear, and nothing you can do will change them... you
>> lied.
>>
>> >> What's left?
>> >
>> > Continue the discussion we were having, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> I've **PROVEN** you a liar. The next step is for you to admit it, and
>> apologize.
>>
>>
>> >> YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU LIED.
>> >
>> > That discussion is ongoing, lurkers.
>>
>> There's no new "facts" to discuss.
>>
>> You asserted that I was a liar. You stated that I could NOT provide
>> evidence.
>>
>> I did.
>>
>> You lied.
>>
>> Case closed.

And dufus had no refutation...

>> >> Today is the 5th day you've ran from that.
>> >
>> > That is about how long Ben has been running from my last response
>> > in the post we were discussing this in, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> You've been running from this issue for dozens of posts...
>>
>> Clearly, you'll keep doing so, and I'll keep posting it.

Dufus thinks I'll tire of this, and go away...

>> >> >> I'm sure he hates the fact that I'm going to be doing a countdown to
>> >> >> see how long it takes for him to answer...
>> >> >
>> >> > No use talking about the same issue in dozens of posts, lurkers.
>> >> > We can continue the discussing the issue in the "What Does It Mean To
>> >> > Be A Believer?" post.
>> >>
>> >> You didn't answer in the *ORIGINAL* post.
>> >
>> >> You didn't answer in the thread you're referring to.
>> >
>> > The discussion is ongoing there, lurkers. Unless Ben is afraid.
>>
>>
>> Notice that stump couldn't acknowledge that he PROVABLY RAN in the
>> original thread.

I will continue pointing out this fact.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Top Post:
> >
> > All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
>
> That isn't the original thread.

Ben is quibbling to avoid going there and continuing the discussion, lurkers.

> Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
> citation repeatedly.

The thread I linked to is the thread that Ben unveiled the evidence he contends showed I was lying. Ben is avoiding that thread because he is afraid to continue the discussion in the context it was being discussed. He has been starting all these other posts with the purpose of avoiding continuing the discussion in that thread.

> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.

Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?

[David Von Pein]

Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....

Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259&relPageId=54

However, it's good to know that conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes doesn't think Charlie Givens saw Lee Oswald reading a paper in the first-floor Domino Room at 11:50 AM CST on 11/22/63, because most conspiracy believers just love to prop up that "11:50" alleged Oswald sighting. But Ben, unlike almost all other "Anybody But Oswald" CTers wants to put that "sighting" back at 7:50 AM, instead of 11:50.

There is, of course, a major conflict between what Charles Givens apparently told the FBI on November 22 and what Givens told the Warren Commission a few months later, because Givens told the WC that he didn't see Oswald reading a paper in the Domino Room at any time on 11/22/63:

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you see him [Lee Harvey Oswald] in the domino room at all around anywhere between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?"

CHARLES GIVENS -- "No, sir."

MR. BELIN -- "Did you see him reading the newspaper?"

MR. GIVENS -- "No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning."

------------

So, Givens' memory is obviously not too sharp when it comes to this particular topic. In his Warren Commission session, he seems very certain that he never saw Oswald reading a paper at all that morning, but on the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the FBI just made up (or totally misunderstood) what Givens was telling them in the 11/22/63 FBI interview either.

My own belief concerning this mix-up is ---

I think Givens probably did see Oswald reading a paper in the Domino Room on November 22 at 7:50 AM, and Givens told the FBI that very thing. (Otherwise, why would the FBI write it up the way they did in such detail--including a very specific time of day--"7:50 AM"?) But when it came time to testify in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, that particular detail about seeing Oswald reading the paper slipped Givens' mind entirely for some reason.

I think such testimony just goes to prove one thing (once again) --- Human beings are not machines with perfect memories. Mistakes get made by humans. And things get forgotten by humans. And such mistakes and lapses of memory don't always have to translate to lies either.

Addendum....

Now, as to why there's a conflict between the two different FBI reports regarding the time when the FBI said Charles Givens saw Oswald reading a newspaper on 11/22/63, I can't say for sure what the answer to that discrepancy is, but I do have a possible explanation....

My explanation assumes that the 11/22/63 FD-302 report written by FBI agents Will Hayden Griffen and Bardwell D. Odum was prepared after the other FBI document (linked earlier), which is a document that has the words "Seven Fifty AM" spelled out in longhand (instead of writing it out as 7:50).

I think it might be possible that Griffen and Odum were relying on that first report with respect to the information about Givens seeing Oswald in the Domino Room, and the "seven" in that report was misread as "eleven". If someone was quickly reading a report with all the times spelled out in the rather unorthodox fashion in which we find them all spelled out in words in this report, I think a mistake could easily occur. (After all, the numbers 7 and 11 do both contain the letters "even" at the end of them.)

Whether or not the strange way of writing out (in words) the time of "seven fifty" resulted in the time later being misinterpreted by the agents who wrote up the FD-302 report, I have no idea. But given the "E-V-E-N" similarity in both numbers, it makes me think that such a mistake just might be possible.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Top Post:
>> >
>> > All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
>> >
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
>>
>> That isn't the original thread.
>
> Ben is quibbling to avoid going there and continuing the
> discussion, lurkers.

Dufus is lying about which was the original thread.

>> Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
>> citation repeatedly.

(Notice that below he fails again to admit that he evaded my ORIGINAL
citation repeatedly...)

> The thread I linked to is the thread that Ben unveiled the
> evidence he contends showed I was lying. Ben is avoiding that thread
> because he is afraid to continue the discussion in the context it was
> being discussed. He has been starting all these other posts with the
> purpose of avoiding continuing the discussion in that thread.

Not "avoiding" it at all. My response was made the day you posted.

Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
lying about the cites, you only get posts once a week. You currently
have 63 posts waiting to be posted.

But you knew this, didn't you stump?

>> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
>
> Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
> this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
> desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?

Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.

Indeed, it documents about three new lies you told in that one post.

(Preview: such as your lie that the first cite isn't contradicted by
Givens' testimony... you'll run from that one too!)

Day five of stump's refusal to address the flagrant lie he told...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....
>
> Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw
> Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is
> certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....

End of story.

Since dufus called me a liar, and stated that I could *NOT* produce
this evidence, then it's clear that dufus lied.

And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.

Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
is harder than finding an honest believer.

Why the dishonesty, Chester?

P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
*STILL* can't say that.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Top Post:
> >> >
> >> > All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
> >> >
> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
> >>
> >> That isn't the original thread.
> >
> > Ben is quibbling to avoid going there and continuing the
> > discussion, lurkers.
>
>
> Dufus is lying about which was the original thread.

I posted I link to it so Ben would know which one I was referring to but he still seems confused, lurkers. I wonder why Ben is so afraid to go there and continue the discussion.

>
> >> Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
> >> citation repeatedly.
>
>
> (Notice that below he fails again to admit that he evaded my ORIGINAL
> citation repeatedly...)
>
>
> > The thread I linked to is the thread that Ben unveiled the
> > evidence he contends showed I was lying. Ben is avoiding that thread
> > because he is afraid to continue the discussion in the context it was
> > being discussed. He has been starting all these other posts with the
> > purpose of avoiding continuing the discussion in that thread.
>
>
> Not "avoiding" it at all.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He is avoiding continuing the thread in the "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" post like the plague.

> My response was made the day you posted.
>
> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
> lying about the cites,

"cities", lurkers?

>you only get posts once a week. You currently
> have 63 posts waiting to be posted.
>
> But you knew this, didn't you stump?
>
>
> >> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
> >
> > Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
> > this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
> > desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?
>
>
> Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.

I can wait, lurkers. We can continue the issue there.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:13:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....
> >
> > Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw
> > Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is
> > certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....
>
> End of story.
>
> Since dufus called me a liar,

What did Ben say that I called him a liar for saying, lurkers? Was what Ben said true?

> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
> this evidence,

I made a prediction, lurkers.

> then it's clear that dufus lied.

Not all predictions come true.

Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...

"He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"

There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Top Post:
>> >> >
>> >> > All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
>> >> >
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
>> >>
>> >> That isn't the original thread.
>> >
>> > Ben is quibbling to avoid going there and continuing the
>> > discussion, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Dufus is lying about which was the original thread.
>
> I posted I link to it so Ben would know which one I was referring
> to but he still seems confused, lurkers. I wonder why Ben is so afraid
> to go there and continue the discussion.

This is the typical "non-answer" that stump frequently uses.

**COMPLETELY** nonresponsive to my statement - which dufus refused to
deny or refute.

He only IMPLIEES that I'm wrong... yet refuses to say so.

He knows I'm telling only facts here, and he's got nothing to say that
addresses those facts.

It's a FACT that dufus ran away IN THE ORIGINAL THREAD... and never
addressed his blatant lie.

>> >> Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
>> >> citation repeatedly.
>>
>>
>> (Notice that below he fails again to admit that he evaded my ORIGINAL
>> citation repeatedly...)
>>
>>
>> > The thread I linked to is the thread that Ben unveiled the
>> > evidence he contends showed I was lying. Ben is avoiding that thread
>> > because he is afraid to continue the discussion in the context it was
>> > being discussed. He has been starting all these other posts with the
>> > purpose of avoiding continuing the discussion in that thread.
>>
>> Not "avoiding" it at all.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He is avoiding continuing the thread in
> the "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" post like the plague.

Already answered. Even gave you a preview...

It will be posted at my leisure.

>> My response was made the day you posted.
>>
>> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
>> lying about the cites,
>
> "cities", lurkers?

Yes moron, there were two of them.

Go ahead and admit that you didn't realize that - it will only
demonstrate that you're dumber than Chester... who easily saw it.

>> you only get posts once a week. You currently
>> have 63 posts waiting to be posted.
>>
>> But you knew this, didn't you stump?

Dead silence...

>> >> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
>> >
>> > Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
>> > this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
>> > desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?
>>
>>
>> Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.
>
> I can wait, lurkers. We can continue the issue there.

No, you'll RUN from the issue as you do all the time.

>> Indeed, it documents about three new lies you told in that one post.
>>
>> (Preview: such as your lie that the first cite isn't contradicted by
>> Givens' testimony... you'll run from that one too!)

Dead silence... dufus had *NOTHING* to say!!!

