Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists

[David Von Pein]

JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:

1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?

2.) What other weapons were used?

3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?

4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?

5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?

6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?

7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?

8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?

David Von Pein
April 2008
May 2012

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MpbKunKQCIQ/RUdPhSlcFTwJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.

Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...

For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

Why wasn't the closest police eyewitness to the murder, photographed WATCHING the murder from less than a dozen feet away, never questioned for the Warren Commission's investigation?

Why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to lie repeatedly on the evidence they had - such as the "hidden" clipboard, or Mrs. Tice's testimony?

How does a single witness, testifying months later that he didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper - turn into evidence that he murdered, by himself, JFK?

Why do EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER lie repeatedly on this case?

Why did all of the interviews with Parkland doctors & nurses disappear from the record?

Why did the Warren Commission bury Guinn's control NAA tests?

> But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:

That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.

Believers, on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.

(examples given above.)

> 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?

The FBI, most likely. I'm quite sure that bullets found that day, such as the one dug out of the grass, went to the FBI. I'm sure you remember that Tomlinson was threatened about talking about CE-399 (or what *became* CE-399) - there was no reason to threaten witnesses unless they knew things that would unravel the plot.

The evidence quite OVERWHELMINGLY shows that there were multiple shooters... for example, the fact that the bullet that struck Connally's wrist struck it from the outside.

Anyone can quickly see the problem by merely attempting to place the outside of their wrist facing their chest.

And, of course, the evidence for a frontal throat shot - the one that Vincent Bugliosi found so damaging, that he blatantly lied about it.

Additionally, any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case.

Take, for example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/5606-additional-bullets-in-and-around-dealey-plaza/

> 2.) What other weapons were used?

This is a silly question.

Other than stating it was a weapon that fired bullets - there's no way to know.

Sorta like asking what brand of knife did O.J. Simpson use?

My guess is that David will REFUSE to acknowledge the accurate analogy... or answer it.

> 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?

Simple... any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared.

We *KNOW* for a fact that bullet fragments disappeared while under government control, that's something noted by Dr. Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.

Watch as David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to give a credible explanation for the missing evidence.

> 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?

Multiple shooters... and more than three shots.

Simple.

So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered.

David's a liar.

>And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets?

Tut tut tut, David - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).

So you're demanding that we accept your speculation, then explain it.

Simply not needed.

> And where did those two bullets go?

My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket.

And, not a guess on my part, but taken directly from my crystal ball - DAVID WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVEN *TRY* TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH JFK'S BODY BETWEEN 6:40PM AND 8:00PM.

Nearly an hour and a half unaccounted for, in David's mind.

> If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?

Again, Dr. Humes' pocket.

What do you suppose he was doing between 6:40 and 8:00pm?

> 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?

Exactly where the trajectory suggests... the 'Grassy Knoll' on Tague's right... I've documented this on my forum...

Here's a photo with a yellow line showing the trajectory:
http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo2.png

Here's the forum thread giving all the details:
http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Throat-Wound

The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references... Tell us David, WHERE IS THE 'PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL' LOCATED?

Is there *ANY* part of the Occipital that is *NOT* located in the back of the head?

(Watch as David twists and squirms and tells obvious lies in an attempt to avoid the simple fact that the Autopsy documented a read head wound...)

> 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald,

Because they only needed a single patsy.

I'm sure that if Frazier hadn't starting singing appropriately, they may well have indicted two men. Frazier was held by the police, had his rifle confiscated, and forced to undergo a lie detector test that night...

But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?

> including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case,

Untrue. The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence.

The Money Order is physical evidence, and you've NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's legitimate... that rather nasty lack of any bank endorsements still haunt you!

CE-543, which again, shows alteration in the evidence in this case... David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed.

So no, it's simply not true that *ALL* physical evidence indicted Oswald.

> if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?

Why would he need to?

He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.

Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.

> 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists),

The mere fact that you have to denigrate all critics with your ad hominem attacks shows that you well understand you can't answer on the basis of evidence, citation, and logical argument.

> then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?

This has been answered a number of times before.

The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far.

When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly.

*YOU* for example, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the intimidation of eyewitnesses... so severe, that in some cases PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVED OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE ELSEWHERE.

Why the intimidation, David? Can you give a credible explanation?

> Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?

How silly! A logical fallacy on your part, of course. Check with Henry Sienzant, he'll set you straight.

> 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?

Already answered... here it is again:

Why would he need to?

He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.

Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.

Nor is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Oswald was "willing to take the long rap" - That's just nonsense on your part. You'll not *EVER* cite even the smallest bit of credible evidence for such nonsense.

Of course, labeling critics as "conspiracy kooks" simply shows that you know you've lost the debate.

As your refusal to address my points, ONE BY ONE, as I just did with yours, will support the charge of cowardice on your part.

> David Von Pein
> April 2008
> May 2012

Now, watch as David runs from the post above, AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER IT, POINT BY POINT, AS I DID WITH HIS QUESTIONS...

What a coward!!!

[David Von Pein]

This is what happens, folks, when a desperate CTers tries to explain away ALL the evidence that points to Oswald (which, of course, is ALL the evidence). The CTer ends up looking very silly when attempting to square away everything into a nice little "Conspiracy" package (with Oswald being featured as the make-believe "Patsy" in the conspiracy theorist's imaginary plot).

My favorite gut-buster delivered by desperate Mr. Holmes above is this little gem below (in which Holmes was answering my question "Where did those two bullets go [that entered JFK's body but never exited]?"....

"My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- B. Holmes

Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got enough evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in the imaginary conspiracy and cover-up. Needless to say, Holmes has ZERO evidence to make such an outrageous accusation against Dr. Humes.

But "ZERO evidence" never stopped a determined JFK conspiracy theorist. Just ask Ben Holmes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 11:06:14 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 5:45:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
> >
> > Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...
> >
> > For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
> >
> > Why wasn't the closest police eyewitness to the murder, photographed WATCHING the murder from less than a dozen feet away, never questioned for the Warren Commission's investigation?
> >
> > Why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to lie repeatedly on the evidence they had - such as the "hidden" clipboard, or Mrs. Tice's testimony?
> >
> > How does a single witness, testifying months later that he didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper - turn into evidence that he murdered, by himself, JFK?
> >
> > Why do EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER lie repeatedly on this case?
> >
> > Why did all of the interviews with Parkland doctors & nurses disappear from the record?
> >
> > Why did the Warren Commission bury Guinn's control NAA tests?

Notice that David ran from each and every one of these questions - despite the fact that I answered *ALL* of his.

This is an excellent demonstration of why believers have faith, and why they enjoy debate with those who don't know the evidence, and absolutely HATE to debate someone who does.

When their faith meets the evidence, they lose.

> > > But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
> >
> >
> > That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.

Did I predict it or what???

