Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #38 - Refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

(38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.

It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.

But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.

Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.

The reader might ask themselves why Ben doesn`t try to refute Bugliosi`s full argument. The answer would be that he is a coward. Here is the full argument...

38. The revolver in Oswald’s possession at the time of his arrest at the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V510210. Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald’s post office box in Dallas.

> It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
>
> But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder

Which is just a lie, the shells found at the Tippit murder scene were matched to the handgun Oswald was carrying when he was arrested.

> is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.

Yes, the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. The world according to conspiracy retards.

> Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.

Put away the "proof" strawman, it only proves how dishonest you are.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:30:34 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
>
> The reader might ask themselves why Ben doesn`t try to refute Bugliosi`s full argument. The answer would be that he is a coward. Here is the full argument...

The reader might ask themselves why "Bud" doesn't show where my refutation doesn't answer Bugliosi's FULL argument.

Perhaps because he can't.

> 38. The revolver in Oswald’s possession at the time of his arrest at the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V510210. Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald’s post office box in Dallas.
>
> > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> >
> > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder
>
> Which is just a lie, the shells found at the Tippit murder scene were matched to the handgun Oswald was carrying when he was arrested.

Again, untrue.

> > is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
>
> Yes, the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. The world according to conspiracy retards.

This is known as a "strawman" argument.

> > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
>
> Put away the "proof" strawman, it only proves how dishonest you are.

You just HATE arguments that you can't refute, don't you?

If the possession of a handgun is evidence that someone is a murderer, then every cop in the theater that day was a murderer.

It's just that simple.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:59:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:30:34 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> >
> > The reader might ask themselves why Ben doesn`t try to refute Bugliosi`s full argument. The answer would be that he is a coward. Here is the full argument...
>
> The reader might ask themselves why "Bud" doesn't show where my refutation doesn't answer Bugliosi's FULL argument.

For starters, you didn`t refute his argument, in fact you tended to agree with it. And obviously either you are addressing his full arguments or you are not.

> Perhaps because he can't.
>
>
> > 38. The revolver in Oswald’s possession at the time of his arrest at the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V510210. Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald’s post office box in Dallas.
> >
> > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > >
> > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder
> >
> > Which is just a lie, the shells found at the Tippit murder scene were matched to the handgun Oswald was carrying when he was arrested.
>
>
> Again, untrue.

100% true.

>
> > > is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> >
> > Yes, the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. The world according to conspiracy retards.
>
>
> This is known as a "strawman" argument.

This is how you are actually trying to portray the event. You strip away all the context and pretend it is just a simple matter of Oswald having a gun.

>
> > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> >
> > Put away the "proof" strawman, it only proves how dishonest you are.
>
> You just HATE arguments that you can't refute, don't you?
>
> If the possession of a handgun is evidence that someone is a murderer, then every cop in the theater that day was a murderer.
>
> It's just that simple.

To the simpleminded.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:02:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:59:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:30:34 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > >
> > > The reader might ask themselves why Ben doesn`t try to refute Bugliosi`s full argument. The answer would be that he is a coward. Here is the full argument...
> >
> > The reader might ask themselves why "Bud" doesn't show where my refutation doesn't answer Bugliosi's FULL argument.
>
> For starters, you didn`t refute his argument, in fact you tended to agree with it. And obviously either you are addressing his full arguments or you are not.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > Perhaps because he can't.
> >
> >
> > > 38. The revolver in Oswald’s possession at the time of his arrest at the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V510210. Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald’s post office box in Dallas.
> > >
> > > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > > >
> > > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder
> > >
> > > Which is just a lie, the shells found at the Tippit murder scene were matched to the handgun Oswald was carrying when he was arrested.
> >
> >
> > Again, untrue.
>
> 100% true.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > >
> > > Yes, the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. The world according to conspiracy retards.
> >
> >
> > This is known as a "strawman" argument.
>
> This is how you are actually trying to portray the event. You strip away all the context and pretend it is just a simple matter of Oswald having a gun.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> > >
> > > Put away the "proof" strawman, it only proves how dishonest you are.
> >
> > You just HATE arguments that you can't refute, don't you?
> >
> > If the possession of a handgun is evidence that someone is a murderer, then every cop in the theater that day was a murderer.
> >
> > It's just that simple.
>
> To the simpleminded.

Self-referential.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

This 38th item on Ben's relentless list of conspiracy-flavored idiocy shows, perhaps more than any other item on Ben's pathetic list of alleged "refuations", just how deeply rooted in his "State of Denial" he truly is.

To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)....

"But owning a pistol that...could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes

Holmes knows, of course, that the above statement is nothing but a bald-faced lie. But Holmes doesn't care. His job here is to try and exonerate a double-murderer named Oswald---and it doesn't matter WHAT the real evidence shows the truth to be. If it points to Oswald (as the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases certainly does), Ben will find some way to dismiss ALL of it --- like those 4 bullet shells that Oswald was seen by multiple witnesses dumping on the ground near the corner of Tenth Street & Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff just after he shot down Officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.

Ben will pretend, as all Internet CTers do, that there's a big problem with those 4 bullet shells. He'll pretend they were planted (or "switched") by the evil DPD to frame Oswald for yet another 11/22/63 murder.

Holmes will cite the "problem" regarding J.M. Poe possibly not marking 2 of the shells. And then Holmes will probably tell us some baloney about one of the Davis girls possibly being involved with Jack Ruby in some manner (via some goofy "six degrees of separation" connection with a relative of Ruby's, or some such garbage that only a desperate person would dare use in a feeble effort to explain away all the incriminating evidence against the real killer).

Ben belongs in the law firm of Cochran, Scheck, Bailey, Douglas, Neufeld, and Dershowitz. Holmes would fit right in with that band of defense attorneys. They all have the same goal --- Get the defendant off the hook, regardless of his obvious guilt.

In short, anyone who knows the core evidence in the Tippit case in any detail at all who still attempts to defend Lee Harvey Oswald for J.D. Tippit's murder is a person who should not be trusted. Because that person is either a deceitful liar....or just flat-out stupid.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

[Bud]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:29:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:02:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 1:59:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:30:34 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > > >
> > > > The reader might ask themselves why Ben doesn`t try to refute Bugliosi`s full argument. The answer would be that he is a coward. Here is the full argument...
> > >
> > > The reader might ask themselves why "Bud" doesn't show where my refutation doesn't answer Bugliosi's FULL argument.
> >
> > For starters, you didn`t refute his argument, in fact you tended to agree with it. And obviously either you are addressing his full arguments or you are not.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You`re running again, Ben.

>
>
> > > Perhaps because he can't.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 38. The revolver in Oswald’s possession at the time of his arrest at the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V510210. Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald’s post office box in Dallas.
> > > >
> > > > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder
> > > >
> > > > Which is just a lie, the shells found at the Tippit murder scene were matched to the handgun Oswald was carrying when he was arrested.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, untrue.
> >
> > 100% true.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You`re running again, Ben.

>
> > > > > is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. The world according to conspiracy retards.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is known as a "strawman" argument.
> >
> > This is how you are actually trying to portray the event. You strip away all the context and pretend it is just a simple matter of Oswald having a gun.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You`re running again, Ben.

>
> > > > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> > > >
> > > > Put away the "proof" strawman, it only proves how dishonest you are.
> > >
> > > You just HATE arguments that you can't refute, don't you?
> > >
> > > If the possession of a handgun is evidence that someone is a murderer, then every cop in the theater that day was a murderer.
> > >
> > > It's just that simple.
> >
> > To the simpleminded.
>
> Self-referential.

Lets examine your idea. If being on a plane on 9-11 made you a terrorist than every person on board a plane that day was a terrorist.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:52:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> >
> > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> >
> > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> >
> > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.

David Von Pein - FOR THE FIRST TIME, is objecting to a refutation ... 37 bits of evidence passed his review - and he had nothing to say.

Now he want's to chime in with an assertion that merely having a PISTOL, is evidence that you shot someone to death (by yourself) with a rifle.

The logic is FLAWLESSLY stupid!

> This 38th item on Ben's relentless list of conspiracy-flavored idiocy shows, perhaps more than any other item on Ben's pathetic list of alleged "refuations", just how deeply rooted in his "State of Denial" he truly is.

Yep... you ran from 37 others... you'll undoubtedly run from some more that are coming up.

> To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)....
>
> "But owning a pistol that...could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes

Yep... still absolutely true.