What does anyone bet that he can't get even *ONE* believer to take his
side on this issue?

[David Von Pein]

One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....

If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that essentially goes like this:

Why would Lee Harvey Oswald be bouncing all over the place in the Book Depository Building around noontime on 11/22/63? He's on the 5th or 6th floor at about 11:45 AM or so (as verified by Charles Givens [and others] who heard Oswald yelling down the elevator shaft as four TSBD workers were going down to lunch in the two freight elevators). Oswald is then, per an FBI report, seen by Givens reading a newspaper on the first floor at about 11:50. And then, according to Givens, Oswald is then seen on the sixth floor just five minutes later, at 11:55. It just doesn't add up. Somebody--namely Charles Douglas Givens--must be lying his head off!

[End CTer Simulation.]

But if Charlie Givens had really seen Oswald reading the paper at 7:50 instead of 11:50 (as Page 6 of this FBI memo/report clearly states), then the 11:50 time for an Oswald "sighting" by Givens doesn't really exist at all, and thusly the above simulated conspiracy argument can be discarded entirely.

In short, the 11:50/11:55 "timing" problems associated with the observations of Charles Givens completely vanish if the 7:50 AM time is the correct time for Givens' sighting of Lee Oswald in the first-floor Domino Room, instead of the more widely-accepted time of 11:50 AM.

So that "Seven Fifty" FBI document is actually an excellent document for Lone Assassin believers to utilize in the future. About the only thing a conspiracy theorist could still *reasonably* use it for would be to say that Vincent Bugliosi made a mistake on Page 956 of his book, "Reclaiming History", when Vince discusses the 9th item on his list of "53 Things" that point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1284.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Givens

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:53:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....
>
> If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time
> of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the
> CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that
> essentially goes like this:

And just like Bugliosi, who made the *claim* that he was going to
represent the other side as *THEY* would want it, Chester has lied.

There's plenty of eyewitnesses to Oswald being on the first or second
floor after the noon hour.

And if you're just now coming to the realization that Givens lied,
you're like all the scientists trudging up the mountain of the Big
Bang, only to see Christians sitting at the top of the mountain...
(Who obviously held to a "Big Bang" creation of the universe from the
beginning.)

P.S. Anyone notice that Chester *STILL* won't acknowledge that a
fellow believer lied?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:03:21 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/05/jfk-assassination
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/

Still posting lies on your website, eh Chester?

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:53:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....
> >
> > If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time
> > of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the
> > CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that
> > essentially goes like this:
>
> And just like Bugliosi, who made the *claim* that he was going to
> represent the other side as *THEY* would want it, Chester has lied.
>
> There's plenty of eyewitnesses to Oswald being on the first or second
> floor after the noon hour.
>

> And if you're just now coming to the realization that Givens lied,...

I haven't come to any such "realization" at all, Benji Boy. Why would you even begin to think I had? Especially after I wrote this just today....

"I think Givens probably did see Oswald reading a paper in the Domino Room on November 22 at 7:50 AM, and Givens told the FBI that very thing. (Otherwise, why would the FBI write it up the way they did in such detail--including a very specific time of day--"7:50 AM"?) But when it came time to testify in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, that particular detail about seeing Oswald reading the paper slipped Givens' mind entirely for some reason. I think such testimony just goes to prove one thing (once again) --- Human beings are not machines with perfect memories. Mistakes get made by humans. And things get forgotten by humans. And such mistakes and lapses of memory don't always have to translate to *lies* either." -- DVP

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:33:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:53:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....
>> >
>> > If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time
>> > of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the
>> > CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that
>> > essentially goes like this:
>>
>> And just like Bugliosi, who made the *claim* that he was going to
>> represent the other side as *THEY* would want it, Chester has lied.
>>
>> There's plenty of eyewitnesses to Oswald being on the first or second
>> floor after the noon hour.
>>
>> And if you're just now coming to the realization that Givens lied,...
>

>I haven't come to any such "realization" at all...

What a shame. I thought you were starting to learn.

And again, Chester refuses to comment on stump's flagrant lying.

Perhaps it's just difficult for one liar to spot anything wrong with
another liar.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:51:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Top Post:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
> >> >>
> >> >> That isn't the original thread.
> >> >
> >> > Ben is quibbling to avoid going there and continuing the
> >> > discussion, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dufus is lying about which was the original thread.
> >
> > I posted I link to it so Ben would know which one I was referring
> > to but he still seems confused, lurkers. I wonder why Ben is so afraid
> > to go there and continue the discussion.
>
>
> This is the typical "non-answer" that stump frequently uses.
>
> **COMPLETELY** nonresponsive to my statement - which dufus refused to
> deny or refute.
>
> He only IMPLIEES that I'm wrong... yet refuses to say so.

I don`t think Ben is wrong, lurkers, merely dishonest. I expect he knew exactly which thread I was referring to when I said "original" but in his desperation saw it as a way to score points. This all stems from Ben`s frustration from my exposing him as a dishonest hypocrite, blowhard and liar.

> He knows I'm telling only facts here, and he's got nothing to say that
> addresses those facts.
>
> It's a FACT that dufus ran away IN THE ORIGINAL THREAD... and never
> addressed his blatant lie.
>
>
>
> >> >> Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
> >> >> citation repeatedly.
> >>
> >>
> >> (Notice that below he fails again to admit that he evaded my ORIGINAL
> >> citation repeatedly...)
> >>
> >>
> >> > The thread I linked to is the thread that Ben unveiled the
> >> > evidence he contends showed I was lying. Ben is avoiding that thread
> >> > because he is afraid to continue the discussion in the context it was
> >> > being discussed. He has been starting all these other posts with the
> >> > purpose of avoiding continuing the discussion in that thread.
> >>
> >> Not "avoiding" it at all.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He is avoiding continuing the thread in
> > the "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" post like the plague.
>
>
> Already answered. Even gave you a preview...
>
> It will be posted at my leisure.

Yet the retard started a dozen posts pestering me, lurkers. The one thread that was discussing the issue at length and suddenly this isn`t a priority.

>
> >> My response was made the day you posted.
> >>
> >> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
> >> lying about the cites,
> >
> > "cities", lurkers?
>
>
> Yes moron, there were two of them.
>
> Go ahead and admit that you didn't realize that - it will only
> demonstrate that you're dumber than Chester... who easily saw it.
>
>
> >> you only get posts once a week. You currently
> >> have 63 posts waiting to be posted.
> >>
> >> But you knew this, didn't you stump?
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
>
>
> >> >> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
> >> >
> >> > Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
> >> > this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
> >> > desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?
> >>
> >>
> >> Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.
> >
> > I can wait, lurkers. We can continue the issue there.
>
>
> No, you'll RUN from the issue as you do all the time.
>
>
> >> Indeed, it documents about three new lies you told in that one post.
> >>
> >> (Preview: such as your lie that the first cite isn't contradicted by
> >> Givens' testimony... you'll run from that one too!)
>
>
> Dead silence... dufus had *NOTHING* to say!!!
>
> What does anyone bet that he can't get even *ONE* believer to take his
> side on this issue?

Ben thinks it is West Side Story here, with the Sharks versus the Jets, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:33:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:53:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....
> >> >
> >> > If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time
> >> > of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the
> >> > CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that
> >> > essentially goes like this:
> >>
> >> And just like Bugliosi, who made the *claim* that he was going to
> >> represent the other side as *THEY* would want it, Chester has lied.
> >>
> >> There's plenty of eyewitnesses to Oswald being on the first or second
> >> floor after the noon hour.
> >>
> >> And if you're just now coming to the realization that Givens lied,...
> >
> >I haven't come to any such "realization" at all...
>
> What a shame. I thought you were starting to learn.

Ben loves to assign people positions, lurkers. This is how dishonest people argue.

[Ben Holmes]

Day 6, and Dufus is still running!


On Wed, 23 May 2018 02:28:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:51:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:07:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:37:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 5:27:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Top Post:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > All noise, lurkers. I`ll be here when Ben is ready to continue the discussion...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/0HGSxHVhWIA/PVExCUq2CAAJ
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That isn't the original thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben is quibbling to avoid going there and continuing the
>> >> > discussion, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Dufus is lying about which was the original thread.
>> >
>> > I posted I link to it so Ben would know which one I was referring
>> > to but he still seems confused, lurkers. I wonder why Ben is so afraid
>> > to go there and continue the discussion.
>>
>> This is the typical "non-answer" that stump frequently uses.
>>
>> **COMPLETELY** nonresponsive to my statement - which dufus refused to
>> deny or refute.
>>

>> He only IMPLIES that I'm wrong... yet refuses to say so.

>
> I don`t think Ben is wrong, lurkers, merely dishonest. I expect he
> knew exactly which thread I was referring to when I said "original"
> but in his desperation saw it as a way to score points. This all stems
> from Ben`s frustration from my exposing him as a dishonest hypocrite,
> blowhard and liar.

Good of you to finally admit that you've been lying all along about
what thread was the **ORIGINAL** thread.


But how can **I** be "dishonest" when I've been telling the absolute
truth, and *YOU'VE* been evading it?

At **ANY** time you could have said, "yes, I know that this isn't the
*original* thread, but here is where I want to continue..." - but you
aren't honest enough to do this.

Then proclaim that **I'M** dishonest - yet you can't support that lie.

>> He knows I'm telling only facts here, and he's got nothing to say that
>> addresses those facts.
>>
>> It's a FACT that dufus ran away IN THE ORIGINAL THREAD... and never
>> addressed his blatant lie.

And that fact hasn't changed... despite the fact that dufus is too
dishonest to acknowledge it.

**HIS** so-called "original" thread was created only because dufus
kept running away in the first thread.

This is often the only time I can get dufus to answer... I have to
repost again and again until stump can gather up his courage.