> > Believers, on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.
> >
> > (examples given above.)
> >
> >
> > > 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
> >
> > The FBI, most likely. I'm quite sure that bullets found that day, such as the one dug out of the grass, went to the FBI. I'm sure you remember that Tomlinson was threatened about talking about CE-399 (or what *became* CE-399) - there was no reason to threaten witnesses unless they knew things that would unravel the plot.
> >
> > The evidence quite OVERWHELMINGLY shows that there were multiple shooters... for example, the fact that the bullet that struck Connally's wrist struck it from the outside.
> >
> > Anyone can quickly see the problem by merely attempting to place the outside of their wrist facing their chest.
> >
> > And, of course, the evidence for a frontal throat shot - the one that Vincent Bugliosi found so damaging, that he blatantly lied about it.
> >
> > Additionally, any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case.
> >
> > Take, for example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/5606-additional-bullets-in-and-around-dealey-plaza/
> >
> > > 2.) What other weapons were used?
> >
> > This is a silly question.
> >
> > Other than stating it was a weapon that fired bullets - there's no way to know.
> >
> > Sorta like asking what brand of knife did O.J. Simpson use?
> >
> > My guess is that David will REFUSE to acknowledge the accurate analogy... or answer it.

And indeed, David ran like a yellow chicken...

> > > 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
> >
> > Simple... any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared.
> >
> > We *KNOW* for a fact that bullet fragments disappeared while under government control, that's something noted by Dr. Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.
> >
> > Watch as David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to give a credible explanation for the missing evidence.

And indeed, David ran AGAIN like a yellow chicken...

> > > 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?
> >
> > Multiple shooters... and more than three shots.
> >
> > Simple.
> >
> > So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered.
> >
> > David's a liar.

David was so frightened of this answer that he simply refused to acknowledge it.

> > >And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets?
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).
> >
> > So you're demanding that we accept your speculation, then explain it.
> >
> > Simply not needed.
> >
> >
> > > And where did those two bullets go?
> >
> >
> > My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket.
> >
> > And, not a guess on my part, but taken directly from my crystal ball - DAVID WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVEN *TRY* TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH JFK'S BODY BETWEEN 6:40PM AND 8:00PM.
> >
> > Nearly an hour and a half unaccounted for, in David's mind.

Interestingly, although David couldn't resist the "Humes' pocket" statement, he ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to explain what was happening to JFK's body between 6:40pm and 8:00pm.

A very BRIGHT yellow chicken!!!

> > > If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
> >
> >
> > Again, Dr. Humes' pocket.
> >
> > What do you suppose he was doing between 6:40 and 8:00pm?
> >
> >
> >
> > > 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?
> >
> > Exactly where the trajectory suggests... the 'Grassy Knoll' on Tague's right... I've documented this on my forum...
> >
> > Here's a photo with a yellow line showing the trajectory:
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo2.png
> >
> > Here's the forum thread giving all the details:
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Throat-Wound
> >
> > The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references... Tell us David, WHERE IS THE 'PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL' LOCATED?

David can't answer this question... it proves him a liar.

> > Is there *ANY* part of the Occipital that is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
> >
> > (Watch as David twists and squirms and tells obvious lies in an attempt to avoid the simple fact that the Autopsy documented a read head wound...)

Oops! I was wrong... David was far too much a coward TO EVEN RESPOND!!!

> > > 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald,
> >
> > Because they only needed a single patsy.
> >
> > I'm sure that if Frazier hadn't starting singing appropriately, they may well have indicted two men. Frazier was held by the police, had his rifle confiscated, and forced to undergo a lie detector test that night...
> >
> > But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?
> >
> >
> > > including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case,
> >
> > Untrue. The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence.
> >
> > The Money Order is physical evidence, and you've NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's legitimate... that rather nasty lack of any bank endorsements still haunt you!
> >
> > CE-543, which again, shows alteration in the evidence in this case... David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed.
> >
> > So no, it's simply not true that *ALL* physical evidence indicted Oswald.

And despite my examples, David couldn't find the character to retract his lie.

> > > if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
> >
> > Why would he need to?
> >
> > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.
> >
> > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> >
> >
> > > 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists),
> >
> > The mere fact that you have to denigrate all critics with your ad hominem attacks shows that you well understand you can't answer on the basis of evidence, citation, and logical argument.
> >
> >
> > > then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?
> >
> > This has been answered a number of times before.
> >
> > The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far.
> >
> > When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly.
> >
> > *YOU* for example, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the intimidation of eyewitnesses... so severe, that in some cases PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVED OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE ELSEWHERE.
> >
> > Why the intimidation, David? Can you give a credible explanation?
> >
> >
> > > Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
> >
> > How silly! A logical fallacy on your part, of course. Check with Henry Sienzant, he'll set you straight.
> >
> >
> > > 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
> >
> >
> > Already answered... here it is again:
> >
> > Why would he need to?
> >
> > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.
> >
> > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> >
> > Nor is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Oswald was "willing to take the long rap" - That's just nonsense on your part. You'll not *EVER* cite even the smallest bit of credible evidence for such nonsense.
> >
> > Of course, labeling critics as "conspiracy kooks" simply shows that you know you've lost the debate.
> >
> > As your refusal to address my points, ONE BY ONE, as I just did with yours, will support the charge of cowardice on your part.

As predicted, David proved himself a coward.

> > > David Von Pein
> > > April 2008
> > > May 2012
> >
> >
> > Now, watch as David runs from the post above, AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER IT, POINT BY POINT, AS I DID WITH HIS QUESTIONS...

My prediction was spot on... as usual.

Believers are *SO* predictable - they're liars, and above all else, they're cowards...

I answered EVERY SINGLE POINT David made - and he ran...

> > What a coward!!!
>
> This is what happens, folks, when a desperate CTers tries to explain away ALL the evidence that points to Oswald (which, of course, is ALL the evidence).

Who's the desperate ones?

Those who answer EVERYTHING YOU ASK ON THE CASE?

Or those who run from explaining the evidence in this case?

This post shows what happens when a believer thinks he can ask questions on this case that believers can't answer.

He proves PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.

> The CTer ends up looking very silly when attempting to square away everything into a nice little "Conspiracy" package (with Oswald being featured as the make-believe "Patsy" in the conspiracy theorist's imaginary plot).

Who's looking "silly?" The one who thought he was asking unanswerable questions?

Or the one who ran from all the questions?

> My favorite gut-buster delivered by desperate Mr. Holmes above is this little gem below (in which Holmes was answering my question "Where did those two bullets go [that entered JFK's body but never exited]?"....
>
> "My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- B. Holmes

Yep... still true. Notice that David offers absolutely *NOTHING* to impugn the credibility of this statement.

> Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got enough evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in the imaginary conspiracy and cover-up. Needless to say, Holmes has ZERO evidence to make such an outrageous accusation against Dr. Humes.

Nope... no-one EVER said that he was "one of the prime plotters" ... indeed, the fact that you're forced to construct such a silly strawman shows that you understand quite well that you've lost.

> But "ZERO evidence" never stopped a determined JFK conspiracy theorist. Just ask Ben Holmes.

Tut tut tut, David... I did indeed list evidence. You're lying again!


And you've demonstrated some INCREDIBLE cowardice... Wanna bet whether my two responses here will *ever* make it into one of your websites?

[Ben Holmes]

Amusingly, the very title of this thread is a lie.

I understand, of course, that the title cannot be changed... but will David have enough honesty to publicly retract the title?

And admit publicly that I answered EACH AND EVERY ONE OF HIS QUESTIONS?

So well, in fact, that David couldn't refute ANY of my answers...

[Bud]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 5:45:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
>
> Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...
>
> For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

That must be meaningless and trivial since you can`t seem to make any arguments using this evidence.

> Why wasn't the closest police eyewitness to the murder, photographed WATCHING the murder from less than a dozen feet away, never questioned for the Warren Commission's investigation?