Even the Warren Commission stated that the pistol could not be ballistically matched to the bullets:

"In Cunningham's opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver - that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver's rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics." - WCR, pg 559

> Holmes knows, of course, that the above statement is nothing but a bald-faced lie.

And yet, I just quoted & cited the Warren Commission on that very topic.

So you're claiming that the Warren Commission told a "bald-faced lie."

Why not do so publicly?

>But Holmes doesn't care. His job here is to try and exonerate a double-murderer named Oswald---and it doesn't matter WHAT the real evidence shows the truth to be.

Unfortunately for you, that's PRECISELY what I'm looking at. The evidence.

And *my* explanations of that evidence is far more credible than yours.

Which explains your non-stop cowardice on these issues.

> If it points to Oswald (as the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases certainly does), Ben will find some way to dismiss ALL of it --- like those 4 bullet shells that Oswald was seen by multiple witnesses dumping on the ground near the corner of Tenth Street & Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff just after he shot down Officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.

Speculation isn't evidence. As you well know.

> Ben will pretend, as all Internet CTers do, that there's a big problem with those 4 bullet shells. He'll pretend they were planted (or "switched") by the evil DPD to frame Oswald for yet another 11/22/63 murder.

This is simply the evidence. You try to gloss over it, but it's there, and corroborated by so much else of the evidence.

I'm certainly not the first person to point out the problems with the evidence in this case, or the NON-STOP lying that believers engage in.

> Holmes will cite the "problem" regarding J.M. Poe possibly not marking 2 of the shells. And then Holmes will probably tell us some baloney about one of the Davis girls possibly being involved with Jack Ruby in some manner (via some goofy "six degrees of separation" connection with a relative of Ruby's, or some such garbage that only a desperate person would dare use in a feeble effort to explain away all the incriminating evidence against the real killer).

I see that David is aware of just *some* of the problems, but notice that he offers no credible explanations...

My explanation is simple, it's reasonable, and it fits the facts.

> Ben belongs in the law firm of Cochran, Scheck, Bailey, Douglas, Neufeld, and Dershowitz. Holmes would fit right in with that band of defense attorneys. They all have the same goal --- Get the defendant off the hook, regardless of his obvious guilt.

Actually, as I've pointed out many times before, Oswald is of no particular interest to me. He could be ABSOLUTELY guilty of conspiring to assassinate the President, and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to me.

But critics follow the EVIDENCE - which is why so many of the critics now accept that Oswald was a patsy, and framed in this case.

> In short, anyone who knows the core evidence in the Tippit case in any detail at all who still attempts to defend Lee Harvey Oswald for J.D. Tippit's murder is a person who should not be trusted. Because that person is either a deceitful liar....or just flat-out stupid.

There you go again...

Ad hominem simply shows that you *KNOW* you've lost the debate.

In this case, you didn't even address the central point... that the ownership and possession of a handgun has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with murdering someone with a rifle.

A completely nonsensical point... but the case against Oswald is so weak, Bugliosi was throwing out ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that might have a shot of convincing someone...

And David Von Pein has been RUNNING AWAY from defending any of them. Even *this* post is hardly a defense... it doesn't even deal with what I stated.

Why the cowardice, David?

[Bud]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 6:01:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:52:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > >
> > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > >
> > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > >
> > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
>
> David Von Pein - FOR THE FIRST TIME, is objecting to a refutation ... 37 bits of evidence passed his review - and he had nothing to say.
>
> Now he want's to chime in with an assertion that merely having a PISTOL, is evidence that you shot someone to death (by yourself) with a rifle.
>
> The logic is FLAWLESSLY stupid!
>
>
> > This 38th item on Ben's relentless list of conspiracy-flavored idiocy shows, perhaps more than any other item on Ben's pathetic list of alleged "refuations", just how deeply rooted in his "State of Denial" he truly is.
>
>
> Yep... you ran from 37 others... you'll undoubtedly run from some more that are coming up.
>
>
>
> > To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)....
> >
> > "But owning a pistol that...could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes
>
> Yep... still absolutely true.
>
> Even the Warren Commission stated that the pistol could not be ballistically matched to the bullets:
>
> "In Cunningham's opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver - that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver's rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics." - WCR, pg 559

Of course there is another way of looking at this. Oswald`s pistol had been rebarrelled. This is what led to the bullets not being rifled like commonly occurs. So, Oswald`s pistol could have been of a type that leaves clear rifling, or the person who shot Tippit if it wasn`t Oswald could have used a pistol that left clear rifling. But in another stroke, or actually double stroke of bad luck the ballistic evidence fails to *exonerate* him, as should be wildly expected.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 5:32:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 6:01:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:52:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > > >
> > > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > > >
> > > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> >
> > David Von Pein - FOR THE FIRST TIME, is objecting to a refutation ... 37 bits of evidence passed his review - and he had nothing to say.
> >
> > Now he want's to chime in with an assertion that merely having a PISTOL, is evidence that you shot someone to death (by yourself) with a rifle.
> >
> > The logic is FLAWLESSLY stupid!
> >
> >
> > > This 38th item on Ben's relentless list of conspiracy-flavored idiocy shows, perhaps more than any other item on Ben's pathetic list of alleged "refuations", just how deeply rooted in his "State of Denial" he truly is.
> >
> >
> > Yep... you ran from 37 others... you'll undoubtedly run from some more that are coming up.
> >
> >
> >
> > > To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)....
> > >
> > > "But owning a pistol that...could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes
> >
> > Yep... still absolutely true.
> >
> > Even the Warren Commission stated that the pistol could not be ballistically matched to the bullets:
> >
> > "In Cunningham's opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver - that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver's rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics." - WCR, pg 559
>
> Of course there is another way of looking at this.

No, there isn't.

David stated that it was a "bald-faced lie."

If there's "another way of looking at this," you're implying that my statement is factually correct.

That means DAVID VON PEIN IS A LIAR.

Yet you refuse to make that statement.

Why is that, coward?

[Bud]

Of course there is. You don`t dictate what I talk about. When I want to make a point, I make it. If you don`t want to address the excellent point I made, don`t. Here is that point again...

"Of course there is another way of looking at this. Oswald`s pistol had been rebarrelled. This is what led to the bullets not being rifled like commonly occurs. So, Oswald`s pistol could have been of a type that leaves clear rifling, or the person who shot Tippit if it wasn`t Oswald could have used a pistol that left clear rifling. But in another stroke, or actually double stroke of bad luck the ballistic evidence fails to *exonerate* him, as should be wildly expected."

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:14:06 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 9:19:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 5:32:51 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 6:01:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:52:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:05:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein - FOR THE FIRST TIME, is objecting to a refutation ... 37 bits of evidence passed his review - and he had nothing to say.
> > > >
> > > > Now he want's to chime in with an assertion that merely having a PISTOL, is evidence that you shot someone to death (by yourself) with a rifle.
> > > >
> > > > The logic is FLAWLESSLY stupid!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This 38th item on Ben's relentless list of conspiracy-flavored idiocy shows, perhaps more than any other item on Ben's pathetic list of alleged "refuations", just how deeply rooted in his "State of Denial" he truly is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep... you ran from 37 others... you'll undoubtedly run from some more that are coming up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)....
> > > > >
> > > > > "But owning a pistol that...could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes
> > > >
> > > > Yep... still absolutely true.
> > > >
> > > > Even the Warren Commission stated that the pistol could not be ballistically matched to the bullets:
> > > >
> > > > "In Cunningham's opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver - that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver's rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics." - WCR, pg 559
> > >
> > > Of course there is another way of looking at this.
> >
> > No, there isn't.
>
> Of course there is.

No there isn't.

You don't get to agree with me, and disagree with David, without PUBLICLY STATING IT.

You want to accept my statement that there was no ballistic match? THEN PUBLICLY TELL DAVID THAT HE'S A LIAR.

You're quite desperately trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Ben Holmes]

Notice that although David has run from my response - AS HE ROUTINELY DOES - this is not reflected on his websites, where it appears that David always has the last word.

In the real world, DAVID ALWAYS RUNS AWAY ... this is one reason why David likes his artificial censored websites - he gets to construct his own reality.

What a coward!

[Bud]

Yes there is, I outlined it below...