>> >> >> Dufus cannot even admit that in the *ORIGINAL* thread, he evaded my
>> >> >> citation repeatedly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (Notice that below he fails again to admit that he evaded my ORIGINAL
>> >> citation repeatedly...)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The thread I linked to is the thread that Ben unveiled the
>> >> > evidence he contends showed I was lying. Ben is avoiding that thread
>> >> > because he is afraid to continue the discussion in the context it was
>> >> > being discussed. He has been starting all these other posts with the
>> >> > purpose of avoiding continuing the discussion in that thread.
>> >>
>> >> Not "avoiding" it at all.
>> >
>> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He is avoiding continuing the thread in
>> > the "What Does It Mean To Be A Believer?" post like the plague.
>>
>> Already answered. Even gave you a preview...
>>
>> It will be posted at my leisure.
>
> Yet the retard started a dozen posts pestering me, lurkers.

Of course.

The facts are **ALL** on the table now. You have no-where to go. You
provably lied, and I'm perfectly willing to give you as many
opportunities to do the right thing as I can.

That ... and I drive home the point even to morons who don't read
everything... such as Mark.

> The one thread that was discussing the issue at length and suddenly
> this isn`t a priority.

You mean the **ORIGINAL** thread where you ran away?

>> >> My response was made the day you posted.
>> >>
>> >> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
>> >> lying about the cites,
>> >
>> > "cities", lurkers?
>>
>>
>> Yes moron, there were two of them.
>>
>> Go ahead and admit that you didn't realize that - it will only
>> demonstrate that you're dumber than Chester... who easily saw it.

Looks like dufus ran away again...

>> >> you only get posts once a week. You currently
>> >> have 63 posts waiting to be posted.
>> >>
>> >> But you knew this, didn't you stump?
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
>> >> > this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
>> >> > desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.
>> >
>> > I can wait, lurkers. We can continue the issue there.
>>
>>
>> No, you'll RUN from the issue as you do all the time.
>>
>>
>> >> Indeed, it documents about three new lies you told in that one post.
>> >>
>> >> (Preview: such as your lie that the first cite isn't contradicted by
>> >> Givens' testimony... you'll run from that one too!)
>>
>>
>> Dead silence... dufus had *NOTHING* to say!!!
>>
>> What does anyone bet that he can't get even *ONE* believer to take his
>> side on this issue?
>
> Ben thinks it is West Side Story here, with the Sharks versus the
> Jets, lurkers.

Dufus thinks he's right, but can't find ANYONE willing to agree with
him.

An honest man might take the hint.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 02:29:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:43:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:33:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:07:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:53:52 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....
>> >> >
>> >> > If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time
>> >> > of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the
>> >> > CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that
>> >> > essentially goes like this:
>> >>
>> >> And just like Bugliosi, who made the *claim* that he was going to
>> >> represent the other side as *THEY* would want it, Chester has lied.
>> >>
>> >> There's plenty of eyewitnesses to Oswald being on the first or second
>> >> floor after the noon hour.
>> >>
>> >> And if you're just now coming to the realization that Givens lied,...
>> >
>> >I haven't come to any such "realization" at all...
>>
>> What a shame. I thought you were starting to learn.
>
> Ben loves to assign people positions, lurkers. This is how
> dishonest people argue.

Dufus *STILL* refuses to admit that Givens lied.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:13:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....
>> >
>> > Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw
>> > Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is
>> > certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>> Since dufus called me a liar,
>
> What did Ben say that I called him a liar for saying, lurkers? Was
> what Ben said true?

You PROVABLY know it was.

>> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
>> this evidence,
>
> I made a prediction, lurkers.

No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."

You're lying again.

>> then it's clear that dufus lied.
>
> Not all predictions come true.

Not all jackasses bray.

> Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...

No moron... you owe me an apology, and you need to retract your
blatant lie.

> "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>
> There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.

Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.

You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
blatant lie.

>> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
>>
>> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
>> is harder than finding an honest believer.
>>
>> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
>>
>> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
>> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
>> *STILL* can't say that.

And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!


ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:14:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Day 6, and Dufus is still running!

If Ben wants to talk about the issue he can go to the thread we were discussing it in and continue the discussion, lurkers. I`m certainly not stopping him.

I`m sure Ben knew *exactly* what thread I was referring to when I said the "original" thread, lurkers. But he just can`t be honest, it is against his nature.

> But how can **I** be "dishonest"

By being dishonest, lurkers.

I`m willing to continue the discussion we were having where we were discussing the issue in, lurkers.

>You
> provably lied, and I'm perfectly willing to give you as many
> opportunities to do the right thing as I can.
>
> That ... and I drive home the point even to morons who don't read
> everything... such as Mark.

Ben is doing what he always does, lurkers, try to mask the real issues in a flood of ad hominem.

>
> > The one thread that was discussing the issue at length and suddenly
> > this isn`t a priority.
>
>
> You mean the **ORIGINAL** thread where you ran away?

I posted the name of the thread I was referring to and Ben still dishonestly pretends not to know, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> My response was made the day you posted.
> >> >>
> >> >> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
> >> >> lying about the cites,
> >> >
> >> > "cities", lurkers?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes moron, there were two of them.
> >>
> >> Go ahead and admit that you didn't realize that - it will only
> >> demonstrate that you're dumber than Chester... who easily saw it.
>
>
> Looks like dufus ran away again...

I have no idea what this retard is talking about with the "cities" comment, lurkers. Whatever it was I wasn`t following it.

>
>
> >> >> you only get posts once a week. You currently
> >> >> have 63 posts waiting to be posted.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you knew this, didn't you stump?
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
> >> >> > this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
> >> >> > desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.
> >> >
> >> > I can wait, lurkers. We can continue the issue there.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, you'll RUN from the issue as you do all the time.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Indeed, it documents about three new lies you told in that one post.
> >> >>
> >> >> (Preview: such as your lie that the first cite isn't contradicted by
> >> >> Givens' testimony... you'll run from that one too!)
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence... dufus had *NOTHING* to say!!!
> >>
> >> What does anyone bet that he can't get even *ONE* believer to take his
> >> side on this issue?
> >
> > Ben thinks it is West Side Story here, with the Sharks versus the
> > Jets, lurkers.
>
>
> Dufus thinks he's right, but can't find ANYONE willing to agree with
> him.

I wasn`t looking, lurkers.

> An honest man might take the hint.

Why would be feel the need to weigh in on a non-issue, lurkers? Just because Ben has been trying to bestow this with great significance doesn`t necessarily translate into the real world.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:13:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....
> >> >
> >> > Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw
> >> > Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is
> >> > certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >>
> >> Since dufus called me a liar,
> >
> > What did Ben say that I called him a liar for saying, lurkers? Was
> > what Ben said true?
>
>
> You PROVABLY know it was.

Ben said this...

"Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that
Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."

I called it a lie because it was one. Ben called it "the most credible evidence", yet he doesn`t consider most of the information from that source to be credible, thus establishing him a hypocrite. What establishs him as a liar is taking the position that hearsay is more credible than what a person is known to have said.

Ask 10 people which information is more credible, information a person says or information someone else says they said, see what your results are. Ben lied.

> >> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
> >> this evidence,
> >
> > I made a prediction, lurkers.
>
>
> No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."

I called Ben a liar for lying, lurkers.

> You're lying again.
>
>
> >> then it's clear that dufus lied.
> >
> > Not all predictions come true.
>
>
> Not all jackasses bray.

I know one that does, lurkers.

>
> > Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...
>
>
> No moron... you owe me an apology,

Perhaps if Ben hadn`t told a blatant untruth before I called him a liar, lurkers.

> and you need to retract your
> blatant lie.
>
>
> > "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
> >
> > There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.
>
>
> Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.

I can amend a statement any time I like, lurkers.

>
> You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
> twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
> blatant lie.
>
>
>
> >> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
> >>
> >> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
> >> is harder than finding an honest believer.
> >>
> >> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
> >>
> >> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
> >> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
> >> *STILL* can't say that.
>
> And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!

I admitted to the slight overstatement, lurkers.

>
> ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:13:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw
>> >> > Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is
>> >> > certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....
>> >>
>> >> End of story.
>> >>
>> >> Since dufus called me a liar,
>> >
>> > What did Ben say that I called him a liar for saying, lurkers? Was
>> > what Ben said true?
>>
>>
>> You PROVABLY know it was.
>
> Ben said this...
>
> "Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that
> Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."
>
> I called it a lie because it was one.

No, you called it a lie because you stated that I could not provide
EVIDENCE for that statement.

> Ben called it "the most credible evidence", yet he doesn`t consider
> most of the information from that source to be credible,

You're lying again, dufus.

When all you have to argue with are *YOUR OWN* statements rather than
mine, you've merely demonstrated that you know you lost.

> thus establishing him a hypocrite.

Nope. No "hypocrisy" involved.

And the evidence I cited is indeed more credible than Givens
testimony, as well as being the earliest.

> What establishs him as a liar is taking the position that hearsay
> is more credible than what a person is known to have said.

Don't worry, you've already lost.

Oswald said he shot no-one. Since this is the witness himself
speaking, it clearly trumps most of the evidence you hold so dear.

You don't even think of the consequences of judging everything else by
what you assert.

> Ask 10 people which information is more credible, information a
> person says or information someone else says they said, see what your
> results are. Ben lied.

I'll make you the same offer I made Chucky... let's create a poll with
this data... and ask people if a person known to be willing to change
their statements for money, testifying five months later to an
audience who *wanted* him to say what he said - is more credible than
two disinterested FBI agents doing an interview that weekend.

The loser stops posting for one month.

Deal?

>> >> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
>> >> this evidence,
>> >
>> > I made a prediction, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."
>
> I called Ben a liar for lying, lurkers.

Where's the "lie" stupid?

Why can't you quote me telling a "lie?"

>> You're lying again.
>>
>>
>> >> then it's clear that dufus lied.
>> >
>> > Not all predictions come true.
>>
>>
>> Not all jackasses bray.
>
> I know one that does, lurkers.

That is indeed what I implied... I just didn't think you'd admit it.

>> > Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...
>>
>>
>> No moron... you owe me an apology,
>
> Perhaps if Ben hadn`t told a blatant untruth before I called him a liar, lurkers.

What "blatant untruth?"

WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE THESE "LIES?"

>> and you need to retract your
>> blatant lie.
>>
>>
>> > "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >
>> > There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.
>>
>>
>> Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.
>
> I can amend a statement any time I like, lurkers.

Doesn't change the facts, moron.