Chaney isn`t looking at JFK in the Altgen`s photo, foreshortening only makes it appear that way.

> Why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to lie repeatedly on the evidence they had - such as the "hidden" clipboard, or Mrs. Tice's testimony?

The clipboard was in an area that had piles of books that would have hidden it from many angles. Mrs Tice was a dingbat who inserted herself into the case. Read what her poor husband had to say.

> How does a single witness, testifying months later that he didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper - turn into evidence that he murdered, by himself, JFK?

Oswald changed his daily routine on this day of all others.

> Why do EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER lie repeatedly on this case?

It only seems that way because you are retarded.

> Why did all of the interviews with Parkland doctors & nurses disappear from the record?

<snicker> In what murder case have you ever even seen doctors and nurses questioned?

> Why did the Warren Commission bury Guinn's control NAA tests?

Maybe they felt the findings were not significant.

> > But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
>
>
> That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.
>
> Believers, on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.
>
> (examples given above.)
>
>
> > 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
>
> The FBI, most likely. I'm quite sure that bullets found that day, such as the one dug out of the grass, went to the FBI. I'm sure you remember that Tomlinson was threatened about talking about CE-399 (or what *became* CE-399) - there was no reason to threaten witnesses unless they knew things that would unravel the plot.

If they were going to switch the bullet Tomlinson found why would they threaten Tomlinson not to say he found a bullet?

> The evidence quite OVERWHELMINGLY shows that there were multiple shooters... for example, the fact that the bullet that struck Connally's wrist struck it from the outside.

And the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who said is?

> Anyone can quickly see the problem by merely attempting to place the outside of their wrist facing their chest.
>
> And, of course, the evidence for a frontal throat shot - the one that Vincent Bugliosi found so damaging, that he blatantly lied about it.

What evidence for a frontal shot?

> Additionally, any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case.
>
> Take, for example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/5606-additional-bullets-in-and-around-dealey-plaza/

By all means, connect them to the shooting.

> > 2.) What other weapons were used?
>
> This is a silly question.

With Oswald a photo of him holding the rifle is not good enough, but conspiracy retards can offer air.

> Other than stating it was a weapon that fired bullets - there's no way to know.
>
> Sorta like asking what brand of knife did O.J. Simpson use?
>
> My guess is that David will REFUSE to acknowledge the accurate analogy... or answer it.
>
>
> > 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
>
> Simple... any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared.
>
> We *KNOW* for a fact that bullet fragments disappeared while under government control, that's something noted by Dr. Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.

How could the government have foreseen the HSCA?

> Watch as David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to give a credible explanation for the missing evidence.
>
>
> > 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?
>
> Multiple shooters... and more than three shots.

Pixie dust.

> Simple.
>
> So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered.
>
> David's a liar.
>
>
>
> >And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets?
>
> Tut tut tut, David - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).

So what do you figure Ben, the bullet smashed into a vertebrae, destroying it and stopping the bullet dead and nobody noticed it?

A bullet passing through makes sense. Nothing the conspiracy retards can offer makes any sense.

> So you're demanding that we accept your speculation, then explain it.
>
> Simply not needed.

Nobody expect you retards can put anything on the table for consideration by now.

>
> > And where did those two bullets go?
>
>
> My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket.

Only one of literally hundreds of fantastic occurrences Ben`s ideas require.

> And, not a guess on my part, but taken directly from my crystal ball - DAVID WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVEN *TRY* TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH JFK'S BODY BETWEEN 6:40PM AND 8:00PM.

Shifting the burden.

> Nearly an hour and a half unaccounted for, in David's mind.
>
>
> > If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
>
>
> Again, Dr. Humes' pocket.
>
> What do you suppose he was doing between 6:40 and 8:00pm?

"Dr Humes, you country needs you to go in there and immediately start tampering with evidence. We know this will put in jeopardy everything you worked for in your life, and also your freedom, and we know it would be impossible for you to know exactly what cover-up to perform on what evidence, seeing as we can`t be sure what the wounds are, but do it anyway"

>
> > 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?
>
> Exactly where the trajectory suggests... the 'Grassy Knoll' on Tague's right... I've documented this on my forum...
>
> Here's a photo with a yellow line showing the trajectory:
> http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo2.png

<snicker> Ben says...

"I'm just putting the shooter in the general area that the ballistics shows he must have been."

What ballistics shows the shooter to have been in that area?

And were is the bullet exit that should be in the right rear of Kennedy`s neck?

And why are they shooting Kennedy from the front to frame a rear shooting patsy?

These retards are just playing silly games.

> Here's the forum thread giving all the details:
> http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Throat-Wound
>
> The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references... Tell us David, WHERE IS THE 'PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL' LOCATED?
>
> Is there *ANY* part of the Occipital that is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
>
> (Watch as David twists and squirms and tells obvious lies in an attempt to avoid the simple fact that the Autopsy documented a read head wound...)
>
>
> > 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald,
>
> Because they only needed a single patsy.
>
> I'm sure that if Frazier hadn't starting singing appropriately, they may well have indicted two men. Frazier was held by the police, had his rifle confiscated, and forced to undergo a lie detector test that night...

He drove the murderer of the President and his rifle to the scene of the crime. This warrants some scrutiny.

> But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?

Because the conspiracy know all and see all. It even has people standing wherever bullets land, waiting to snatch them up.

> > including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case,
>
> Untrue. The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence.

Make that case.

> The Money Order is physical evidence, and you've NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's legitimate... that rather nasty lack of any bank endorsements still haunt you!

It has plenty of supporting elements.

> CE-543, which again, shows alteration in the evidence in this case... David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed.

Not this crap again.

> So no, it's simply not true that *ALL* physical evidence indicted Oswald.
>
>
> > if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
>
> Why would he need to?
>
> He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.

They can figure he was an intelligence agent with nothing but can`t figure he was a murderer with everything.

> Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
>
>
> > 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists),
>
> The mere fact that you have to denigrate all critics with your ad hominem attacks shows that you well understand you can't answer on the basis of evidence, citation, and logical argument.

Both denigrated themselves.

> > then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?
>
> This has been answered a number of times before.
>
> The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far.
>
> When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly.

Your ideas require supernatural control.

> *YOU* for example, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the intimidation of eyewitnesses... so severe, that in some cases PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVED OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE ELSEWHERE.

You will fail to establish it.

> Why the intimidation, David? Can you give a credible explanation?

Shifting the burden.

>
> > Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
>
> How silly! A logical fallacy on your part, of course. Check with Henry Sienzant, he'll set you straight.
>
>
> > 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
>
>
> Already answered... here it is again:
>
> Why would he need to?
>
> He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.

Why not say he was an alien, or a cowboy?

> Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
>
> Nor is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Oswald was "willing to take the long rap" - That's just nonsense on your part. You'll not *EVER* cite even the smallest bit of credible evidence for such nonsense.

Punching cops with guns trained on him says he wasn`t waiting for imaginary "superiors".

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 5:45:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
> >
> > Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...
> >
> > For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
>
> That must be meaningless and trivial since you can`t seem to make any arguments using this evidence.

If it were "meaningless," you wouldn't be so afraid to answer the question.

So clearly, you yourself demonstrate the importance of this largest of foreign objects... by your refusal to identify it or debate it.