"Of course there is another way of looking at this. Oswald`s pistol had been rebarrelled. This is what led to the bullets not being rifled like commonly occurs. So, Oswald`s pistol could have been of a type that leaves clear rifling, or the person who shot Tippit if it wasn`t Oswald could have used a pistol that left clear rifling. But in another stroke, or actually double stroke of bad luck the ballistic evidence fails to *exonerate* him, as should be wildly expected."

You can run from the point I made if you like but you can`t tell me I can`t make it.

[Ben Holmes]

There's no other way to state that the bullets could not be ballistically matched.

It's merely a fact.

[David Von Pein]

With the type of gun (and barrel) Oswald owned, what would you expect?

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut... you asserted that I lied when I stated that the bullets could not be ballistically matched to the gun.

I EXPECT AN APOLOGY FOR YOUR LIE!!!

[David Von Pein]

You don't think BULLET SHELLS equate to the word "ballistically"?

You *are* lost, aren't you, Holmes?

[Bud]

It does, of course...

Definition of ballistics
1
a : the science of the motion of projectiles in flight
b : the flight characteristics of a projectile
2
a : the study of the processes within a firearm as it is fired
b : the firing characteristics of a firearm or cartridge

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

[David Von Pein]

Liar. Here's what you said (with the word "bullets" never being used, btw):