>> You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
>> twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
>> blatant lie.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
>> >>
>> >> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
>> >> is harder than finding an honest believer.
>> >>
>> >> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
>> >>
>> >> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
>> >> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
>> >> *STILL* can't say that.
>>
>> And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!
>
> I admitted to the slight overstatement, lurkers.

ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD !!! IS THE FBI MEMO CONSIDERED "EVIDENCE?"




>> ROTFLMAO!!!

And *still* refuses to do so...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:21:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:14:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Day 6, and Dufus is still running!
>
> If Ben wants to talk about the issue he can go to the thread we
> were discussing it in and continue the discussion, lurkers. I`m
> certainly not stopping him

And if dufus wanted to be honest, I'm certainly not stopping him.

Of *COURSE* I did... you meant "original" as in the dictionary meaning
of where the topic first appeared recently.

But you lied.

So I corrected you.



>> But how can **I** be "dishonest" when I've been telling the

>> absolute truth, and *YOU'VE* been evading it?
>

> By being dishonest, lurkers.


Not responsive to the question.

No, you PROVABLY are not. The reason I created the new thread IS
BECAUSE YOU REPEATEDLY RAN IN THE ORIGINAL THREAD.

And you can't refute this fact, because anyone can go look it up and
see whose telling the truth, and who's lying.

>> You provably lied, and I'm perfectly willing to give you as many
>> opportunities to do the right thing as I can.
>>
>> That ... and I drive home the point even to morons who don't read
>> everything... such as Mark.
>
> Ben is doing what he always does, lurkers, try to mask the real
> issues in a flood of ad hominem.

You're lying again, dufus.

>> > The one thread that was discussing the issue at length and suddenly
>> > this isn`t a priority.
>>
>>
>> You mean the **ORIGINAL** thread where you ran away?
>
> I posted the name of the thread I was referring to and Ben still
> dishonestly pretends not to know, lurkers.

Cite a definition of "original" that means a second thread...

>> >> >> My response was made the day you posted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
>> >> >> lying about the cites,
>> >> >
>> >> > "cities", lurkers?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes moron, there were two of them.
>> >>
>> >> Go ahead and admit that you didn't realize that - it will only
>> >> demonstrate that you're dumber than Chester... who easily saw it.
>>
>>
>> Looks like dufus ran away again...
>

> I'm retarded and have no idea what Ben is talking about with the "cities"

> comment, lurkers. Whatever it was I wasn`t following it.

You're the only one with spelling problems, I didn't even call you on

it.



>> >> >> you only get posts once a week. You currently
>> >> >> have 63 posts waiting to be posted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you knew this, didn't you stump?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dead silence...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> This is day five of dufus running away from the blatant lie he told.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why is Ben so afraid to continue the discussion we were having on
>> >> >> > this issue, lurkers? Why did he start so many posts on the issue
>> >> >> > desperately trying to distract away from that discussion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not "afraid" at all. Will be posted in a few days, or maybe next week.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can wait, lurkers. We can continue the issue there.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, you'll RUN from the issue as you do all the time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Indeed, it documents about three new lies you told in that one post.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (Preview: such as your lie that the first cite isn't contradicted by
>> >> >> Givens' testimony... you'll run from that one too!)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dead silence... dufus had *NOTHING* to say!!!
>> >>
>> >> What does anyone bet that he can't get even *ONE* believer to take his
>> >> side on this issue?
>> >
>> > Ben thinks it is West Side Story here, with the Sharks versus the
>> > Jets, lurkers.
>>
>> Dufus thinks he's right, but can't find ANYONE willing to agree with
>> him.
>
> I wasn`t looking, lurkers.

That's a good thing... you won't get disappointed that way.

>> An honest man might take the hint.
>
> Why would be feel the need to weigh in on a non-issue, lurkers?

Only the dishonest would think that flagrant lies are a "non-issue."

> Just because Ben has been trying to bestow this with great
> significance doesn`t necessarily translate into the real world.

This goes to the very heart of the case.

Dare to claim that the FBI memo is *NOT* evidence, and you cut out the
heart of your case.

Dare to admit that it *IS* evidence, and you've provably lied.

This is why you still refuse to say.

You can't.

You're shafted either way.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:37:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:40:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:41:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:13:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:13:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Givens/Oswald/Newspaper Addendum....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, Ben, you did provide "evidence" regarding Givens saying he saw
> >> >> > Oswald reading a paper on the morning of 11/22. This FBI Report is
> >> >> > certainly in existence (and it is "evidence")....
> >> >>
> >> >> End of story.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since dufus called me a liar,
> >> >
> >> > What did Ben say that I called him a liar for saying, lurkers? Was
> >> > what Ben said true?
> >>
> >>
> >> You PROVABLY know it was.
> >
> > Ben said this...
> >
> > "Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that
> > Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper."
> >
> > I called it a lie because it was one.
>
> No, you called it a lie because you stated that I could not provide
> EVIDENCE for that statement.

I called it a lie because it was one, lurkers.

>
> > Ben called it "the most credible evidence", yet he doesn`t consider
> > most of the information from that source to be credible,
>
>
> You're lying again, dufus.
>
> When all you have to argue with are *YOUR OWN* statements rather than
> mine, you've merely demonstrated that you know you lost.

I said it was a lie right after Ben said some things, lurkers.

> > thus establishing him a hypocrite.
>
> Nope. No "hypocrisy" involved.
>
> And the evidence I cited is indeed more credible than Givens
> testimony,

Then Ben must find it credible that Oswald carried a bag three feet by six inches into work that day. Unless he is a cherry-picking hypocrite.

>as well as being the earliest.

Not true, this teletype would not be the earliest, it is merely the synopsis of an earlier interview conducted by the FBI.

> > What establishs him as a liar is taking the position that hearsay
> > is more credible than what a person is known to have said.
>
>
> Don't worry, you've already lost.

Ben doesn`t like being held to the positions he takes, lurkers.

> Oswald said he shot no-one.

And I accept that he said that, lurkers. If it turned up in an FBI report that Oswald has said that he *did* shoot someone, I wouldn`t give it much weight. If Oswald`s brother said that when he talked to him he told him that he actually did shot people, I would give weight to that information. There are no hard, fast rules, you weigh the information.

> Since this is the witness himself
> speaking, it clearly trumps most of the evidence you hold so dear.

That is about as stupid a statement as you will ever see, lurkers, that what the suspect says trumps the information against him.

> You don't even think of the consequences of judging everything else by
> what you assert.

The only consequence of weighing information in a reasonable manner is that you come to reasonable conclusions, lurkers.

> > Ask 10 people which information is more credible, information a
> > person says or information someone else says they said, see what your
> > results are. Ben lied.
>
> I'll make you the same offer I made Chucky... let's create a poll with
> this data... and ask people if a person known to be willing to change
> their statements for money, testifying five months later to an
> audience who *wanted* him to say what he said - is more credible than
> two disinterested FBI agents doing an interview that weekend.

How does this speak at all to the issue we are examining, lurkers?

> The loser stops posting for one month.
>
> Deal?
>
> >> >> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
> >> >> this evidence,
> >> >
> >> > I made a prediction, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."
> >
> > I called Ben a liar for lying, lurkers.
>
>
> Where's the "lie" stupid?

Pointed out above, lurkers.

> Why can't you quote me telling a "lie?"

Did that above, lurkers.

Why does Ben demand the argument be repeated?

> >> You're lying again.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> then it's clear that dufus lied.
> >> >
> >> > Not all predictions come true.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not all jackasses bray.
> >
> > I know one that does, lurkers.
>
>
> That is indeed what I implied... I just didn't think you'd admit it.

Why wouldn`t I admit I knew of one, lurkers.

>
>
> >> > Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...
> >>
> >>
> >> No moron... you owe me an apology,
> >
> > Perhaps if Ben hadn`t told a blatant untruth before I called him a liar, lurkers.
>
>
> What "blatant untruth?"

See above, lurkers.

> WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE THESE "LIES?"

See above, lurkers.

>
> >> and you need to retract your
> >> blatant lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> > "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
> >> >
> >> > There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.
> >
> > I can amend a statement any time I like, lurkers.
>
>
> Doesn't change the facts, moron.

But it does make the statement accurate, lurkers.

> >> You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
> >> twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
> >> blatant lie.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
> >> >> is harder than finding an honest believer.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
> >> >>
> >> >> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
> >> >> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
> >> >> *STILL* can't say that.
> >>
> >> And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!
> >
> > I admitted to the slight overstatement, lurkers.
>
>
> ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD !!! IS THE FBI MEMO CONSIDERED "EVIDENCE?"

Of course, lurkers. Thats why I amended my statement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:40:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I can quote it just as many times as you lie about it:
***********************************************************

> Interestingly, the *EARLIEST* and most credible evidence shows that
> Oswald followed his normal routine, and read the paper.

Ben is lying, lurkers. He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read

the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did,

lurkers.
***********************************************************

And the more times you lie about it, the more opportunities for
lurkers to see what a liar & coward you are... so by all means,
continue.

>> > Ben called it "the most credible evidence", yet he doesn`t consider
>> > most of the information from that source to be credible,
>>
>> You're lying again, dufus.
>>
>> When all you have to argue with are *YOUR OWN* statements rather than
>> mine, you've merely demonstrated that you know you lost.
>
> I said it was a lie right after Ben said some things, lurkers.

And I quoted it above.

You're TERRIFIED of the fact that you put Givens' testimony from finve
months later as more credible than these FBI memos created that
weekend.

You lied.

And got caught.

>> > thus establishing him a hypocrite.
>>
>> Nope. No "hypocrisy" involved.
>>
>> And the evidence I cited is indeed more credible than Givens
>> testimony,
>
> Then Ben must find it credible that Oswald carried a bag three
> feet by six inches into work that day. Unless he is a cherry-picking
> hypocrite.

No stupid, I'm not required to accept all evidence as perfect proof.

**YOU** certainly don't.

But what I *DID* do is produce HIGHLY credible, indeed the *MOST*
credible evidence that supports the fact that Givens saw Oswald
reading a newspaper that morning.

And you're *STILL* lying about it...

>>as well as being the earliest.
>
> Not true, this teletype would not be the earliest, it is merely
> the synopsis of an earlier interview conducted by the FBI.