> > Why wasn't the closest police eyewitness to the murder, photographed WATCHING the murder from less than a dozen feet away, never questioned for the Warren Commission's investigation?
>
> Chaney isn`t looking at JFK in the Altgen`s photo, foreshortening only makes it appear that way.

What "foreshortening" made him claim to be looking at JFK?

> > Why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to lie repeatedly on the evidence they had - such as the "hidden" clipboard, or Mrs. Tice's testimony?
>
> The clipboard was in an area that had piles of books that would have hidden it from many angles.

Yep... I'm sure that no-one standing out on the sidewalk could possibly have seen it.

But the Warren Commission lied.

It wasn't "hidden" at all.

> Mrs Tice was a dingbat who inserted herself into the case. Read what her poor husband had to say.

This doesn't explain why the *WARREN COMMISSION* lied about what she testified to.

Run "Bud"... RUN!!!

> > How does a single witness, testifying months later that he didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper - turn into evidence that he murdered, by himself, JFK?
>
> Oswald changed his daily routine on this day of all others.

And yet, the EARLIEST statements contradict you.

Tell us "Bud," why did Bugliosi, David, and yourself lie on this issue?

> > Why do EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER lie repeatedly on this case?
>
> It only seems that way because you are retarded.

Ad hominem simply shows that you know you lost the debate.

You've lied a number of times already... such as on Mrs. Tice, and on Oswald's newspaper reading...

> > Why did all of the interviews with Parkland doctors & nurses disappear from the record?
>
> <snicker> In what murder case have you ever even seen doctors and nurses questioned?

It's an historical FACT that they were.

Of course, you're simply ignorant of this fact...

> > Why did the Warren Commission bury Guinn's control NAA tests?
>
> Maybe they felt the findings were not significant.

Then why did they think Killion's *CONTRADICTED* findings were?

Why did the Warren Commission lie?

They *OMITTED* the fact that Killion's tests were contradicted by Guinn's.

> > > But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
> >
> >
> > That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.
> >
> > Believers, on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.
> >
> > (examples given above.)
> >
> >
> > > 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
> >
> > The FBI, most likely. I'm quite sure that bullets found that day, such as the one dug out of the grass, went to the FBI. I'm sure you remember that Tomlinson was threatened about talking about CE-399 (or what *became* CE-399) - there was no reason to threaten witnesses unless they knew things that would unravel the plot.
>
> If they were going to switch the bullet Tomlinson found why would they threaten Tomlinson not to say he found a bullet?

This question is so moronic that I have to chock it up to your incredible stupidity.

It was *BECAUSE* they were going to swap bullets that they needed Tomlinson to remain quiet.

Ask a friend to explain this to you.

> > The evidence quite OVERWHELMINGLY shows that there were multiple shooters... for example, the fact that the bullet that struck Connally's wrist struck it from the outside.
>
> And the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who said is?

Logical fallacy... check with Henry Sienzant...

> > Anyone can quickly see the problem by merely attempting to place the outside of their wrist facing their chest.

Dead silence... perhaps "Bud" has trouble visualizing this...

> > And, of course, the evidence for a frontal throat shot - the one that Vincent Bugliosi found so damaging, that he blatantly lied about it.
>
> What evidence for a frontal shot?

Tut tut tut, "Bud," you're changing the topic without acknowledging the first one.

I'll give you a complete answer to your question as soon as you acknowledge that Bugliosi lied about it.

> > Additionally, any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case.
> >
> > Take, for example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/5606-additional-bullets-in-and-around-dealey-plaza/
>
> By all means, connect them to the shooting.

Nope... don't need to.

Dealey Plaza isn't famous for very many shootings... in fact, only one.

> > > 2.) What other weapons were used?
> >
> > This is a silly question.
>
> With Oswald a photo of him holding the rifle is not good enough, but conspiracy retards can offer air.

Nah, it was these three... all holding Mannlicher Carcano's:

https://jfkinvestigators.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/3-fritz-with-rifle.jpg?w=525&h=394

> > Other than stating it was a weapon that fired bullets - there's no way to know.
> >
> > Sorta like asking what brand of knife did O.J. Simpson use?

"Bud" turns silent again...

> > My guess is that David will REFUSE to acknowledge the accurate analogy... or answer it.
> >
> >
> > > 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
> >
> > Simple... any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared.
> >
> > We *KNOW* for a fact that bullet fragments disappeared while under government control, that's something noted by Dr. Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.
>
> How could the government have foreseen the HSCA?

Change of topic again.

First, let's hear you acknowledge that we know, due to the re-investigation, that evidence disappeared.

> > Watch as David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to give a credible explanation for the missing evidence.
> >
> >
> > > 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?
> >
> > Multiple shooters... and more than three shots.
>
> Pixie dust.

What, no cite???

> > Simple.
> >
> > So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered.
> >
> > David's a liar.
> >
> >
> >
> > >And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets?
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).
>
> So what do you figure Ben, the bullet smashed into a vertebrae, destroying it and stopping the bullet dead and nobody noticed it?

Tut tut tut, "Bud" - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).

> A bullet passing through makes sense. Nothing the conspiracy retards can offer makes any sense.

Multiple shots make sense.

> > So you're demanding that we accept your speculation, then explain it.
> >
> > Simply not needed.
>
> Nobody expect you retards can put anything on the table for consideration by now.

Of course, this applies only to you... since I've already done so in the Amazon forums, and have offered to do so again here when you provide your scenario.

So the only "retard" is you.

> > > And where did those two bullets go?
> >
> >
> > My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket.
>
> Only one of literally hundreds of fantastic occurrences Ben`s ideas require.

Nope. You're lying again, "Bud."

> > And, not a guess on my part, but taken directly from my crystal ball - DAVID WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVEN *TRY* TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH JFK'S BODY BETWEEN 6:40PM AND 8:00PM.
>
> Shifting the burden.

It's your burden.

> > Nearly an hour and a half unaccounted for, in David's mind.
> >
> >
> > > If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
> >
> >
> > Again, Dr. Humes' pocket.
> >
> > What do you suppose he was doing between 6:40 and 8:00pm?
>
> "Dr Humes, you country needs you to go in there and immediately start tampering with evidence. We know this will put in jeopardy everything you worked for in your life, and also your freedom, and we know it would be impossible for you to know exactly what cover-up to perform on what evidence, seeing as we can`t be sure what the wounds are, but do it anyway"

Never served in the military, did you "Bud"... don't worry, most cowards haven't.

> > > 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?
> >
> > Exactly where the trajectory suggests... the 'Grassy Knoll' on Tague's right... I've documented this on my forum...
> >
> > Here's a photo with a yellow line showing the trajectory:
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo2.png
>
> <snicker> Ben says...
>
> "I'm just putting the shooter in the general area that the ballistics shows he must have been."

Yep...

> What ballistics shows the shooter to have been in that area?

What, you don't know???

> And were is the bullet exit that should be in the right rear of Kennedy`s neck?

What, you don't know what the Warren Commission said???

> And why are they shooting Kennedy from the front to frame a rear shooting patsy?

Been there, done that, you missed it.

> These retards are just playing silly games.
>
> > Here's the forum thread giving all the details:
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Throat-Wound
> >
> > The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references... Tell us David, WHERE IS THE 'PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL' LOCATED?
> >
> > Is there *ANY* part of the Occipital that is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
> >
> > (Watch as David twists and squirms and tells obvious lies in an attempt to avoid the simple fact that the Autopsy documented a read head wound...)