"But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben "Liar" Holmes

~~~~~~~~~

And here was my perfectly-correct reply to Ben's brazen lie:

"Holmes knows, of course, that the above statement is nothing but a bald-faced lie. But Holmes doesn't care. His job here is to try and exonerate a double-murderer named Oswald---and it doesn't matter WHAT the real evidence shows the truth to be. If it points to Oswald (as the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases certainly does), Ben will find some way to dismiss ALL of it --- like those 4 bullet shells that Oswald was seen by multiple witnesses dumping on the ground near the corner of Tenth Street & Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff just after he shot down Officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63." -- DVP

[Ben Holmes]

[David Von Pein]

No, I didn't. But come to think of it, at least PARTIALLY, that IS a lie (and you know why) --- because Joe Nicol DID "match" ONE of the 4 Tippit bullets to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver "to the exclusion". (CTers love to totally ignore Nicol's testimony, of course, since it's damaging to their lover, Lee H. Oswald.)

So, yes, it really *IS* another Ben Holmes "lie" when he said "that the bullets could not be ballistically matched to the gun". (At least as far as NICOL'S opinion on ONE of the bullets at any rate.)

Try again, Holmes. Bud and I await your next post filled with misinformation and bald-faced falsehoods. (Shouldn't have to wait too long. Maybe thirty seconds or so.)

[Ben Holmes]

Yep... still as true as the day I said it.

Even "Bud" agrees.

And since I've cited for that statement, you decide to change the topic...

> And here was my perfectly-correct reply to Ben's brazen lie:
>
> "Holmes knows, of course, that the above statement is nothing but a bald-faced lie. But Holmes doesn't care. His job here is to try and exonerate a double-murderer named Oswald---and it doesn't matter WHAT the real evidence shows the truth to be. If it points to Oswald (as the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases certainly does), Ben will find some way to dismiss ALL of it --- like those 4 bullet shells that Oswald was seen by multiple witnesses dumping on the ground near the corner of Tenth Street & Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff just after he shot down Officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63." -- DVP

Will you respond to a refutation of that long paragraph ... in detail? Statement by statement?

Or will you run again?

[Ben Holmes]

Yes David, you did: "To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)...."

> But come to think of it, at least PARTIALLY, that IS a lie (and you know why) --- because Joe Nicol DID "match" ONE of the 4 Tippit bullets to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver "to the exclusion". (CTers love to totally ignore Nicol's testimony, of course, since it's damaging to their lover, Lee H. Oswald.)

If the FBI could not, and the Warren Commission went expert hunting to find someone who'd contradict the FBI, it doesn't embarrass you at all.

But it should.

And you know that the weight of the evidence is against Nicol.

You refuse to even acknowledge THAT THIS EVIDENCE IS CONTRADICTED!!!

> So, yes, it really *IS* another Ben Holmes "lie" when he said "that the bullets could not be ballistically matched to the gun". (At least as far as NICOL'S opinion on ONE of the bullets at any rate.)

So after denying that you'd originally labeled it a lie (which was, of course, a lie) you swing around and label it a lie again.

Now, tell us why Nicol is credible, and the FBI is not.

(But you won't - you're a coward...)

> Try again, Holmes. Bud and I await your next post filled with misinformation and bald-faced falsehoods. (Shouldn't have to wait too long. Maybe thirty seconds or so.)

Where's the "misinformation?" What have I stated that I cannot cite for?

And when are you going to start getting after "Bud" for agreeing that the bullets cannot be ballistically matched to the pistol... you're calling him a liar, let's hear you do so publicly.

[David Von Pein]

~sigh~ Why must everything be a tedious chore with you, Ben?

Here's the LIE that I said was a LIE and still is a LIE (this quote does NOT contain the word "bullets")....

"But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes

I labelled the above lie a lie---which, of course, it is, since the bullet SHELLS "ballistically" tie Oswald's revolver to the Tippit murder.

Ben then said this in a different post:

"Tut tut tut... you asserted that I lied when I stated that the bullets could not be ballistically matched to the gun." -- B. Holmes

The above is also a LIE because Ben is misrepresenting what I said in my previous post, which was a post where I was responding to Ben's LIE when he didn't use the words "bullets" at all.

I then added the "bonus" addendum about Illinois firearms expert Joseph Nicol, who did say it was his opinion that ONE (and only one) of the 4 bullets plucked from Tippit's body could positively be linked to LHO's revolver.

(Why do we keep talking to this clown, Bud? I still don't know why. I must be nuts to try and talk sense to a senseless and biased fool.)

[Ben Holmes]

Notice that I QUOTED you, and you still refuse to retract.

> > > But come to think of it, at least PARTIALLY, that IS a lie (and you know why) --- because Joe Nicol DID "match" ONE of the 4 Tippit bullets to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver "to the exclusion". (CTers love to totally ignore Nicol's testimony, of course, since it's damaging to their lover, Lee H. Oswald.)
> >
> > If the FBI could not, and the Warren Commission went expert hunting to find someone who'd contradict the FBI, it doesn't embarrass you at all.
> >
> > But it should.
> >
> > And you know that the weight of the evidence is against Nicol.
> >
> > You refuse to even acknowledge THAT THIS EVIDENCE IS CONTRADICTED!!!

Dead silence...

> > > So, yes, it really *IS* another Ben Holmes "lie" when he said "that the bullets could not be ballistically matched to the gun". (At least as far as NICOL'S opinion on ONE of the bullets at any rate.)
> >
> > So after denying that you'd originally labeled it a lie (which was, of course, a lie) you swing around and label it a lie again.
> >
> > Now, tell us why Nicol is credible, and the FBI is not.
> >
> > (But you won't - you're a coward...)

My crystal ball still has a perfect record... David was TERRIFIED of this question...

And it will *NEVER* appear on his website...

> > > Try again, Holmes. Bud and I await your next post filled with misinformation and bald-faced falsehoods. (Shouldn't have to wait too long. Maybe thirty seconds or so.)
> >
> >
> > Where's the "misinformation?" What have I stated that I cannot cite for?

Again David refuses to support his assertion... is that surprising?

David Von Pein clearly never learned the value of honesty...

> > And when are you going to start getting after "Bud" for agreeing that the bullets cannot be ballistically matched to the pistol... you're calling him a liar, let's hear you do so publicly.
>
> ~sigh~ Why must everything be a tedious chore with you, Ben?

Perhaps because I'm so good at pointing out your lies?

And you're too cowardly to address the real evidence?

> Here's the LIE that I said was a LIE and still is a LIE (this quote does NOT contain the word "bullets")....
>
> "But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes

Yet you claimed above that you *DID NOT* label this a lie. Then I quoted you doing so, and you had nothing to say.


Why is that, David?

> I labelled the above lie a lie---which, of course, it is, since the bullet SHELLS "ballistically" tie Oswald's revolver to the Tippit murder.

Who said anything about the shells?


Changing the topic is something that believers just LOVE to do...

> Ben then said this in a different post:
>
> "Tut tut tut... you asserted that I lied when I stated that the bullets could not be ballistically matched to the gun." -- B. Holmes
>
> The above is also a LIE because Ben is misrepresenting what I said in my previous post,

You're molesting children again... how can I "misrepresent" what I MYSELF SAID???

> which was a post where I was responding to Ben's LIE when he didn't use the words "bullets" at all.

Tut tut tut, David, it's *YOU* that's lying.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth that I've not stated.

Then get upset when I point out that you're lying again.

> I then added the "bonus" addendum about Illinois firearms expert Joseph Nicol, who did say it was his opinion that ONE (and only one) of the 4 bullets plucked from Tippit's body could positively be linked to LHO's revolver.

And ran when I pointed out the problems with Nicol.

Why the cowardice, David?

WHY ARE YOU SUCH A YELLOW COWARD? If the Warren Commission were right, shouldn't *I* be the one running away all the time?

> (Why do we keep talking to this clown, Bud? I still don't know why. I must be nuts to try and talk sense to a senseless and biased fool.)

Ad hominem simply shows that you know you lost. Looks like you're getting ready to run away again.

Yet your website will pretend that it was *you*, and not I that had the last undisputed word on the topic.

Liar, aren't you?

[David Von Pein]

No, I'm just someone who is capable of properly evaluating and assessing the sum total of evidence connected with the murder committed in Dallas on the 22nd of November in 1963. That's something you have demonstrated via your posts that you are obviously incapable of doing if your life hung in the balance.

And would you *actually* expect me to let you conspiracy clowns have the "LAST WORD" on my own webpages? Get real.

Go to ANYBODY'S blogs and see who has the "last word" in almost every single discussion or article. Do you think the "last word" is going to be written by the person who owns the blog or the person the blog owner is arguing with? (Again, Ben needs to "get real". Because the answer is all too obvious.)

(And I *always* provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, if they are available and not broken. So if somebody wants to read more of Holmes' lies and silly arguments, they can easily do so by just clicking away.)

[Ben Holmes]

And yet, time and time again, you present on your website threads that appear as if I'd never answered you.

Liar, aren't you?

> That's something you have demonstrated via your posts that you are obviously incapable of doing if your life hung in the balance.
>
> And would you *actually* expect me to let you conspiracy clowns have the "LAST WORD" on my own webpages? Get real.

Yep... you even ADMIT your lie.

You have no choice in the matter in a public forum, you ALWAYS end up running away.

Quite the coward, aren't you David?

> Go to ANYBODY'S blogs and see who has the "last word" in almost every single discussion or article. Do you think the "last word" is going to be written by the person who owns the blog or the person the blog owner is arguing with? (Again, Ben needs to "get real". Because the answer is all too obvious.)

What's real is that you're admitting the lie I accused you of... and you don't even appear embarrassed about it.

You *KNOW* you're lying on your website...

> (And I *always* provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, if they are available and not broken. So if somebody wants to read more of Holmes' lies and silly arguments, they can easily do so by just clicking away.)

That's simply not true.

You're lying again, David... and you *KNOW* you're lying. I can easily cite on YOUR website where there are no links at all to the debate.

Tell us David, why do you think you can lie and not have it pointed out?

[David Von Pein]

~sigh~ Since Holmes can't read, I'm forced to repeat this part of my comment again (THE PART IN ALL CAPS), which Holmes is pretending I never wrote at all....

"And I *always* provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND NOT BROKEN." -- DVP

In point of fact, I hate it when I can't provide a source link (or links) to a particular discussion, because I *want* visitors to my site to be able to trace back the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the discussion/debate. And if the original link is broken or unavailable, I obviously can't provide a link to it.