You're lying AGAIN. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer *ANYTHING AT
ALL* that relates to this topic that precedes the two citations given.
And that proves YOU are lying.

Watch as dufus fulfills my prediction.

>> > What establishs him as a liar is taking the position that hearsay
>> > is more credible than what a person is known to have said.
>>
>> Don't worry, you've already lost.
>
> Ben doesn`t like being held to the positions he takes, lurkers.

Dufus clearly stated that eyewitness testimony trumps hearsay reports.

Are you now denying that you said that, stump?

>> Oswald said he shot no-one.
>
> And I accept that he said that, lurkers.

Then, by YOUR logic... you've lost.

> If it turned up in an FBI report that Oswald has said that he *did*
> shoot someone, I wouldn`t give it much weight. If Oswald`s brother
> said that when he talked to him he told him that he actually did shot
> people, I would give weight to that information. There are no hard,
> fast rules, you weigh the information.

Your rule was that an eyewitness trumps hearsay.

Produce your case. Produce *ANYTHING AT ALL* that now supports your
theory that Oswald alone shot JFK & Tippit.

>> Since this is the witness himself
>> speaking, it clearly trumps most of the evidence you hold so dear.
>
> That is about as stupid a statement as you will ever see, lurkers,
> that what the suspect says trumps the information against him.

It was your claim. I merely point out the stupidity of it.

You've *STILL* refused to publicly retract it.

>> You don't even think of the consequences of judging everything else by
>> what you assert.
>
> The only consequence of weighing information in a reasonable
> manner is that you come to reasonable conclusions, lurkers.

There's no honest person who, given the facts, would accept Givens'
testimony as the truth.

There goes your "weighing information in a reasonable manner"... you
clearly cannot.

>> > Ask 10 people which information is more credible, information a
>> > person says or information someone else says they said, see what your
>> > results are. Ben lied.
>>
>> I'll make you the same offer I made Chucky... let's create a poll with
>> this data... and ask people if a person known to be willing to change
>> their statements for money, testifying five months later to an
>> audience who *wanted* him to say what he said - is more credible than
>> two disinterested FBI agents doing an interview that weekend.
>
> How does this speak at all to the issue we are examining, lurkers?

Yep... I knew you'd run.

But here's another way to prove you a liar... why not simply cite an
authoritative source, one *NOT* related to this case, that says
testimony from months later that contradicts statements made to an
official agency (police, FBI, etc) is more credible.

Of course... you won't.

Proving yourself a liar & a coward.

>> The loser stops posting for one month.
>>
>> Deal?
>>
>> >> >> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
>> >> >> this evidence,
>> >> >
>> >> > I made a prediction, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."
>> >
>> > I called Ben a liar for lying, lurkers.
>>
>> Where's the "lie" stupid?
>
> Pointed out above, lurkers.

No stupid... it wasn't. You've *YET* to quote anything I've said, then
*CITE* for the evidence that I'm contradicting.

And you never will.

>> Why can't you quote me telling a "lie?"
>
> Did that above, lurkers.
>
> Why does Ben demand the argument be repeated?

Because the proof that you're lying is shown by your refusal to simply
"cut & paste."

>> >> You're lying again.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> then it's clear that dufus lied.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not all predictions come true.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not all jackasses bray.
>> >
>> > I know one that does, lurkers.
>>
>> That is indeed what I implied... I just didn't think you'd admit it.
>

> Why wouldn`t I admit I am one, lurkers.

>
>>
>> >> > Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No moron... you owe me an apology,
>> >
>> > Perhaps if Ben hadn`t told a blatant untruth before I called him a liar, lurkers.
>>
>> What "blatant untruth?"
>
> See above, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

>> WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE THESE "LIES?"
>
> See above, lurkers.

That doesn't answer the question... indeed, you simply evaded the
question.

Why the cowardice dufus?

If you had the facts on your side - WHY AREN'T YOU POSTING IT OVER AND
OVER AGAIN???

>> >> and you need to retract your
>> >> blatant lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >> >
>> >> > There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.
>> >
>> > I can amend a statement any time I like, lurkers.
>>
>> Doesn't change the facts, moron.
>
> But it does make the statement accurate, lurkers.

No stupid... I proved your original statement a lie. You don't get to
change it *NOW* (after I proved you a liar) - and it's suddenly no
longer relevant.

You've *STILL* not publicly retracted that lie, and apologize for your
unwarranted slurs.

You're just a scumbag.

>> >> You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
>> >> twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
>> >> blatant lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
>> >> >> is harder than finding an honest believer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
>> >> >> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
>> >> >> *STILL* can't say that.
>> >>
>> >> And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!
>> >
>> > I admitted to the slight overstatement, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD !!! IS THE FBI MEMO CONSIDERED "EVIDENCE?"
>
> Of course, lurkers. Thats why I amended my statement.

Why did you evade that question for so long?

Why haven't you admitted that this makes *YOUR* assertion that I
couldn't provide the evidence a lie?

[Bud]

Not what I meant at all. I meant the original post we were discussing it recently, before Ben started a slew of posts on the same subject. I thought saying "original" would help him to understand which post I meant, but in his desperation he jumped on the use of the word to try and score retard points. Apparently these can be used to buy retard prizes.

> But you lied.
>
> So I corrected you.
>
>
>
> >> But how can **I** be "dishonest" when I've been telling the
> >> absolute truth, and *YOU'VE* been evading it?
> >
> > By being dishonest, lurkers.
>
>
> Not responsive to the question.

Ben can be dishonest by being dishonest, lurkers. When he asks "How can I be dishonest?", that is the answer. The real question is "How can you make Ben admit his dishonesty?" The answer to that question is that I haven`t found a way yet.

Lets do that then, lurkers. I believe Ben means this post...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/fCsJoi9A8OM/rKfn4XcCAwAJ

Ben says *I* repeatedly ran in the original thread, lurkers. Here is just one example of Ben running from points in that discussion.

Ben said: "...because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch."

I said: "Who said they saw Oswald downstairs eating lunch?

Ben relied: "Feel free to read the testimony, "Bud". You might learn something."

Clearly Ben ran. Lurkers can look at the post I made on the 29th where I made a slew of points, and they were all ignored in Ben`s next response, all cut out and ran from. So Ben`s claim that *I* was the one running is just his usual lying.

> >> You provably lied, and I'm perfectly willing to give you as many
> >> opportunities to do the right thing as I can.
> >>
> >> That ... and I drive home the point even to morons who don't read
> >> everything... such as Mark.
> >
> > Ben is doing what he always does, lurkers, try to mask the real
> > issues in a flood of ad hominem.
>
>
> You're lying again, dufus.

Like this, lurkers.

>
>
> >> > The one thread that was discussing the issue at length and suddenly
> >> > this isn`t a priority.
> >>
> >>
> >> You mean the **ORIGINAL** thread where you ran away?
> >
> > I posted the name of the thread I was referring to and Ben still
> > dishonestly pretends not to know, lurkers.
>
>
> Cite a definition of "original" that means a second thread...

Let Ben lie and say he didn`t know which post I was referring to, lurkers. he loves to lie.

This is only Ben dishonest appraisal of the situation, lurkers. A more accurate appraisal of the situation is a retard who is desperate to try to score points. And what set this search for nit-picking things to make hay about was the fact that I highlighted several hugely dishonest stances Ben had taken recently. It was a blow to his fragile ego.

>
> > Just because Ben has been trying to bestow this with great
> > significance doesn`t necessarily translate into the real world.
>
>
> This goes to the very heart of the case.
>
> Dare to claim that the FBI memo is *NOT* evidence, and you cut out the
> heart of your case.
>
> Dare to admit that it *IS* evidence, and you've provably lied.

False dilemma fallacy, lurkers.

[Bud]

And he was, too, lurkers.

> He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read
> the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did,
> lurkers.
> ***********************************************************
>
> And the more times you lie about it, the more opportunities for
> lurkers to see what a liar & coward you are... so by all means,
> continue.
>
>
> >> > Ben called it "the most credible evidence", yet he doesn`t consider
> >> > most of the information from that source to be credible,
> >>
> >> You're lying again, dufus.
> >>
> >> When all you have to argue with are *YOUR OWN* statements rather than
> >> mine, you've merely demonstrated that you know you lost.
> >
> > I said it was a lie right after Ben said some things, lurkers.
>
> And I quoted it above.

And it was a lie, lurkers.

> You're TERRIFIED of the fact that you put Givens' testimony from finve
> months later as more credible than these FBI memos created that
> weekend.

I gave more weight to what I knew Givens had actually said than what someone else had said that he said. Ben gave more weight to what someone said Givens had said to what it is known Givens had actually said. He called what someone else said that he said was the "most credible" evidence. He lied.

> You lied.
>
> And got caught.
>
>
> >> > thus establishing him a hypocrite.
> >>
> >> Nope. No "hypocrisy" involved.
> >>
> >> And the evidence I cited is indeed more credible than Givens
> >> testimony,
> >
> > Then Ben must find it credible that Oswald carried a bag three
> > feet by six inches into work that day. Unless he is a cherry-picking
> > hypocrite.
>
> No stupid, I'm not required to accept all evidence as perfect proof.

What Ben is actually saying is that he cherry picked one piece of information and declared it credible from a source he largely finds not credible, lurkers.

And he *lied*, and said this source *showed* that Oswald read the paper in the Domino room in the morning, but doesn`t accept that it *shows* other things mentioned in it.

> **YOU** certainly don't.

I weigh evidence, lurkers. Ben will never get this.

> But what I *DID* do is produce HIGHLY credible, indeed the *MOST*
> credible evidence that supports the fact that Givens saw Oswald
> reading a newspaper that morning.

Repeating this lie doesn`t make it true, lurkers.

> And you're *STILL* lying about it...
>
>
> >>as well as being the earliest.
> >
> > Not true, this teletype would not be the earliest, it is merely
> > the synopsis of an earlier interview conducted by the FBI.
>
>
> You're lying AGAIN. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer *ANYTHING AT
> ALL* that relates to this topic that precedes the two citations given.
> And that proves YOU are lying.