"Bud" probably doesn't understand the case well enough to comment here...

> > > 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald,
> >
> > Because they only needed a single patsy.
> >
> > I'm sure that if Frazier hadn't starting singing appropriately, they may well have indicted two men. Frazier was held by the police, had his rifle confiscated, and forced to undergo a lie detector test that night...
>
> He drove the murderer of the President and his rifle to the scene of the crime. This warrants some scrutiny.

Speculation.

> > But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?
>
> Because the conspiracy know all and see all. It even has people standing wherever bullets land, waiting to snatch them up.


But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?


> > > including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case,
> >
> > Untrue. The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence.
>
> Make that case.

Sure. As soon as you acknowledge the answer to the question.

> > The Money Order is physical evidence, and you've NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's legitimate... that rather nasty lack of any bank endorsements still haunt you!
>
> It has plenty of supporting elements.

Just not the legal ones...

> > CE-543, which again, shows alteration in the evidence in this case... David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed.
>
> Not this crap again.

The facts haven't changed...

> > So no, it's simply not true that *ALL* physical evidence indicted Oswald.
> >
> >
> > > if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
> >
> > Why would he need to?
> >
> > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.
>
> They can figure he was an intelligence agent with nothing but can`t figure he was a murderer with everything.

:) ... You're lying again, "Bud."

> > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> >
> >
> > > 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists),
> >
> > The mere fact that you have to denigrate all critics with your ad hominem attacks shows that you well understand you can't answer on the basis of evidence, citation, and logical argument.
>
>

> > > then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?
> >
> > This has been answered a number of times before.
> >
> > The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far.
> >
> > When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly.
>
>

> > *YOU* for example, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the intimidation of eyewitnesses... so severe, that in some cases PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVED OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE ELSEWHERE.
>
> You will fail to establish it.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > Why the intimidation, David? Can you give a credible explanation?
>
> Shifting the burden.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
> >
> > How silly! A logical fallacy on your part, of course. Check with Henry Sienzant, he'll set you straight.
> >
> >
> > > 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
> >
> >
> > Already answered... here it is again:
> >
> > Why would he need to?
> >
> > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.
>
> Why not say he was an alien, or a cowboy?

It's the evidence, stupid!

> > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> >
> > Nor is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Oswald was "willing to take the long rap" - That's just nonsense on your part. You'll not *EVER* cite even the smallest bit of credible evidence for such nonsense.
>
> Punching cops with guns trained on him says he wasn`t waiting for imaginary "superiors".

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > Of course, labeling critics as "conspiracy kooks" simply shows that you know you've lost the debate.
> >
> > As your refusal to address my points, ONE BY ONE, as I just did with yours, will support the charge of cowardice on your part.
> >
> >
> > > David Von Pein
> > > April 2008
> > > May 2012
> >
> >
> > Now, watch as David runs from the post above, AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER IT, POINT BY POINT, AS I DID WITH HIS QUESTIONS...
> >
> > What a coward!!!

You haven't done David any favors here, "Bud."

[Bud]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 4:09:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 5:45:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
> > >
> > > Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...
> > >
> > > For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
> >
> > That must be meaningless and trivial since you can`t seem to make any arguments using this evidence.
>
> If it were "meaningless," you wouldn't be so afraid to answer the question.

If it was meaningful, you`d go somewhere with this evidence.

> So clearly, you yourself demonstrate the importance of this largest of foreign objects... by your refusal to identify it or debate it.
>
>
> > > Why wasn't the closest police eyewitness to the murder, photographed WATCHING the murder from less than a dozen feet away, never questioned for the Warren Commission's investigation?
> >
> > Chaney isn`t looking at JFK in the Altgen`s photo, foreshortening only makes it appear that way.
>
>
> What "foreshortening" made him claim to be looking at JFK?

I`m sure he looked at JFK a lot during the motorcade, that doesn`t speak to what is seen in the Altgen`s photo.

> > > Why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to lie repeatedly on the evidence they had - such as the "hidden" clipboard, or Mrs. Tice's testimony?
> >
> > The clipboard was in an area that had piles of books that would have hidden it from many angles.
>
> Yep... I'm sure that no-one standing out on the sidewalk could possibly have seen it.

Or was positioned where the boxes that were in the area blocked the view.

> But the Warren Commission lied.
>
> It wasn't "hidden" at all.
>
>
> > Mrs Tice was a dingbat who inserted herself into the case. Read what her poor husband had to say.
>
> This doesn't explain why the *WARREN COMMISSION* lied about what she testified to.

But it is important context to weigh what she had to say.

> Run "Bud"... RUN!!!
>
> > > How does a single witness, testifying months later that he didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper - turn into evidence that he murdered, by himself, JFK?
> >
> > Oswald changed his daily routine on this day of all others.
>
> And yet, the EARLIEST statements contradict you.

So there is contradictory information, what else is new. I`ll tell you what, drop every argument you have that there exists contrary information against.

> Tell us "Bud," why did Bugliosi, David, and yourself lie on this issue?
>
>
> > > Why do EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER lie repeatedly on this case?
> >
> > It only seems that way because you are retarded.
>
>
> Ad hominem simply shows that you know you lost the debate.
>
> You've lied a number of times already... such as on Mrs. Tice, and on Oswald's newspaper reading...

Quote me telling each lie.

>
> > > Why did all of the interviews with Parkland doctors & nurses disappear from the record?
> >
> > <snicker> In what murder case have you ever even seen doctors and nurses questioned?
>
>
> It's an historical FACT that they were.
>
> Of course, you're simply ignorant of this fact...

It doesn`t matter to me. I don`t see them as sources of insight into a murder they didn`t witness.

> > > Why did the Warren Commission bury Guinn's control NAA tests?
> >
> > Maybe they felt the findings were not significant.
>
>
> Then why did they think Killion's *CONTRADICTED* findings were?
>
> Why did the Warren Commission lie?
>
> They *OMITTED* the fact that Killion's tests were contradicted by Guinn's.

All the testing seems useless.

> > > > But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.
> > >
> > > Believers, on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.
> > >
> > > (examples given above.)
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
> > >
> > > The FBI, most likely. I'm quite sure that bullets found that day, such as the one dug out of the grass, went to the FBI. I'm sure you remember that Tomlinson was threatened about talking about CE-399 (or what *became* CE-399) - there was no reason to threaten witnesses unless they knew things that would unravel the plot.
> >
> > If they were going to switch the bullet Tomlinson found why would they threaten Tomlinson not to say he found a bullet?
>
>
> This question is so moronic that I have to chock it up to your incredible stupidity.
>
> It was *BECAUSE* they were going to swap bullets that they needed Tomlinson to remain quiet.
>
> Ask a friend to explain this to you.

I asked him. He said your idea doesn`t make sense. They would have to say who found the bullet. Tomlinson saying he found a bullet doesn`t hurt them, they need him to say he found a bullet.

> > > The evidence quite OVERWHELMINGLY shows that there were multiple shooters... for example, the fact that the bullet that struck Connally's wrist struck it from the outside.
> >
> > And the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who said is?
>
>
> Logical fallacy...

I don`t think so. It is retard figuring, unless you have someone to give some weight to it.