And some of the time the original links are no longer available, especially for some threads that started at The Education Forum or at Duncan MacRae's forum, where often the threads will completely disappear due to the forum member who *started* the discussion having been kicked off the forum by the moderators. When that happens, the *whole thread* gets deleted at the EF forum and at MacRae's forum (for some stupid reason). And, thusly, I can't post any link to those deleted discussions -- unless they've been archived at the Wayback Machine at Archive.org, which often is the case. And, yes, I check out the "Wayback" to see if I *can* recover a deleted discussion. I've done that quite often, in fact. Sometimes with success, sometimes not.

So, as you can see, I go to great lengths to archive the original source links to the discussions I archive at my website. Therefore, Ben, as usual, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Try again, Liar Ben. The day is still pretty young. You still have plenty of time available here in February 2017 to spread some more lies before March begins.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:44:17 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> > > (And I *always* provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, if they are available and not broken. So if somebody wants to read more of Holmes' lies and silly arguments, they can easily do so by just clicking away.)
> >
> >
> > That's simply not true.
> >
> > You're lying again, David... and you *KNOW* you're lying. I can easily cite on YOUR website where there are no links at all to the debate.
> >
> > Tell us David, why do you think you can lie and not have it pointed out?
>
> ~sigh~ Since Holmes can't read, I'm forced to repeat this part of my comment again (THE PART IN ALL CAPS), which Holmes is pretending I never wrote at all....
>
> "And I *always* provide direct links on my webpages to each "source" discussion I'm involved in, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND NOT BROKEN." -- DVP

YOU'RE A LIAR, DAVID VON PEIN!


I warned you that I could easily cite.

Here's the post (just one of many):
*************************************
BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Guinn's NAA tests] *DID* show quite positively when someone had fired a weapon.

You're pretending that the NAA test NEVER CAN tell if someone has fired a weapon...

That's a lie.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, it's not. Because Barium and Antimony are present in many ordinary common things like cloth, paper, matches, paint, and rubber. The chances of the B&A adhering to somebody's skin after coming into contact with those common items are smaller than it is with, say, getting nitrates on your hands after urinating and not washing your hands, but the possibility of getting a positive Barium & Antimony result after handling all sorts of common household items is still a definite possibility that can't be completely ignored.

Would you like to just ignore the POSSIBILITY of those other common items being the cause of a person's "Positive" NAA test result, Ben? If so, then I guess I should say, Great! Because I guess that means you think Oswald's POSITIVE NAA result on his cheek can ONLY be interpreted as "Oswald Fired A Gun". That's good to know, Ben. Thanks.
*************************************

Everyone can see it here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.jp/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

And, as I stated, no cite. It can't possibly be "broken" - it's a recently posted post, it's certainly "available".

Nor is my response posted... you're quite the DISHONEST little slime, aren't you David?

(Indeed, there are *many* examples on that webpage that you've not provided any links for....)

YOU'RE A GUTLESS YELLOW COWARD, DAVID - AND A **PROVEN** LIAR!!!

Did you actually think I wouldn't cite?

[David Von Pein]

Ben's full of B.S. again (as usual).

I have definitely provided a "source link" for that particular part of that discussion. It's the first link near the bottom of the page marked "February 28, 2017". (And, no, I didn't JUST NOW rush to add that link after reading Ben's post. I added it, as I always do, immediately after transferring the material to my website.)

Clicking that first "Feb. 28" link will take you to the first of my posts *within that particular discussion thread* that I have archived on my site. The post quoted above by Ben can easily be found by clicking the "Feb. 28" link I mentioned. It's the *very next set of posts* written by Ben and then by me. Those posts are on the *very same page*.

So they ARE available--and linked--at my website, just as I said I always do for each source DISCUSSION THREAD, if available.

I did NOT say that I link to EACH INDIVIDUAL POST within a source discussion. That would be really silly, and would result in literally dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of links in a long discussion, which is not necessary.

I said that I provide....

"...direct links on my webpages to each "source" *DISCUSSION* I'm involved in, if they are available and not broken."

So, once again, in his eagerness to show me to be a liar, Ben Holmes falls flat on his slimy little pathetic face once again.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, David.

No-one clicking that link will end up on the post I quoted above. Here's the current link you referenced: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/1hBGnMAoAVE/HBUUCZoQAgAJ


In fact, anyone trying to find the source quote of ANYTHING on your site will spend a long time, if they can find it at all - because of the way you link.

Quite dishonestly...

You're a liar, David Von Pein... you're mother should be ashamed of you.

[David Von Pein]

You're a total nutcase. That should be obvious to all lurkers by this time. My linking technique is perfectly fine. And I never said I linked to EVERY single individuial post, you moron. I link to MY FIRST POST WITHIN A PARTICULAR DISCUSSION THREAD. That's always been my habit and has been for years. And it makes perfect sense (to a reasonable person who isn't out there *searching* for reasons to call people liars and crooks).

The post you singled out previously, as I said, can easily be found after clicking the first "Feb. 28" link on my page. It's the very next post and my follow-up, in fact. How hard is that to find? Not difficult at all.

In short -- Holmes is a pathetic little man who (for some reason all his own) has a sick desire to discredit honest people (of which I am one).

[Ben Holmes]

And yet, each statement I make is perfectly and totally correct.

You've been shown a liar TIME AND TIME AGAIN...

And a quite despicable coward.


Fortunately, you illustrate quite well what I've long said - there's no such thing as an honest AND knowledgeable believer in the Warren Commission.

You can be honest and believe that the Warren Commission told the truth and got it right.

But you can't do so once you learn more about the evidence in this case. There's no such thing as an honest KNOWLEDGEABLE believer in the Warren Commission.

A perfect example is David - who RAN when I demolished his point about Nicol... and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DEBATE the issue.

Believers lose every time they debate a knowledgeable critic... EACH AND EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've been proving it for many years now, and will continue to do so...

Most believers refuse to debate when I'm around... John McAdams learned the lesson... Henry Sienzant learned the lesson, Patrick Collins learned the lesson... and many others... when a knowledgeable critic is around, they shut up and run in the other direction.

[David Von Pein]

Don't break your arm patting yourself on your own back, Ben. Your self-flattery and bloated chest nothwithstanding, the REAL reason most people decide not to engage Ben H. in discussion after a period of time is because, (#1) I'm sure they get tired of being called a "liar" every time Ben posts something. I have a pretty thick skin (I guess), so it doesn't bother me as much as some other people I guess, but it certainly isn't a very good debating technique to call your opponent a blatant and despicable "LIAR" every time you turn around. (Not to mention the fact that Ben is just simply DEAD WRONG when he calls most LNers "liars" a dozen times a day. Let's face it, Ben's just nuts in this regard. Because I'm not a liar and neither is Bud and neither is John McAdams and neither was the late Vincent T. Bugliosi.)

And (#2), the people who "debate" Ben no doubt just get sick and tired of him constantly misrepresenting the true facts and the various circumstances surrounding the deaths of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

A recent example of Ben's misrepresenting the true facts is this quote below, which is just not a true statement:

"But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- B. Holmes

Ben knows that Oswald's revolver WAS "ballistically matched" (via the BULLET SHELLS) to Oswald's revolver. But he'll pretend (I guess) that the bullet SHELLS just DON'T COUNT as "balliastics" type evidence....or he'll pretend those 4 shells were planted or "switched" by the DPD or the FBI (or by *somebody*).

But, in fact, ALL FOUR of those shells found at the Tippit murder scene were MATCHED to Oswald's .38 revolver "to the exclusion of all other weapons" [see WCR, p.171].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0098a.htm

So, as we can see from just my one example, people who choose to talk about the JFK case with Ben Holmes over a period of time are no doubt going to get fed up with having to constantly correct him on the basic facts of the case. Because, like most rabid conspiracy clowns who prowl the Internet year after year, Ben Holmes has made it quite clear that he will *never* change his tune about *anything* related to the JFK case or the evidence. He *has* to know, of course, that he's dead wrong about many things associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the evidence in the case, but since he's made it his life's work to try and exonerate a double-murderer, Ben will never be able to bring himself to admit that he has ever been wrong about anything.

Eventually, the type of "Exonerate Oswald At All Costs" attitude that CTers like Ben seem to possess will grow mighty tiresome to a reasonable opponent who knows Ben is FOS. Hence, the opponent decides to abandon the debate. But it certainly isn't because they are "running away" from the evidence, as Ben seems to want to believe. It's because they just get fed up with being fed B.S. day after day.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 4:47:52 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 7:20:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 4:06:05 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 6:51:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > > You're a total nutcase.
> >
> > And yet, each statement I make is perfectly and totally correct.
> >
> > You've been shown a liar TIME AND TIME AGAIN...
> >
> > And a quite despicable coward.
> >
> >
> > Fortunately, you illustrate quite well what I've long said - there's no such thing as an honest AND knowledgeable believer in the Warren Commission.
> >
> > You can be honest and believe that the Warren Commission told the truth and got it right.
> >
> > But you can't do so once you learn more about the evidence in this case. There's no such thing as an honest KNOWLEDGEABLE believer in the Warren Commission.
> >
> > A perfect example is David - who RAN when I demolished his point about Nicol... and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO DEBATE the issue.

David is *STILL* terrified of Nicol!!!

> > Believers lose every time they debate a knowledgeable critic... EACH AND EVERY SINGLE TIME. I've been proving it for many years now, and will continue to do so...
> >
> > Most believers refuse to debate when I'm around... John McAdams learned the lesson... Henry Sienzant learned the lesson, Patrick Collins learned the lesson... and many others... when a knowledgeable critic is around, they shut up and run in the other direction.
>
> Don't break your arm patting yourself on your own back, Ben. Your self-flattery and bloated chest nothwithstanding, the REAL reason most people decide not to engage Ben H. in discussion after a period of time is because,

Here it comes folks - sheer speculation:

> (#1) I'm sure they get tired of being called a "liar" every time Ben posts something. I have a pretty thick skin (I guess), so it doesn't bother me as much as some other people I guess, but it certainly isn't a very good debating technique to call your opponent a blatant and despicable "LIAR" every time you turn around. (Not to mention the fact that Ben is just simply DEAD WRONG when he calls most LNers "liars" a dozen times a day. Let's face it, Ben's just nuts in this regard. Because I'm not a liar and neither is Bud and neither is John McAdams and neither was the late Vincent T. Bugliosi.)