Ben is an idiot, lurkers. The teletype is clearly the work of dozens of interviews doubtlessly conducted by many different agents. Unlikely they had *one* guy who collected all the information from all those different people mentioned in the Shanklin exhibit and typed it all up and sent it out on a teletype. This means an agent interviewed Givens, submitted a report or notes, and that information was included in the teletype. There *has* to be a form prior to this teletype, so it isn`t the *earliest*.

.
> Watch as dufus fulfills my prediction.

Impossible that this teletype was the first form that information was taken down in. Were all the people mentioned in that teletype in the room and the person was just dictating from them what they said? Ben will be willing to believe that rather than accept this wasn`t the earliest form of the information.

> >> > What establishs him as a liar is taking the position that hearsay
> >> > is more credible than what a person is known to have said.
> >>
> >> Don't worry, you've already lost.
> >
> > Ben doesn`t like being held to the positions he takes, lurkers.
>
>
> Dufus clearly stated that eyewitness testimony trumps hearsay reports.

Ben *loves* to lie, lurkers. I corrected him several times but he keeps telling the same lie. Why is it that dishonest people always try to assign you a position and address the position they created?

> Are you now denying that you said that, stump?

Let Ben quote me, lurkers.

>
> >> Oswald said he shot no-one.
> >
> > And I accept that he said that, lurkers.
>
> Then, by YOUR logic... you've lost.

Retard logic, lurkers. Accepting that he said it isn`t accepting that it is true and accurate. But it is also where the weighing of information comes in, a murder suspect with a truckload of evidence against him is not the same as the average joe. The average joe doesn`t have the same motivation to be deceitful. You weigh things against what is reasonable to believe. The retards can`t weigh evidence because their scales are broken. They are the worst people imaginable to be looking into this case at all. And they can`t be taught, this will stick to their flawed processes, which prevent them figuring out very simple things.

> > If it turned up in an FBI report that Oswald has said that he *did*
> > shoot someone, I wouldn`t give it much weight. If Oswald`s brother
> > said that when he talked to him he told him that he actually did shot
> > people, I would give weight to that information. There are no hard,
> > fast rules, you weigh the information.
>
> Your rule was that an eyewitness trumps hearsay.

Let Ben quote me stating this as a rule. The only rule I use for weighing evidence is "What is the most reasonable thing to believe in light of all the available information". Nothing anyone says is so strong that can`t be overturned by better evidence.

This speaks to the issue raised earlier about the "misstatement" in the WCR about the SBT. Russel was loath to disregard what Connally testified to about the shooting, he gave great weight to it and demanded that some words be put in that allowed that Connally was correct, which created what Belin called a "misstatement". But retards aren`t interested in the truth, they just want to play their silly games with the deaths of these men, trying to score retard points so they can win retard prizes.


> Produce your case.

It has been on the table for decades, lurkers. It is the only case on the table for consideration.

> Produce *ANYTHING AT ALL* that now supports your
> theory that Oswald alone shot JFK & Tippit.

The evidence shows that Oswald killed those two people, lurkers. That is what can be determined by the evidence, provided one is not retarded.

>
> >> Since this is the witness himself
> >> speaking, it clearly trumps most of the evidence you hold so dear.
> >
> > That is about as stupid a statement as you will ever see, lurkers,
> > that what the suspect says trumps the information against him.
>
>
> It was your claim.

Notice whenever a dishonest person represents you position they always end up changing it to something else, lurkers.

> I merely point out the stupidity of it.

Ben sets up a strawman and attacks the strawman, lurkers, what else is new?

> You've *STILL* refused to publicly retract it.

Ben lies when he says this is my position, lurkers, I can`t retract a position I never took.

> >> You don't even think of the consequences of judging everything else by
> >> what you assert.
> >
> > The only consequence of weighing information in a reasonable
> > manner is that you come to reasonable conclusions, lurkers.
>
>
> There's no honest person who, given the facts, would accept Givens'
> testimony as the truth.

Empty claim, No true Scotsman fallacy and just a plain good old fashioned lie, lurkers.

> There goes your "weighing information in a reasonable manner"... you
> clearly cannot.

Let Ben explain how it is unreasonable to believe what Givens testified to, lurkers.

>
> >> > Ask 10 people which information is more credible, information a
> >> > person says or information someone else says they said, see what your
> >> > results are. Ben lied.
> >>
> >> I'll make you the same offer I made Chucky... let's create a poll with
> >> this data... and ask people if a person known to be willing to change
> >> their statements for money, testifying five months later to an
> >> audience who *wanted* him to say what he said - is more credible than
> >> two disinterested FBI agents doing an interview that weekend.
> >
> > How does this speak at all to the issue we are examining, lurkers?
>
>
> Yep... I knew you'd run.

Notice Ben didn`t even *try* to make a case that his challenge was relevant to the issue, lurkers.

> But here's another way to prove you a liar... why not simply cite an
> authoritative source, one *NOT* related to this case, that says
> testimony from months later that contradicts statements made to an
> official agency (police, FBI, etc) is more credible.

Shifting the burden, lurkers. Ben proclaimed the information from the FBI the "most credible". Ben needs to support his assertion.

And I have to point out Ben sheer hypocrisy here once more. One, he is the one who is always saying how the witnesses are reliable. Two, the FBI teletype contains all sorts of information he doesn`t accept, but he cherry picks one thing that is useful to ideas and accepts that.

> Of course... you won't.
>
> Proving yourself a liar & a coward.
>
>
> >> The loser stops posting for one month.
> >>
> >> Deal?
> >>
> >> >> >> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
> >> >> >> this evidence,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I made a prediction, lurkers.
> >> >>
> >> >> No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."
> >> >
> >> > I called Ben a liar for lying, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Where's the "lie" stupid?
> >
> > Pointed out above, lurkers.
>
>
> No stupid... it wasn't. You've *YET* to quote anything I've said, then
> *CITE* for the evidence that I'm contradicting.

Lurkers are free to conduct their own poll. Ask random people which is more reliable as to accuracy, something that someone is known to have said or something someone else said that that person had said.

> And you never will.

"In general, the hearsay rule is motivated by a belief that hearsay is unreliable."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

And let me quote Ben when he was claiming to be refuting Bugliosi...

(3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.

"First point... this is hearsay."

Ben was using the fact that it was Frazier relating information about what Oswald supposedly said as being hearsay to draw into question the veracity of the information. Hearsay can either be "most reliable" or not reliable at all depending on the whims of a hypocrite.

> >> Why can't you quote me telling a "lie?"
> >
> > Did that above, lurkers.
> >
> > Why does Ben demand the argument be repeated?
>
>
> Because the proof that you're lying is shown by your refusal to simply
> "cut & paste."

Ben`s lying is proven by the argument still existing above, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> You're lying again.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> then it's clear that dufus lied.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not all predictions come true.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not all jackasses bray.
> >> >
> >> > I know one that does, lurkers.
> >>
> >> That is indeed what I implied... I just didn't think you'd admit it.
> >
> > Why wouldn`t I admit I am one, lurkers.

<snicker> Whenever this scumbag is bested he has to resort to changing my words, lurkers.

> >>
> >> >> > Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No moron... you owe me an apology,
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps if Ben hadn`t told a blatant untruth before I called him a liar, lurkers.
> >>
> >> What "blatant untruth?"
> >
> > See above, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, stump.

I`m sure you lurkers can find it.

>
> >> WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE THESE "LIES?"
> >
> > See above, lurkers.
>
> That doesn't answer the question... indeed, you simply evaded the
> question.

I pointed out the lie above, lurkers.

> Why the cowardice dufus?
>
> If you had the facts on your side - WHY AREN'T YOU POSTING IT OVER AND
> OVER AGAIN???

Because only a retard would do that, lurkers.

>
> >> >> and you need to retract your
> >> >> blatant lie.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.
> >> >
> >> > I can amend a statement any time I like, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Doesn't change the facts, moron.
> >
> > But it does make the statement accurate, lurkers.
>
>
> No stupid... I proved your original statement a lie.

Inaccurate, lurkers. I amended it to make it accurate.

> You don't get to
> change it *NOW*

Proven wrong by the fact that I did change it now, lurkers.

>(after I proved you a liar) - and it's suddenly no
> longer relevant.
>
> You've *STILL* not publicly retracted that lie, and apologize for your
> unwarranted slurs.

If what Ben had written was true he would be correct, lurkers. But it wasn`t.

> You're just a scumbag.
>
>
> >> >> You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
> >> >> twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
> >> >> blatant lie.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
> >> >> >> is harder than finding an honest believer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
> >> >> >> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
> >> >> >> *STILL* can't say that.
> >> >>
> >> >> And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!
> >> >
> >> > I admitted to the slight overstatement, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD !!! IS THE FBI MEMO CONSIDERED "EVIDENCE?"
> >
> > Of course, lurkers. Thats why I amended my statement.
>
>
> Why did you evade that question for so long?

<snicker> I knew I was going to have to amend what I said as soon as Ben produced that evidence, lurkers. First I wanted to see the original, to see it in context. Ben drug that out, he could have expedited the process by pointing me to the post with the exchanges. I also wanted to see how Ben`s claim that this *showed* that Oswald had read the newspaper in the morning played out, I wanted him to get a little more invested in that lie.

> Why haven't you admitted that this makes *YOUR* assertion that I
> couldn't provide the evidence a lie?

Not all predictions come true, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 14:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 12:37:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:21:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:14:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Day 6, and Dufus is still running!
>> >
>> > If Ben wants to talk about the issue he can go to the thread we
>> > were discussing it in and continue the discussion, lurkers. I`m
>> > certainly not stopping him
>>
>> And if dufus wanted to be honest, I'm certainly not stopping him.

Nothing to say to this, eh stump?

Let's see you be "honest."

Did you claim I could *NOT* produce evidence?

Did I actually produce evidence?

What was the *BASIS* for your assertion that I was lying?

The word "original" has just one meaning.

Simply admit that you repeatedly refused to answer when I posted a
cite on this issue in the ORIGINAL thread, then you can go and call
any thread you want "original."

But you're *STILL* refusing to acknowledge that you ran repeatedly,
thus forcing me to start another thread to force you to answer.


> I'm just a retard...


Indeed, but this still doesn't explain your cowardice in the original
thread.