>check with Henry Sienzant...
>
>
> > > Anyone can quickly see the problem by merely attempting to place the outside of their wrist facing their chest.
>
>
> Dead silence... perhaps "Bud" has trouble visualizing this...

This is what I found from Dr Shaw`s notes...

"The wound of entry on the dorsal aspect of the right wrist
over the junction of the distal fourth of the radius and shaft was
approximately two cm in length and rather oblique with the loss of tissue
with some considerable contusion at the margins of it. There was a wound of
exit along the volar surface of the wrist about two cm above the flexion
crease of the wrist and in the midline."

Seems it went in top and came out around where you would take a pulse. Looking at how Connally is holding his hat I don`t see the problem.

>
> > > And, of course, the evidence for a frontal throat shot - the one that Vincent Bugliosi found so damaging, that he blatantly lied about it.
> >
> > What evidence for a frontal shot?
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud," you're changing the topic without acknowledging the first one.

No stupid, I`m asking you to back up the words you used. Futile, I know, you are already running, but it has to be done.

> I'll give you a complete answer to your question as soon as you acknowledge that Bugliosi lied about it.

Fuck your conditions. Either you will back up your words or you won`t. I know you won`t because I know your "evidence" consists of the casual observations of laymen in the necessary fields.

> > > Additionally, any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case.
> > >
> > > Take, for example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/5606-additional-bullets-in-and-around-dealey-plaza/
> >
> > By all means, connect them to the shooting.
>
>
> Nope... don't need to.

Then you have nothing.

> Dealey Plaza isn't famous for very many shootings... in fact, only one.
>
>
> > > > 2.) What other weapons were used?
> > >
> > > This is a silly question.
> >
> > With Oswald a photo of him holding the rifle is not good enough, but conspiracy retards can offer air.
>
>
> Nah, it was these three... all holding Mannlicher Carcano's:
>
> https://jfkinvestigators.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/3-fritz-with-rifle.jpg?w=525&h=394

This is how retards demonstrate they have no interest in the truth. They either can`t look at information in a reasonable manner or just refuse to. This is why it is clear they are retarded, and merely playing games with the deaths of these men.

> > > Other than stating it was a weapon that fired bullets - there's no way to know.
> > >
> > > Sorta like asking what brand of knife did O.J. Simpson use?
>
>
> "Bud" turns silent again...

Knives don`t leave bullet evidence, stupid. You start firing bullets all over the place and there is no telling where they end up. But you have no problem, because you imagine a conspiracy with the magical power to do anything. If a bullet ends up in Jean Hill`s forehead, they can whisk in and make it disappear.

> > > My guess is that David will REFUSE to acknowledge the accurate analogy... or answer it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
> > >
> > > Simple... any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared.
> > >
> > > We *KNOW* for a fact that bullet fragments disappeared while under government control, that's something noted by Dr. Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.
> >
> > How could the government have foreseen the HSCA?
>
> Change of topic again.

Examining your idea. The government is tampering with evidence in anticipation of an investigation they couldn`t know was going to occur?

> First, let's hear you acknowledge that we know, due to the re-investigation, that evidence disappeared.
>
>
> > > Watch as David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to give a credible explanation for the missing evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?
> > >
> > > Multiple shooters... and more than three shots.
> >
> > Pixie dust.
>
>
> What, no cite???
>
>
> > > Simple.
> > >
> > > So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered.
> > >
> > > David's a liar.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets?
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut, David - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).
> >
> > So what do you figure Ben, the bullet smashed into a vertebrae, destroying it and stopping the bullet dead and nobody noticed it?
>
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud" - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).

But I do know that conspiracy retards can`t offer anything reasonable to explain what *is* known. If you want you ideas to be considered compelling, you have to be able to offer something reasonable. The SBT is reasonable and a rifle bullet hitting Kennedy in the throat and not exiting and with no massive damage to vertebrae is not.

>
> > A bullet passing through makes sense. Nothing the conspiracy retards can offer makes any sense.
>
>
> Multiple shots make sense.

Thats where you are wrong. They make no sense, not in the sense of the conspiracy ideas you are trying to sell, not in the sense of the medical evidence. You cop out and blame everyone because your ideas make no sense.

I know someone was seen shooting from one location. I know the two victims were lined up one in front of the other as seen from that location. I can clearly see that both men were hit by the same bullet in the Zapruder film. I know that the back wound on Kennedy is higher than the neck wound. I know a bullet shot from the location a person was seen shooting that went through Kennedy would almost certainly hit Connally. I know Connally was hit in the back and the bullet exited the front. The SBT just has too much corroboration from different evidence going for it, it can`t even be reasonably disputed.

> > > So you're demanding that we accept your speculation, then explain it.
> > >
> > > Simply not needed.
> >
> > Nobody expect you retards can put anything on the table for consideration by now.
>
> Of course, this applies only to you... since I've already done so in the Amazon forums, and have offered to do so again here when you provide your scenario.
>
> So the only "retard" is you.
>
>
>
> > > > And where did those two bullets go?
> > >
> > >
> > > My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket.
> >
> > Only one of literally hundreds of fantastic occurrences Ben`s ideas require.
>
> Nope. You're lying again, "Bud."

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the retarded things you believe. You are so ashamed of these beliefs you won`t even say what they are.

>
> > > And, not a guess on my part, but taken directly from my crystal ball - DAVID WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVEN *TRY* TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH JFK'S BODY BETWEEN 6:40PM AND 8:00PM.
> >
> > Shifting the burden.
>
>
> It's your burden.

Not at all. I have no ideas that require the information.

>
>
> > > Nearly an hour and a half unaccounted for, in David's mind.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, Dr. Humes' pocket.
> > >
> > > What do you suppose he was doing between 6:40 and 8:00pm?
> >
> > "Dr Humes, you country needs you to go in there and immediately start tampering with evidence. We know this will put in jeopardy everything you worked for in your life, and also your freedom, and we know it would be impossible for you to know exactly what cover-up to perform on what evidence, seeing as we can`t be sure what the wounds are, but do it anyway"
>
>
> Never served in the military, did you "Bud"... don't worry, most cowards haven't.

Are you saying you would have followed illegal and immoral orders? Most retards would.

>
> > > > 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?
> > >
> > > Exactly where the trajectory suggests... the 'Grassy Knoll' on Tague's right... I've documented this on my forum...
> > >
> > > Here's a photo with a yellow line showing the trajectory:
> > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo2.png
> >
> > <snicker> Ben says...
> >
> > "I'm just putting the shooter in the general area that the ballistics shows he must have been."
>
>
> Yep...
>
>
>
> > What ballistics shows the shooter to have been in that area?
>
>
> What, you don't know???

Not until you tell me. Produce this ballistic evidence.

>
> > And were is the bullet exit that should be in the right rear of Kennedy`s neck?
>
>
> What, you don't know what the Warren Commission said???

This is your retarded idea, don`t misdirect to the WC. Lets see a diagram of where a bullet would exit if a shot was fired from where you suggest.

>
> > And why are they shooting Kennedy from the front to frame a rear shooting patsy?
>
>
> Been there, done that, you missed it.

I`m sure whatever it was was retarded.

>
> > These retards are just playing silly games.
> >
> > > Here's the forum thread giving all the details:
> > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Throat-Wound
> > >
> > > The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references... Tell us David, WHERE IS THE 'PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL' LOCATED?
> > >
> > > Is there *ANY* part of the Occipital that is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
> > >
> > > (Watch as David twists and squirms and tells obvious lies in an attempt to avoid the simple fact that the Autopsy documented a read head wound...)
>
>
> "Bud" probably doesn't understand the case well enough to comment here...