And yet, I've given many examples of outright & BLATANT lies they told.

You can't defend those lies.

YOU REFUSE TO DEFEND THOSE LIES!!!

You simply redefine the meaning of the word "lie" ...

IT'S AN INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT BELIEVERS MAKE FREQUENT STATEMENTS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE - AND REFUSE TO CITE FOR.

Go ahead, David - refute that.

> And (#2), the people who "debate" Ben no doubt just get sick and tired of him constantly misrepresenting the true facts and the various circumstances surrounding the deaths of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

Here's a perfect example of a blatant lie.

David KNOWS FULL WELL that he cannot quote any statement of mine on the evidence in this case, THEN CITE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVING THAT I CONTRADICTED THAT EVIDENCE.

I've made this challenge time and time again, and every single time believers run from it.

David will too.

He's lying.

> A recent example of Ben's misrepresenting the true facts is this quote below, which is just not a true statement:
>
> "But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- B. Holmes

Still absolutely true. "Bud" even cited the Warren Commission's explanation for this.

> Ben knows that Oswald's revolver WAS "ballistically matched" (via the BULLET SHELLS) to Oswald's revolver.

Nope... this doesn't connect the pistol to the murder.

You know full well the problems with the chain of possession.

You're LYING about what I've stated... the "change of topic" that believers are famous for.

Why can't you respond to what I *STATED*?

> But he'll pretend (I guess) that the bullet SHELLS just DON'T COUNT as "balliastics" type evidence....or he'll pretend those 4 shells were planted or "switched" by the DPD or the FBI (or by *somebody*).

Don't need to "pretend" ... this is what the evidence supports.

> But, in fact, ALL FOUR of those shells found at the Tippit murder scene were MATCHED to Oswald's .38 revolver "to the exclusion of all other weapons" [see WCR, p.171].

Who cares?

Until you have a chain of possession, it means virtually nothing. The bullets could not be ballistically matched to the pistol, and despite the fact that YOU KNOW THIS TO BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE FROM THE FBI'S POINT OF VIEW, you label it a lie and change the topic.

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0098a.htm
>
> So, as we can see from just my one example,

You see the change of topic, and the lies.

No cites that support your assertion that I lied.

Not even a *SINGLE* word on how the possession of a pistol demonstrates guilt in a murder committed by a rifle.

You're a despicable coward, David.

> people who choose to talk about the JFK case with Ben Holmes over a period of time are no doubt going to get fed up with having to constantly correct him on the basic facts of the case.

You're lying again, David.

Indeed, I've corrected *YOU* on issues in this case, and you know it. You can't produce ANY example of a believer "correcting" me on any basic fact in this case.

YOU NOT ONLY WILL NOT... YOU **CANNOT**.

Watch as my prediction comes true...

> Because, like most rabid conspiracy clowns who prowl the Internet year after year, Ben Holmes has made it quite clear that he will *never* change his tune about *anything* related to the JFK case or the evidence.

Simply another lie on your part.

I've stated a number of times that there's one thing that will make me "change" my mind - and that's evidence.

So you're simply lying again... you can't cite ANYTHING that supports your assertion.

> He *has* to know, of course, that he's dead wrong about many things associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the evidence in the case,

Perhaps I am... but nothing that I post is wrong... for the simple fact that I'm always capable of citing the underlying evidence for my claims.

Something you CANNOT DO. Even in *this* post.

> but since he's made it his life's work to try and exonerate a double-murderer, Ben will never be able to bring himself to admit that he has ever been wrong about anything.

You're lying again, David.

This has been explained DOZENS of times before. How many children did you molest today?

> Eventually, the type of "Exonerate Oswald At All Costs" attitude that CTers like Ben seem to possess will grow mighty tiresome to a reasonable opponent who knows Ben is FOS. Hence, the opponent decides to abandon the debate. But it certainly isn't because they are "running away" from the evidence, as Ben seems to want to believe. It's because they just get fed up with being fed B.S. day after day.

Provably false...

For example, the thread that John McAdams engaged me in about the 6.5mm virtually round object. You cannot support your assertions by reviewing that thread... John simply ran away. And to this day refuses to debate.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Ben. You provided some nice additional examples of the (#1) and (#2) things I talked about in my previous post. Much obliged.

Is it any wonder most LNers stopped talking to you? You have absolutely no ability to "piece the evidence together". You couldn't do it properly (and honestly) if your life depended on it. You've been an Anybody But Oswald club member too long to do that.

And, btw, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with the "chain of possession" for the two non-Poe Tippit bullet cartridge cases (i.e., the "Dhority" bullet shell and the "Doughty" shell).

[Ben Holmes]

You too, won't answer the question that John ran from: What's the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

> Thanks, Ben. You provided some nice additional examples of the (#1) and (#2) things I talked about in my previous post. Much obliged.

You're lying again, David.

You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to document or cite.

You also apparently believe that when people lie, it shouldn't be pointed out.

> Is it any wonder most LNers stopped talking to you? You have absolutely no ability to "piece the evidence together". You couldn't do it properly (and honestly) if your life depended on it. You've been an Anybody But Oswald club member too long to do that.

The fact that you're lying is shown by the questions you refuse to answer, such as Givens and the paraffin test...

Or the two questions relating to Guinn & Killion.

Or Nicol's credibility.

The evidence simply frightens you to death - and your cowardice is quite noticeable.

> And, btw, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with the "chain of possession" for the two non-Poe Tippit bullet cartridge cases (i.e., the "Dhority" bullet shell and the "Doughty" shell).

These half-truths you're fond of spouting are simply that.

The funny thing is, I wouldn't ever have to say a thing - you could do an excellent impression of a critic, and STATE PUBLICLY all the things I'd say.

But you aren't honest enough to do so...

[Bud]

If you have a stance or position, or even just a point about this x-ray why don`t you just put your idea on the table. Why are you such an intellectual coward?

>
> > Thanks, Ben. You provided some nice additional examples of the (#1) and (#2) things I talked about in my previous post. Much obliged.
>
>
> You're lying again, David.
>
> You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to document or cite.
>
> You also apparently believe that when people lie, it shouldn't be pointed out.

I was considering a few "Top Ten" lists when you are done your series of "refutations" of Bugliosi. Top Ten Biggest Ben Holmes Lies. Top Ten Ideas Ben Ran From. Top Ten Things Ben Claimed But Failed to Support. The hard part of composing any of these list will be getting them down to ten.

>
>
> > Is it any wonder most LNers stopped talking to you? You have absolutely no ability to "piece the evidence together". You couldn't do it properly (and honestly) if your life depended on it. You've been an Anybody But Oswald club member too long to do that.
>
>
> The fact that you're lying is shown by the questions you refuse to answer, such as Givens and the paraffin test...
>
> Or the two questions relating to Guinn & Killion.
>
> Or Nicol's credibility.
>
> The evidence simply frightens you to death - and your cowardice is quite noticeable.

You call any evidence that goes against your silly ideas faked. You call any witness who gives evidence against Oswald liars. You are playing silly games with the deaths of these men, nothing less.

[Ben Holmes]

My prediction was for David, but you'd certainly refuse to answer as well... it was predictable.

What AMAZING cowardice!

[Bud]

You seem to have ideas about this piece of evidence and you recognize they are retarded and are ashamed to tell anyone what they are. I suggest you abandon these silly ideas lest someone find out what they are and think less of you.

[David Von Pein]

"It's never been proven WHAT the "6.5mm object" is. .... I have no idea what it is. You have no idea what it is. And nobody else does either. So why pretend you DO know when you know you don't know?" -- DVP; July 2015

More about the "6.5mm. object" at the following two links:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/boh-part-13.html

[Ben Holmes]

> You seem to have ideas ...

No, it's a QUESTION.

It has a question mark after it.

It's something *YOU* are afraid to answer.

What a coward!

[Ben Holmes]

The question was "What's the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?"

Is the 6.5mm object your answer?

Do try to be clear and ACTUALLY GIVE AN ANSWER YOU CAN'T WRIGGLE OUT OF LATER.

Now, once again... What's the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

[Bud]

Which is just another way to shift the burden. If you have ideas about this evidence put them out there for consideration. You are much too big an intellectual coward to do that.

> It has a question mark after it.
>
> It's something *YOU* are afraid to answer.

I don`t have to do anything but wait for you to go somewhere with this evidence. You know you can`t so you try to put it off on other people, a weak tactic.

> What a coward!

[Ben Holmes]

ROTFLMAO!!!

What AMAZING cowardice on your part, "Bud."

John McAdams refused to answer it too.

Of course, it's not that you can't answer the question, it's that you *KNOW* you can't answer the followup question.

You lose!

[Bud]

You seem to have ideas you are afraid to give voice to. If you had somewhere to go with this evidence you would. If you had somewhere to go with the NAA evidence you would. That you refuse to put a compelling argument about either on the table for consideration should tell the lurkers all they need to know.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

If you are afraid to put your ideas on the table for consideration, why are you here? If your ideas are so retarded they can`t stand scrutiny why hold them?

[Ben Holmes]

> If you are afraid to put your ideas on the table for consideration...

[Bud]

Shifting the burden. If you have ideas to advance regarding this evidence put them on the table for consideration. I know you are ashamed of your ideas, so perhaps it is best you discard them.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

Is this you admitting you can`t make a case using this evidence?

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

Take whatever you think this evidence shows and put you ideas on the table, coward.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

There you go, lurkers, he just can`t take these things anywhere.

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:05:10 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
>
> It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.

>
> But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
>

> Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.

Still unrefuted... indeed, even the premier defender of Bugliosi never touched the point made here...

Such cowardice!!

[Bud]

Conspiracy retards hate to put their ideas on the table for consideration. In their hearts they know them to be retarded.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

The conspiracy retard want to play make pretend games that the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. They want to strip all the reality and context from the event and portray it as just a guy with a gun. When you strip all the reality and context from the 9-11 event then the terrorists become just some guys in some planes.

[Ben Holmes]

This is known as a 'Strawman' argument - commonly presented by believers when they cannot address the actual point being raised.

You lose!

[Bud]