Nor indeed even the new "original" thread.

>> But you lied.
>>
>> So I corrected you.

And I'm going to keep right on correcting you each time you lie.

>> >> But how can **I** be "dishonest" when I've been telling the
>> >> absolute truth, and *YOU'VE* been evading it?
>> >
>> > By being dishonest, lurkers.
>>
>> Not responsive to the question.
>
> Ben can be dishonest by being dishonest, lurkers.

But how can **I** be "dishonest" when I've been telling the absolute
truth, and *YOU'VE* been evading it?

I did indeed post the evidence... and you've PROVABLY run from it.

>> >> At **ANY** time you could have said, "yes, I know that this isn't the
>> >> *original* thread, but here is where I want to continue..." - but you
>> >> aren't honest enough to do this.
>> >>
>> >> Then proclaim that **I'M** dishonest - yet you can't support that lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> He knows I'm telling only facts here, and he's got nothing to say that
>> >> >> addresses those facts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a FACT that dufus ran away IN THE ORIGINAL THREAD... and never
>> >> >> addressed his blatant lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And that fact hasn't changed... despite the fact that dufus is too
>> >> dishonest to acknowledge it.
>> >>
>> >> **HIS** so-called "original" thread was created only because dufus
>> >> kept running away in the first thread.
>> >>
>> >> This is often the only time I can get dufus to answer... I have to
>> >> repost again and again until stump can gather up his courage.

It works, too.

How can that be the original thread when it doesn't contain your
original lie?

This was a thread from over a year ago, and dufus knows quite well
that the thread he labeled me a liar in was this month.


Are you a moron???

You've ASSERTED that you know where the original was... you made it
quite clear that you checked it, and now knew that what I'd quoted you
saying was what you'd *ACTUALLY* said.

Yet now you're provably lying, as anyone can quickly search that
thread and see that your lie is *NOWHERE TO BE FOUND* there.

Why do you keep lying, stump?

Can't you make it less transparent???

>> >> You provably lied, and I'm perfectly willing to give you as many
>> >> opportunities to do the right thing as I can.
>> >>
>> >> That ... and I drive home the point even to morons who don't read
>> >> everything... such as Mark.
>> >
>> > Ben is doing what he always does, lurkers, try to mask the real
>> > issues in a flood of ad hominem.
>>
>> You're lying again, dufus.
>
> Like this, lurkers.

Pointing out when someone is not telling the truth is not the
definition of "ad hominem."

And no matter how many times I point this out, dufus can't learn this
fact.

What does that tell you about dufus?

>> >> > The one thread that was discussing the issue at length and suddenly
>> >> > this isn`t a priority.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You mean the **ORIGINAL** thread where you ran away?
>> >
>> > I posted the name of the thread I was referring to and Ben still
>> > dishonestly pretends not to know, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Cite a definition of "original" that means a second thread...
>
> Let Ben lie and say he didn`t know which post I was referring to,
> lurkers. he loves to lie.

Let dufus lie and say he didn't know what the original thread was.

Let him deny that he ran repeatedly in that thread for this topic.

>> >> >> >> My response was made the day you posted.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Except for threads like this where I want to document your repeated
>> >> >> >> lying about the cites,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "cities", lurkers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes moron, there were two of them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Go ahead and admit that you didn't realize that - it will only
>> >> >> demonstrate that you're dumber than Chester... who easily saw it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Looks like dufus ran away again...
>> >
>> > I'm retarded and have no idea what Ben is talking about with the "cities"
>> > comment, lurkers. Whatever it was I wasn`t following it.
>>
>> You're the only one with spelling problems, I didn't even call you on
>> it.

One could easily suspect that dufus didn't know that I'd provided
*TWO* FBI cites. Hence his questioning of the plural.

Did I provide a cite that supported what I stated?

Yes or no.

Did you assert that I could not provide that citation?

Yes or no.

You can't answer, of course, because **ANY** honest person sees that
the only correct answers are "yes."

That makes you a liar... and a flagrant one because you've spent
hundreds of words trying to deny this.


> A more accurate appraisal of the situation is that I'm a retard.


Not relevant.

>> > Just because Ben has been trying to bestow this with great
>> > significance doesn`t necessarily translate into the real world.
>>
>>
>> This goes to the very heart of the case.
>>
>> Dare to claim that the FBI memo is *NOT* evidence, and you cut out the
>> heart of your case.
>>
>> Dare to admit that it *IS* evidence, and you've provably lied.
>
> False dilemma fallacy, lurkers.

And, as usual, you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer any other credible
options.

The FBI memo **IS** either "evidence" or not. There's no third choice.

And stump won't offer one.

You're lying again, stump.

>> This is why you still refuse to say.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>> You're shafted either way.

And since you've stated that it *IS* evidence... then you lied when
you claimed I couldn't provide it.

>> >> >> >> Day five of stump's refusal to address the flagrant lie he told...

<unanswered material snipped>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You're lying again, stump.

The statement is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and you cannot cite otherwise.

>> He can`t produce evidence that Oswald read
>> the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did,
>> lurkers.
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>> And the more times you lie about it, the more opportunities for
>> lurkers to see what a liar & coward you are... so by all means,
>> continue.
>>
>>
>> >> > Ben called it "the most credible evidence", yet he doesn`t consider
>> >> > most of the information from that source to be credible,
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, dufus.
>> >>
>> >> When all you have to argue with are *YOUR OWN* statements rather than
>> >> mine, you've merely demonstrated that you know you lost.
>> >
>> > I said it was a lie right after Ben said some things, lurkers.
>>
>> And I quoted it above.
>
> And it was a lie, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump. Your empty claims are meaningless.

>> You're TERRIFIED of the fact that you put Givens' testimony from finve
>> months later as more credible than these FBI memos created that
>> weekend.
>
> I gave more weight to what I knew Givens had actually said than
> what someone else had said that he said.

This illustrates that you really *don't* know how to judge the
evidence.

We know that Givens was *WILLING* to lie... and you cannot explain the
fact that his testimony CONTRADICTS what others (note the plural) said
that he'd said.

You've given *NO* explanation for what those two agents heard and put
in a report.

> Ben gave more weight to what someone said Givens had said to what
> it is known Givens had actually said.

No, even in *that* statement, you're lying. Document that Givens said
what the Warren Commission *published* as his testimony. We know from
others that the written "testimony" was not necessarily what was
actually said.

So you're *ACTUALLY* comparing hearsay to hearsay. And unless you've
*LISTENED* to a recording of Givens' testimony, you're working with
hearsay.

> He called what someone else said that he said was the "most
> credible" evidence. He lied.

There isn't an honest person alive who would agree with you.

>> You lied.
>>
>> And got caught.
>>
>>
>> >> > thus establishing him a hypocrite.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. No "hypocrisy" involved.
>> >>
>> >> And the evidence I cited is indeed more credible than Givens
>> >> testimony,
>> >
>> > Then Ben must find it credible that Oswald carried a bag three
>> > feet by six inches into work that day. Unless he is a cherry-picking
>> > hypocrite.
>>
>> No stupid, I'm not required to accept all evidence as perfect proof.
>
> What Ben is actually saying is that he cherry picked one piece of
> information and declared it credible from a source he largely finds
> not credible, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

> And he *lied*, and said this source *showed* that Oswald read the
> paper in the Domino room in the morning, but doesn`t accept that it
> *shows* other things mentioned in it.

This is, of course, *PRECISELY* what you do ... and you fail to call
yourself a liar for doing so.

>> **YOU** certainly don't.
>
> I weigh evidence, lurkers. Ben will never get this.

No stupid, you don't.

You judge a fellow liar as more truthful than two agents who had no
agenda.

>> But what I *DID* do is produce HIGHLY credible, indeed the *MOST*
>> credible evidence that supports the fact that Givens saw Oswald
>> reading a newspaper that morning.
>
> Repeating this lie doesn`t make it true, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump. You're *COMPLETELY* unable to document or
cite for your empty claim.

>> And you're *STILL* lying about it...
>>
>> >>as well as being the earliest.
>> >
>> > Not true, this teletype would not be the earliest, it is merely
>> > the synopsis of an earlier interview conducted by the FBI.
>>
>> You're lying AGAIN. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer *ANYTHING AT
>> ALL* that relates to this topic that precedes the two citations given.
>> And that proves YOU are lying.
>

> I'm an idiot, lurkers. <naked speculation snipped>

>
>> Watch as dufus fulfills my prediction.

He did.

> Impossible that this teletype was the first form that information
> was taken down in.

Impossible that you'll ever produce it.

> Were all the people mentioned in that teletype in the room and the
> person was just dictating from them what they said? Ben will be
> willing to believe that rather than accept this wasn`t the earliest
> form of the information.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

If you cannot produce something on this topic EARLIER than my two
cites, then you're a liar for claiming that they *AREN'T* the earliest
evidence in this case on this topic.

>> >> > What establishs him as a liar is taking the position that hearsay
>> >> > is more credible than what a person is known to have said.
>> >>
>> >> Don't worry, you've already lost.
>> >
>> > Ben doesn`t like being held to the positions he takes, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Dufus clearly stated that eyewitness testimony trumps hearsay reports.
>

> I *loves* to lie, lurkers.


"How can information gotten directly from the person *not* be the most
credible information? How can hearsay be *more* credible, especially
hearsay from a document ..."

>> Are you now denying that you said that, stump?
>
> Let Ben quote me, lurkers.

"How can information gotten directly from the person *not* be the most
credible information? How can hearsay be *more* credible, especially
hearsay from a document ..."

>> >> Oswald said he shot no-one.
>> >
>> > And I accept that he said that, lurkers.
>>
>> Then, by YOUR logic... you've lost.
>

> I'm just a retard, lurkers.


If you want to make an argument, you're going to have to do it without
claiming your mental state.

>> > If it turned up in an FBI report that Oswald has said that he *did*
>> > shoot someone, I wouldn`t give it much weight. If Oswald`s brother
>> > said that when he talked to him he told him that he actually did shot
>> > people, I would give weight to that information. There are no hard,
>> > fast rules, you weigh the information.
>>
>> Your rule was that an eyewitness trumps hearsay.
>
> Let Ben quote me stating this as a rule.