I know Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. What else do I need to know?

>
> > > > 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald,
> > >
> > > Because they only needed a single patsy.
> > >
> > > I'm sure that if Frazier hadn't starting singing appropriately, they may well have indicted two men. Frazier was held by the police, had his rifle confiscated, and forced to undergo a lie detector test that night...
> >
> > He drove the murderer of the President and his rifle to the scene of the crime. This warrants some scrutiny.
>
>
> Speculation.

Real crime investigators didn`t think so.

>
> > > But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?
> >
> > Because the conspiracy know all and see all. It even has people standing wherever bullets land, waiting to snatch them up.
>
>
> But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?

Not with magical leprechauns at their disposal.

> > > > including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case,
> > >
> > > Untrue. The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence.
> >
> > Make that case.
>
>
> Sure. As soon as you acknowledge the answer to the question.

If you think this evidence can take you somewhere put your ideas out there.

>
> > > The Money Order is physical evidence, and you've NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's legitimate... that rather nasty lack of any bank endorsements still haunt you!
> >
> > It has plenty of supporting elements.
>
>
> Just not the legal ones...

How are the supportive elements illegal?

>
>
> > > CE-543, which again, shows alteration in the evidence in this case... David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed.
> >
> > Not this crap again.
>
>
> The facts haven't changed...

Your stupidity hasn`t changed. You idiots can`t even figure out the basics, like how many shells were found in the SN. It is issues like this that show you are playing silly games.

>
> > > So no, it's simply not true that *ALL* physical evidence indicted Oswald.
> > >
> > >
> > > > if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
> > >
> > > Why would he need to?
> > >
> > > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.
> >
> > They can figure he was an intelligence agent with nothing but can`t figure he was a murderer with everything.
>
>
> :) ... You're lying again, "Bud."

Really? If being an intelligence agent was the crime, do you think you`d have enough evidence to convict Oswald of being one?

>
> > > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists),
> > >
> > > The mere fact that you have to denigrate all critics with your ad hominem attacks shows that you well understand you can't answer on the basis of evidence, citation, and logical argument.
> >
> >
> > > > then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?
> > >
> > > This has been answered a number of times before.
> > >
> > > The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far.
> > >
> > > When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly.
> >
> >
> > > *YOU* for example, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the intimidation of eyewitnesses... so severe, that in some cases PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVED OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE ELSEWHERE.
> >
> > You will fail to establish it.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You say things, and when I ask you to back them up you run.

>
> > > Why the intimidation, David? Can you give a credible explanation?
> >
> > Shifting the burden.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You are asking for a credible explanation for something you haven`t established.

>
> > > > Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
> > >
> > > How silly! A logical fallacy on your part, of course. Check with Henry Sienzant, he'll set you straight.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
> > >
> > >
> > > Already answered... here it is again:
> > >
> > > Why would he need to?
> > >
> > > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.
> >
> > Why not say he was an alien, or a cowboy?
>
>
> It's the evidence, stupid!

Sure,sure,sure.

>
> > > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> > >
> > > Nor is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Oswald was "willing to take the long rap" - That's just nonsense on your part. You'll not *EVER* cite even the smallest bit of credible evidence for such nonsense.
> >
> > Punching cops with guns trained on him says he wasn`t waiting for imaginary "superiors".
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You are determined not to figure things out.

>
> > > Of course, labeling critics as "conspiracy kooks" simply shows that you know you've lost the debate.
> > >
> > > As your refusal to address my points, ONE BY ONE, as I just did with yours, will support the charge of cowardice on your part.
> > >
> > >
> > > > David Von Pein
> > > > April 2008
> > > > May 2012
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, watch as David runs from the post above, AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER IT, POINT BY POINT, AS I DID WITH HIS QUESTIONS...
> > >
> > > What a coward!!!
>
> You haven't done David any favors here, "Bud."

I make my points. I challenged you to support what you said numerous times, and predictably you did not. When you don`t, it comes down to you not saying anything at all.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 3:05:50 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 4:09:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 5:45:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
> > > >
> > > > Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...
> > > >
> > > > For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
> > >
> > > That must be meaningless and trivial since you can`t seem to make any arguments using this evidence.
> >
> > If it were "meaningless," you wouldn't be so afraid to answer the question.
>
> If it was meaningful, you`d go somewhere with this evidence.

What a coward!!!

You're not helping David at all...

[sen...@aol.com]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

[sen...@aol.com]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

[sen...@aol.com]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

[sen...@aol.com]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

[borisba...@gmail.com]

David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.

Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.

You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...

In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald. Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand, but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it. Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying that perfectly well.

Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Oh! And I did not notice this reply from "sen...aol.com" because the box was minimized....David Von Pein posting the EXACT SAME EIGHT QUESTIONS (you know, the ones which are apparently never answered)....answered yet again by another critic:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MpbKunKQCIQ/RUdPhSlcFTwJ

What the hell is wrong with you, David? How many times do your lame-ass questions have to "not" be answered?

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
>
> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
>
> You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
>
> In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald.

Not sure what you mean by "absolve", do you mean like an alibi witness? Not sure a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of guilt. It is interesting that although conspiracy types say it wasn`t Oswald at 10th and Patton there are no witnesses who say they are sure the person they saw *wasn`t* Oswald. Also Ronald Fischer, witness at the assassination, who said...

"Mr. FISCHER - Lee Harvey Oswald. That that could have been the man that I saw in the window of the School Book Depository Building, but that I was not sure. It's possible that a man fit the general description that I gave---but I can't say for sure."

The police report...

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338054/m1/1/?q=fischer

Oswald never gets a witness who says it definitely wasn`t him, which you would expect him to get once or twice if it wasn`t him being seen these places.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> Not sure what you mean by "absolve"

Yeah, that's why they have dictionaries. You'll find it alphabetically, it comes before the word "retard", your favorite word to describe anyone whose views are different from your own.

I don't know why when I specifically address one LNer directly, another one feels the compulsion to chime in. And it's almost always the dumbest one of the bunch, certainly no exception to the rule in this case.

But one thing I learned in the Amazon forum is DVP has ZERO problem allying himself with the most ignorant of believers, so long as they keep the LN faith alive so that David can keep making money off the murder.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 11:35:57 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being
> ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly
> stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered
> By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of
> answering to nothing.

Indeed!

But David is merely one out of **all of them** who refuse to answer
questions raised by critics.

**PARTICULARLY** questions on the evidence.

> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested
> MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented
> a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which
> were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking
> only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything
> else.

Yep.

David pretends that critics can't answer ***ANY*** evidential question
in this case - but the provable fact is that we can... and do.

But *BELIEVERS* are absolutely TERRIFIED of answering questions...

Here's just a sampling of questions that have been asked in the past,
and *STILL* remain with no credible answers:

Why does David Von Pein freely lie on his website, then refuse to
defend those lies when pointed out in forums that he posts in?

What's the largest foreign object seen in the AP autopsy X-ray?

In the trail of bullet fragments seen in the X-ray of the side of
JFK's head - where are the *largest* fragments seen... in the front of
his head? Or the back of his head?''