I addressed the concept head on. If Oswald is *just* a guy with a gun than Hinckley was *just* a guy with a gun. Your stripping away all meaningful context. If Oswald was just a guy with a gun, how did he just happen to come to having all those cops in his face? Since you retards can`t come up with any reasonable explanation for things like this why should anyone pay any attention to them?

> You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 3:53:23 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 3:37:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:38:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:05:10 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> > > >
> > > > Still unrefuted... indeed, even the premier defender of Bugliosi never touched the point made here...
> > > >
> > > > Such cowardice!!
> > >
> > > The conspiracy retard want to play make pretend games that the DPD just walked into the Texas Theater, grabbed the first person they saw, shook him down and just happened to have a gun, and figured they`d pin a few murders on him. They want to strip all the reality and context from the event and portray it as just a guy with a gun. When you strip all the reality and context from the 9-11 event then the terrorists become just some guys in some planes.
> >
> > This is known as a 'Strawman' argument - commonly presented by believers when they cannot address the actual point being raised.
>
> I addressed the concept head on. If Oswald is *just* a guy with a gun than Hinckley was *just* a guy with a gun.

As was every single policeman in the Theater.

You lose!

[Bud]

How did all those police come to be standing in front of Oswald in that theater, retard?

> You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

Did they possess handguns?


> > You lose!

[Bud]

Yes, the police carry guns. Now answer my question, how did they come to be standing in front of Oswald in the Texas Theater?

>
> > > You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

See how easy that was?

[Bud]

Now you are running. I`m sure the lurkers are very impressed with you intellectual cowardice. Why are you here if you can`t argue ideas?

[Ben Holmes]

That IS a question I'm sure that lurkers are asking about you.

Here is is again:

[Bud]

I love arguing ideas. I can easily explain why mine are good and yours are bad. You know this is true, this is why you are afraid to divulge your ideas.

> Here is is again:
>
> (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
>
> It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
>
> But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
>
> Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.

The only thing you are doing is showing yourself to be an intellectual coward who is afraid to discuss the issues you bring up.

[Ben Holmes]

Ironically, not a *SINGLE* post (other than Don Willis) has been posted that dealt with the evidence in this case other than mine in the last few weeks.

You and David have been *REACTING* to my posts.

This fact disproves your silly assertion.

You can't make a case, you don't even try. All you can do is react to the case I make.

> > Here is is again:
> >
> > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> >
> > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> >
> > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> >
> > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
>
> The only thing you are doing is showing yourself to be an intellectual coward who is afraid to discuss the issues you bring up.

My refutation of Bugliosi has still not been answered.

You lose!

[Bud]

Conspiracy retard like to play silly games with the evidence in this case, what else is new?

> You and David have been *REACTING* to my posts.

Yes, you have been the one starting posts. In some of them you sort of hint at ideas. When I call you out on them you turn turtle.

> This fact disproves your silly assertion.
>
> You can't make a case, you don't even try. All you can do is react to the case I make.

You don`t make a case. You never do. I made a case why the other evidence at the Tippit crime scene was stronger than the radio transmission. You didn`t engage me on that, you snipped and ran. That is all you ever do. Do you think the lurkers don`t notice how you constantly avoid engaging in ideas?

>
> > > Here is is again:
> > >
> > > (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
> > >
> > > It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.
> > >
> > > But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
> > >
> > > Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
> >
> > The only thing you are doing is showing yourself to be an intellectual coward who is afraid to discuss the issues you bring up.
>
> My refutation of Bugliosi has still not been answered.

You even lie about that. You are an intellectual coward who can`t engage on the battlefield of ideas. You are so wrapped up in nonsense you can`t even say how the police came to be standing in front of Oswald in the Texas Theater. You are so embarrassed of your ideas you are afraid to say what they are.

> You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

This is the nonsense that takes the place of real debate.

When a critic refutes the claims of a believer such as Bugliosi, it's labeled a "silly game."

Yet believers are incapable of making their case - they apparently believe it was made once and for all over 50 years ago.

[Bud]

It is a silly game. Because in your head you have negated so much of the indications of Oswald`s guilt you can`t even explain how the cops came to be standing in front of Oswald in the Texas Theater. Or you have to contrive some kind of retarded explanation like the conspiracy told them to go there. It is a silly game you retards play with the deaths of these men.

And you mentioned Willis post, go and look at it and then come back and say with a straight face that he is not playing silly games with the evidence in this case. And if you think he is not, and you think that is what the Warren Commission investigation should have looked like then you are beyond hope.

> Yet believers are incapable of making their case - they apparently believe it was made once and for all over 50 years ago.

Pretty much. The Warren Commission came to the only reasonable conclusion available. Look at the lengths you need to go to to deny it. Look at your inability to put a contending explanation on the table that knocks it out of contention. You need to come to grip with the fact that you guys are playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

[Ben Holmes]

Your faith is shown meaningless by your inability to defend the Warren Commission.

They *REFUSED* to have a defense counsel - likely because they knew back then that the theory they put together wouldn't hold against critical review.

And it's true, it hasn't.

Your cowardice every day proves it.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 11:05:40 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:23:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:57:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>
> > > Yet believers are incapable of making their case - they apparently believe it was made once and for all over 50 years ago.
> >
> > Pretty much.
>
> Your faith is shown meaningless by your inability to defend the Warren Commission.

Didn`t need the WC to figure this crime out. The DPD knew they had their man before the WC was formed. It is the only reasonable conclusion to come to. You cannot because you are retarded.

> They *REFUSED* to have a defense counsel -

Being lawyers they knew this could never be a trial.

Oswald might have plead guilty when it came to making any attempt to represent him a sham. He might not have opted to use any of the things conspiracy retards have contrived in his defense. Who knows what defense, if any, Oswald would have chosen. Without his input the process could only be fatally flawed.

>likely because they knew back then that the theory they put together wouldn't hold against critical review.

How could it not? They had scads of physical evidence and witness testimony implicating Oswald. You think contesting it makes it go away? You think contesting the shells at 10th and Paton would have the WC conclude they had been switched? Only retards entertain these kinds of thoughts.

> And it's true, it hasn't.
>
> Your cowardice every day proves it.

Your inability to put a contending explanation along side of it for consideration proves you have nothing to offer that can knock it out of consideration. It wins by default.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 3:48:49 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 11:05:40 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:23:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:57:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> >
> > > > Yet believers are incapable of making their case - they apparently believe it was made once and for all over 50 years ago.
> > >
> > > Pretty much.
> >
> > Your faith is shown meaningless by your inability to defend the Warren Commission.
>
> Didn`t need the WC to figure this crime out. The DPD knew they had their man before the WC was formed. It is the only reasonable conclusion to come to. You cannot because you are retarded.

Your faith is shown meaningless by your inability to defend the Warren Commission.

Your ad hominem shows that you *REALIZE* that you lost the debate.

> > They *REFUSED* to have a defense counsel -
>
> Being lawyers they knew this could never be a trial.

Being lawyers, they knew that the best way to get at the truth was to have both prosecutors and defense counsel - they weren't interested in getting at the truth.

As I've demonstrated time and time again.

But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.

> Oswald might have plead guilty when it came to making any attempt to represent him a sham.

Sheer speculation - and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the refusal of the Warren Commission to follow the U.S. legal tradition.

> He might not have opted to use any of the things conspiracy retards have contrived in his defense. Who knows what defense, if any, Oswald would have chosen. Without his input the process could only be fatally flawed.

Completely meaningless.

Trials in absentia still have defense counsel.

> >likely because they knew back then that the theory they put together wouldn't hold against critical review.
>
> How could it not?

Because it hasn't.

What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

See?

> They had scads of physical evidence and witness testimony implicating Oswald. You think contesting it makes it go away? You think contesting the shells at 10th and Paton would have the WC conclude they had been switched? Only retards entertain these kinds of thoughts.

And ad hominem never takes the place of the evidence you refuse to cite or defend.

It only shows you understand you lost.

> > And it's true, it hasn't.
> >
> > Your cowardice every day proves it.
>
> Your inability to put a contending explanation along side of it for consideration proves you have nothing to offer that can knock it out of consideration. It wins by default.

How can I put a "contending explanation" alongside something YOU REFUSE TO POST?

Quite a coward, aren't you "Bud?"

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 3:48:49 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 11:05:40 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:23:17 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 9:57:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Yet believers are incapable of making their case - they apparently believe it was made once and for all over 50 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much.
> > >
> > > Your faith is shown meaningless by your inability to defend the Warren Commission.
> >
> > Didn`t need the WC to figure this crime out. The DPD knew they had their man before the WC was formed. It is the only reasonable conclusion to come to. You cannot because you are retarded.
>
> Your faith is shown meaningless by your inability to defend the Warren Commission.

You retardation is shown by your thinking that it is about the Warren Commission.

> Your ad hominem shows that you *REALIZE* that you lost the debate.

I made points. As is your custom you ran from them.

> > > They *REFUSED* to have a defense counsel -
> >
> > Being lawyers they knew this could never be a trial.
>
> Being lawyers, they knew that the best way to get at the truth was to have both prosecutors and defense counsel - they weren't interested in getting at the truth.