"How can information gotten directly from the person *not* be the most
credible information? How can hearsay be *more* credible, especially
hearsay from a document ..."

There's no leeway in this... direct statements always trump hearsay.

That would indeed make it a rule.


> I'm a retard that just want to play my silly games with the deaths
> of these men.

Yep... but if you want to debate, you'll have to keep your mental
state out of it.

>> Produce your case.
>
> It has been on the table for decades, lurkers. It is the only case
> on the table for consideration.

You've *NEVER* posted or defended it.

Conan at least had the courage to try before he ran away.

>> Produce *ANYTHING AT ALL* that now supports your
>> theory that Oswald alone shot JFK & Tippit.
>
> The evidence shows that Oswald killed those two people, lurkers.

What evidence?

Why are you so terrified to produce it?

And why are you refusing to address the fact that you lied when you
claimed I couldn't produce the evidence for my statement?


> I'm not retarded.


So you say...

>> >> Since this is the witness himself
>> >> speaking, it clearly trumps most of the evidence you hold so dear.
>> >
>> > That is about as stupid a statement as you will ever see, lurkers,
>> > that what the suspect says trumps the information against him.
>>
>> It was your claim.
>
> Notice whenever a dishonest person represents you position they
> always end up changing it to something else, lurkers.

There's *NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER*... I merely applied your EXACT position
to a different person.

Thus proving that your ORIGINAL statement is quite stupid indeed.

>> I merely point out the stupidity of it.
>
> Ben sets up a strawman and attacks the strawman, lurkers, what
> else is new?

No strawmen in sight... you tried to claim the supremacy of eyewitness
statements.

I merely pointed out how stupid you are.

>> You've *STILL* refused to publicly retract it.
>
> Ben lies when he says this is my position, lurkers, I can`t
> retract a position I never took.

Here it is again, folks:

"How can information gotten directly from the person *not* be the most
credible information? How can hearsay be *more* credible, especially
hearsay from a document ..."

Go ahead and deny it again, dufus.

>> >> You don't even think of the consequences of judging everything else by
>> >> what you assert.
>> >
>> > The only consequence of weighing information in a reasonable
>> > manner is that you come to reasonable conclusions, lurkers.
>>
>> There's no honest person who, given the facts, would accept Givens'
>> testimony as the truth.
>
> Empty claim, No true Scotsman fallacy and just a plain good old
> fashioned lie, lurkers.

And yet, still completely true.

>> There goes your "weighing information in a reasonable manner"... you
>> clearly cannot.
>
> Let Ben explain how it is unreasonable to believe what Givens
> testified to, lurkers.

Let dufus explain how it is reasonable that the two FBI agents simply
made up the newspaper reading of Oswald in the Domino room at 7:50.

(he won't...)

>> >> > Ask 10 people which information is more credible, information a
>> >> > person says or information someone else says they said, see what your
>> >> > results are. Ben lied.
>> >>
>> >> I'll make you the same offer I made Chucky... let's create a poll with
>> >> this data... and ask people if a person known to be willing to change
>> >> their statements for money, testifying five months later to an
>> >> audience who *wanted* him to say what he said - is more credible than
>> >> two disinterested FBI agents doing an interview that weekend.
>> >
>> > How does this speak at all to the issue we are examining, lurkers?
>>
>>
>> Yep... I knew you'd run.
>
> Notice Ben didn`t even *try* to make a case that his challenge was
> relevant to the issue, lurkers.

The challenge was EXACTLY the issue.

You're lying again, stump.

>> But here's another way to prove you a liar... why not simply cite an
>> authoritative source, one *NOT* related to this case, that says
>> testimony from months later that contradicts statements made to an
>> official agency (police, FBI, etc) is more credible.
>
> Shifting the burden, lurkers. Ben proclaimed the information from
> the FBI the "most credible". Ben needs to support his assertion.

Tut tut tut, moron.

**YOU** made the claim... **YOU** have to support it.

"How can information gotten directly from the person *not* be the most
credible information? How can hearsay be *more* credible, especially
hearsay from a document ..."

Why are you TERRIFIED of defending your own statement?

> And I have to point out Ben sheer hypocrisy here once more. One,
> he is the one who is always saying how the witnesses are reliable.

Dufus is now into molesting innocent animals...

The neighborhood dogs all run away when he comes near.

> Two, the FBI teletype contains all sorts of information he doesn`t
> accept, but he cherry picks one thing that is useful to ideas and
> accepts that.

**EXACTLY** what you do.

Go ahead moron, deny it.

>> Of course... you won't.
>>
>> Proving yourself a liar & a coward.
>>
>>
>> >> The loser stops posting for one month.
>> >>
>> >> Deal?
>> >>
>> >> >> >> and stated that I could *NOT* produce
>> >> >> >> this evidence,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I made a prediction, lurkers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No moron, you don't call someone a "liar" for a "prediction."
>> >> >
>> >> > I called Ben a liar for lying, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Where's the "lie" stupid?
>> >
>> > Pointed out above, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> No stupid... it wasn't. You've *YET* to quote anything I've said, then
>> *CITE* for the evidence that I'm contradicting.
>
> Lurkers are free to conduct their own poll. Ask random people
> which is more reliable as to accuracy, something that someone is known
> to have said or something someone else said that that person had said.

What lurkers do or don't do has no effect on stump.

You're TERRIFIED of having to pay a price for your lies.

You probably don't realize that you already do.

>> And you never will.
>
>"In general, the hearsay rule is motivated by a belief that hearsay
> is unreliable."
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

This fails to address the point made.

In dufus-world, there's no such thing as legal affidavits.

> And let me quote Ben when he was claiming to be refuting Bugliosi...
>
> (3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.
>
> "First point... this is hearsay."
>
> Ben was using the fact that it was Frazier relating information
> about what Oswald supposedly said as being hearsay to draw into
> question the veracity of the information. Hearsay can either be "most
> reliable" or not reliable at all depending on the whims of a
> hypocrite.

Although this can be easily answered, dufus has dragged the topic FAR
from the topic of his lie.

You claimed I couldn't produce evidence.

I produced evidence

Even **YOU** publicly acknowledged that.

So you lied.

It's just that simple.

A public retraction of that lie, and an apology are in order.

>> >> Why can't you quote me telling a "lie?"
>> >
>> > Did that above, lurkers.
>> >
>> > Why does Ben demand the argument be repeated?
>>
>> Because the proof that you're lying is shown by your refusal to simply
>> "cut & paste."
>
> Ben`s lying is proven by the argument still existing above, lurkers.


Why can't you quote me telling a "lie?"

This Tony Marsh tactic isn't getting you anywhere... Tony's famous for
his "I showed that before" tactic.

You're doing the same thing.

>> >> >> You're lying again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> then it's clear that dufus lied.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not all predictions come true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not all jackasses bray.
>> >> >
>> >> > I know one that does, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> That is indeed what I implied... I just didn't think you'd admit it.
>> >
>> > Why wouldn`t I admit I am one, lurkers.
>
>

> <snicker> I'm just a scumbag, lurkers.

>
>
>> >> >> > Perhaps it was a little overstated, let me amend it a little...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No moron... you owe me an apology,
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps if Ben hadn`t told a blatant untruth before I called him a liar, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> What "blatant untruth?"
>> >
>> > See above, lurkers.
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.
>
> I`m sure you lurkers can find it.

Still a coward, eh stump?

>> >> WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE THESE "LIES?"
>> >
>> > See above, lurkers.
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question... indeed, you simply evaded the
>> question.
>
> I pointed out the lie above, lurkers.

Quote it right here:

>> Why the cowardice dufus?
>>
>> If you had the facts on your side - WHY AREN'T YOU POSTING IT OVER AND
>> OVER AGAIN???
>

> Because I'm a retard, lurkers.

>
>>
>> >> >> and you need to retract your
>> >> >> blatant lie.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "He can`t show that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning like he usually did, lurkers"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There, all better, and hardly worth all that hysteria.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope... no goalpost changing 5 days after you were proven a liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can amend a statement any time I like, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't change the facts, moron.
>> >
>> > But it does make the statement accurate, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> No stupid... I proved your original statement a lie.
>
> Inaccurate, lurkers. I amended it to make it accurate.

You "amended" your statement **AFTER** I proved you a liar.

>> You don't get to
>> change it *NOW*
>
> Proven wrong by the fact that I did change it now, lurkers.

ROTFLMAO!!! What a moron!

>>(after I proved you a liar) - and it's suddenly no
>> longer relevant.
>>
>> You've *STILL* not publicly retracted that lie, and apologize for your
>> unwarranted slurs.
>
> If what Ben had written was true he would be correct, lurkers. But it wasn`t.

You're lying again, stump.

I did indeed produce the evidence you claimed I could not produce.

You're desperate to make the topic anything OTHER than that fact.

>> You're just a scumbag.
>>
>>
>> >> >> You never *intended* it as a "prediction" - and you're only now
>> >> >> twisting desperately to avoid the FACT that you've been nailed in a
>> >> >> blatant lie.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And you *STILL* aren't honest enough to say that.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Finding a believer willing to tell the truth about a fellow believer
>> >> >> >> is harder than finding an honest believer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why the dishonesty, Chester?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> P.S. It's good to see that you have enough honesty, little though it
>> >> >> >> may be, to assert that the FBI memo is evidence. Your friend stump
>> >> >> >> *STILL* can't say that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And stump *STILL* couldn't say it!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > I admitted to the slight overstatement, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD !!! IS THE FBI MEMO CONSIDERED "EVIDENCE?"
>> >
>> > Of course, lurkers. Thats why I amended my statement.
>>
>> Why did you evade that question for so long?
>
> <snicker> I knew I was going to have to amend what I said as soon
> as Ben produced that evidence, lurkers.

And this, all by itself, proves you a liar.

You made a claim that you **KNEW** was a lie to begin with.

>> Why haven't you admitted that this makes *YOUR* assertion that I
>> couldn't provide the evidence a lie?
>
> Not all predictions come true, lurkers.

It wasn't a "prediction" - it was a flat assertion.

One proven to be a lie.

Yet you don't have the character to admit it.