That is merely your spin. Because they understood the law they knew they could not conduct a trial against a dead man. They could conduct an investigation to determine what occurred.

> As I've demonstrated time and time again.
>
> But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.

I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.

> > Oswald might have plead guilty when it came to making any attempt to represent him a sham.
>
> Sheer speculation -

As any defense Oswald might have opted to employ must be. Which is why a trial was impossible.

> and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the refusal of the Warren Commission to follow the U.S. legal tradition.

Is the adversarial process a tradition of investigation?

> > He might not have opted to use any of the things conspiracy retards have contrived in his defense. Who knows what defense, if any, Oswald would have chosen. Without his input the process could only be fatally flawed.
>
>
> Completely meaningless.
>
> Trials in absentia still have defense counsel.

Show a trail in absentia that was conducted against a dead defendant.

Lurkers can read about trial in absentia and see all the reasons it could never apply in this case...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia

A interesting local case of trial in ansentia was the Ira Einhorn case, where it was ruled that he waved his right to a trial by fleeing the country.

> > >likely because they knew back then that the theory they put together wouldn't hold against critical review.
> >
> > How could it not?
>
> Because it hasn't.

Empty claim.

> What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
>
> See?

I see your inability to make an argument using this evidence. How does that help you?

> > They had scads of physical evidence and witness testimony implicating Oswald. You think contesting it makes it go away? You think contesting the shells at 10th and Patton would have the WC conclude they had been switched? Only retards entertain these kinds of thoughts.

>
>
> And ad hominem never takes the place of the evidence you refuse to cite or defend.

I gave voice to an idea. That is what thinking people do.

Will you lie and say that switched shells is not an idea of yours? See, not only are you afraid to contest my ideas you are afraid to say what your are. How can you hope to impress the lurkers this way?

> It only shows you understand you lost.
>
>
> > > And it's true, it hasn't.
> > >
> > > Your cowardice every day proves it.
> >
> > Your inability to put a contending explanation along side of it for consideration proves you have nothing to offer that can knock it out of consideration. It wins by default.
>
> How can I put a "contending explanation" alongside something YOU REFUSE TO POST?

You been posting a good deal of it with Bugliosi`s list. You know the LN position on just about every issue and piece of evidence in this case. To claim ignorance of the LN position is nothing less than admitting to be a liar.

Now, if I wasn`t so sure of your intellectual cowardice I would compose a list of events in this case and we could both give our answer to each thing and let the lurkers decide who is rational and who is retarded (I think you have given them enough material to make that distinction already). Question would be like...

"Why did Barbara Davis say she saw Oswald walk across her lawn with a gun?"

And my answer would be "Because she did" and you could give whatever retarded explanation you have for what she said.

Another question might be "Why did the shells found at Tenth and Patton match Oswald`s gun?"

And my answer would be because they were fired from Oswald gun when he killed Tippit and you could given your retarded answer.

And after your retarded answers piled up the lurkers would undoubtedly come to the inescapable conclusion that you are retarded. Unless they themselves were retarded.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
>
> I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.

I'm doing so quite successfully... explain why the lawyers of the Warren Commission were unable to do what I do easily...

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> >
> > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
>
> I'm doing so quite successfully...

Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf? If he was smart he would put distance between himself and your arguments.

> explain why the lawyers of the Warren Commission were unable to do what I do easily...

No one could tell what direction Oswald would have opted for his defense to take, he was mute on the matter.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> > >
> > > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
> >
> > I'm doing so quite successfully...
>
> Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf?

Tut tut tut, "Bud"... I'm making the SAME SORT OF ARGUMENTS that *any* defense counsel would make.

This is how the truth is arrived at - by counsel OPPOSING each other. This is the American justice system's method for arriving at the truth.

When only *ONE* side is allowed to make a presentation - then the truth will not be found.

You would be the *FIRST* person to complain if only the defense were allowed to speak in a courtroom. Yet you have no problems with only the prosecution being allowed to speak.

That fact tells the tale.

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> > > >
> > > > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
> > >
> > > I'm doing so quite successfully...
> >
> > Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf?
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud"... I'm making the SAME SORT OF ARGUMENTS that *any* defense counsel would make.

Are they Oswald approved arguments?

> This is how the truth is arrived at - by counsel OPPOSING each other. This is the American justice system's method for arriving at the truth.

In a trial.

> When only *ONE* side is allowed to make a presentation - then the truth will not be found.

Assumes the one side is not seeking the truth.

> You would be the *FIRST* person to complain if only the defense were allowed to speak in a courtroom.

Not if I were dead.

> Yet you have no problems with only the prosecution being allowed to speak.

No prosecution. No trial. Just an investigation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm doing so quite successfully...
> > >
> > > Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf?
> >
> > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... I'm making the SAME SORT OF ARGUMENTS that *any* defense counsel would make.
>
> Are they Oswald approved arguments?

They don't have to be. In trial in absentia, for example; it's simply impossible. Just as it was clearly impossible for a dead Oswald.

That has never been a requirement in order to seek the truth.

Nor does it absolve the Warren Commission from seeking the truth... they clearly weren't interested in the truth - if they were, THEY WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A DEFENSE COUNSEL.

Why can't you defend the Warren Commission against the critical logic & evidence that I post?

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 1:10:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm doing so quite successfully...
> > > >
> > > > Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf?
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... I'm making the SAME SORT OF ARGUMENTS that *any* defense counsel would make.
> >
> > Are they Oswald approved arguments?
>
> They don't have to be. In trial in absentia, for example; it's simply impossible. Just as it was clearly impossible for a dead Oswald.

Can you show that trial in absentia laws has ever been used in the case of a dead defendant?

> That has never been a requirement in order to seek the truth.
>
> Nor does it absolve the Warren Commission from seeking the truth... they clearly weren't interested in the truth - if they were, THEY WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A DEFENSE COUNSEL.

It wasn`t a trial.

> Why can't you defend the Warren Commission against the critical logic & evidence that I post?

It isn`t logical to apply trial law to an investigation. You might as well apply baseball rules and say they should have appointed a designated hitter.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:19:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 1:10:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm doing so quite successfully...
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf?
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... I'm making the SAME SORT OF ARGUMENTS that *any* defense counsel would make.
> > >
> > > Are they Oswald approved arguments?
> >
> > They don't have to be. In trial in absentia, for example; it's simply impossible. Just as it was clearly impossible for a dead Oswald.
>
> Can you show that trial in absentia laws has ever been used in the case of a dead defendant?

Tut tut tut, "Bud" - the principle is the same. The defendant isn't there - FOR **WHATEVER** REASON - to 'guide' his defense.

Amusingly, you're either too stupid or too dishonest to admit you lost this one.

Which is it?

[Bud]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 1:35:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:19:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 1:10:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 10:02:53 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:52:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But neither are you... you certainly must know the reason for two sides in the legal profession - yet you refused to publicly acknowledge it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand the adversarial process. I also understand why it could not be employed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm doing so quite successfully...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you making the arguments that Oswald would have directed his counsel to make on his behalf?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... I'm making the SAME SORT OF ARGUMENTS that *any* defense counsel would make.
> > > >
> > > > Are they Oswald approved arguments?
> > >
> > > They don't have to be. In trial in absentia, for example; it's simply impossible. Just as it was clearly impossible for a dead Oswald.
> >
> > Can you show that trial in absentia laws has ever been used in the case of a dead defendant?
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud" - the principle is the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia

"Conviction in a trial in which a defendant is not present to answer the charges is held to be a violation of natural justice. Specifically, it violates the second principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem (hear the other party)."

There are the very limited and specific exceptions to this in the US...

"the defendant waives his or her right to be present if he or she voluntarily leaves the trial after it has commenced,
if he or she persists in disruptive conduct after being warned that such conduct will cause him or her to be removed from the courtroom,
a corporation need not be present, but may be represented by counsel,
in prosecutions for misdemeanors, the court may permit arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant's absence with his or her written consent, and
the defendant need not be present at a conference or argument upon a question of law or at a reduction of sentence under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."

Do you see anything there applicable to this case?

> The defendant isn't there - FOR **WHATEVER** REASON - to 'guide' his defense.

There is no trial, therefore no defense. Dead people aren`t tried, they just aren`t.

But lets say for the sake of argument that a defense lawyer was appointed. Who would decide what defense strategy to be used? What if the appointed lawyer looks at the evidence against Oswald and decides a diminished capacity defense is the best option?

> Amusingly, you're either too stupid or too dishonest to admit you lost this one.

You can`t win if what you are trying to apply doesn`t apply.

> Which is it?

[Ben Holmes]

Nope... you've already lost.

[Bud]

Then why are you the person running?

[Ben Holmes]

You're the one who cannot cite anything that demands that the defense council can only take direction from the defendant.

I've referenced precisely the opposite... that a defense council can defend a defendant IN THEIR ABSENCE.

Only a moron would fail to see that.

So run, "Bud"... RUN!!! You lost.

[Bud]

<snicker> Who else?

> I've referenced precisely the opposite... that a defense council can defend a defendant IN THEIR ABSENCE.

Doesn`t apply for the reasons given.