When and where did James Chaney speak with Chief Curry? Cite
supporting evidence...

Why can't believers acknowledge that Guinn found "heavy deposits" on
test shooter's cheeks, but none on Oswald's? Why were these test
results buried by the FBI/Warren Commission?

Why can *NO* believer publicly acknowledge the evidence of official
intimidation of eyewitnesses?

Why was the dissection of the bullet track and neck wound forbidden to
the prosectors?

Why were the prosectors forbidden from examining JFK's clothing - an
ordinary and required part of any autopsy?

Why have X-rays & photos disappeared out of inventory?

Why did the Secret Service remove evidence from the crime scene?

Why were Oswald's military files never released, even to government
investigators?

Why did the Warren Commission & HSCA blatantly lie about their
evidence?

Why does the Altgen's print show Chaney in a position never seen in
the extant Z-film?

Why does the BOH photo contradict the Autopsy Report and over 40
medically trained eyewitnesses as to the location of the large head
wound?

Why were so many critical eyewitnesses simply ignored by the Warren
Commission? Adm Burkley & James Chaney would be two excellent
examples.

There are many more than these, I've asked dozens more with nary an
answer...

Because the true cowards in this case are all believers...

(Watch as David refuses to answer, and stump starts to cry.)

>You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
>
> In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept
> changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness
> whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald. Your response to
> me was that you could not think of one offhand, but that you BET THE
> FARM there was one, and that you would find it. Do you remember that?
> I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying that perfectly well.
>
>Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.

I think all critics have their tales of believers asserting something,
then running away. It's happened to me more times than I can count.
One of my favorites is the guy who was going to demolish all my
examples of official intimidation, just as soon as he got to his files
that were in storage. (This was YEARS ago... still no files...)

Why are believers TERRIFIED of answering questions on the evidence in
this case?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

More importantly, why is David so incredibly DISHONEST not to publicly
acknowledge that his questions have been answered every time they've
been posted?

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:42:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Not sure what you mean by "absolve"
>
> Yeah, that's why they have dictionaries. You'll find it alphabetically, it comes before the word "retard", your favorite word to describe anyone whose views are different from your own.

I did look it up, to see how it could apply.

"set or declare (someone) free from blame, guilt, or responsibility."

You said this...

"...I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald."

How could any witness say something that in itself would absolve Oswald of guilt? What would it look like? Why would you think that something a witness said that was not absolving could or should change to absolution?

In other words, what is the concept you are going for?

> I don't know why when I specifically address one LNer directly, another one feels the compulsion to chime in.

<snicker> Apparently you don`t understand how these forums work, and how the differ from, say, email exchanges.

> And it's almost always the dumbest one of the bunch, certainly no exception to the rule in this case.

This from the person who answered "What?" to every question I asked him, then dodged the questions when I dumbed them down.

> But one thing I learned in the Amazon forum is DVP has ZERO problem allying himself with the most ignorant of believers, so long as they keep the LN faith alive so that David can keep making money off the murder.

If he was out for the money he would be writing conspiracy books, thats where the real money is. The lunatic fronge is always willing to shell out more books if they think they will add fuel to their fantasies and justify their retarded beliefs.

[Bud]

I need only point out that if these issues were explored, Ben would run, lurkers. he runs every single time.

> >You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
> >
> > In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept
> > changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness
> > whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald. Your response to
> > me was that you could not think of one offhand, but that you BET THE
> > FARM there was one, and that you would find it. Do you remember that?
> > I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying that perfectly well.
> >
> >Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.
>
> I think all critics have their tales of believers asserting something,
> then running away. It's happened to me more times than I can count.
> One of my favorites is the guy who was going to demolish all my
> examples of official intimidation, just as soon as he got to his files
> that were in storage. (This was YEARS ago... still no files...)
>
> Why are believers TERRIFIED of answering questions on the evidence in
> this case?

Bluff, bluster, lies, assorted fallacies, ect, lurkers. Always the same, these guys have nothing of substance to offer.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > Not sure what you mean by "absolve"

> > Yeah, that's why they have dictionaries. You'll find it alphabetically, it comes before the word "retard", your favorite word to describe anyone whose views are different from your own.


> I did look it up, to see how it could apply.

LOL, you would literally have to look it up, wouldn't you, sponge?

> How could any witness say something that in itself would absolve Oswald of guilt? What would it look like? Why would you think that something a witness said that was not absolving could or should change to absolution?

Warren Reynolds and Howard Brennan. Just two of many examples of witnesses whose firsthand accounts absolved Oswald until they mysteriously changed their stories. Well, not really "mysteriously." Getting shot in the head tends to intimidate a man.

> In other words, what is the concept you are going for?

You don't need to understand, sponge, since I was not addressing you. I was addressing the imbecile who BET THE FARM he could think of some examples, and turned tail instead.

> > And it's almost always the dumbest one of the bunch, certainly no exception to the rule in this case.
>
> This from the person who answered "What?" to every question I asked him, then dodged the questions when I dumbed them down.

You demanded I produce evidence of a bullet entry wound in the occipital region. I was literally floored by your sheer stupidity, and rendered speechless with the exception of "What?" You'll get used to it, the more you talk.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > What the hell is wrong with you, David? How many times do your
> > lame-ass questions have to "not" be answered?
>
> More importantly, why is David so incredibly DISHONEST not to publicly
> acknowledge that his questions have been answered every time they've
> been posted?
>
> EVERY.
>
> SINGLE.
>
> TIME.

Three times just that I know of. And two of those times from you. This goes so beyond dishonesty it borders on Orwellian. If DVP had any balls at all he would say, "These questions have been answered, but I'm not satisfied with those answers, and this is why..."

If DVP had any honesty at all, this entire thread would not exist.

[Jason Burke]

One more retard and you can circle jerk!

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 4:54:17 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Not sure what you mean by "absolve"
>
> > > Yeah, that's why they have dictionaries. You'll find it alphabetically, it comes before the word "retard", your favorite word to describe anyone whose views are different from your own.
>
>
> > I did look it up, to see how it could apply.
>
> LOL, you would literally have to look it up, wouldn't you, sponge?

I looked it up as soon I I saw you use the word to see if there was some way it could apply. I couldn`t see any. Apparently neither could you.

> > How could any witness say something that in itself would absolve Oswald of guilt? What would it look like? Why would you think that something a witness said that was not absolving could or should change to absolution?
>
> Warren Reynolds and Howard Brennan. Just two of many examples of witnesses whose firsthand accounts absolved Oswald until they mysteriously changed their stories. Well, not really "mysteriously." Getting shot in the head tends to intimidate a man.

You are neither addressing the questions I asked you, or showing how "absolved" works in how you used it...

"...I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald."

> > In other words, what is the concept you are going for?
>
> You don't need to understand, sponge, since I was not addressing you.

Ah, these are words that can only make sense to DVP and not anyone else. Do you share a decoder ring with him?

> I was addressing the imbecile who BET THE FARM he could think of some examples, and turned tail instead.
>
> > > And it's almost always the dumbest one of the bunch, certainly no exception to the rule in this case.
> >
> > This from the person who answered "What?" to every question I asked him, then dodged the questions when I dumbed them down.
>
> You demanded I produce evidence of a bullet entry wound in the occipital region.

You claimed....

"An occipital exit wound."

I challenged you to support his.

> I was literally floored by your sheer stupidity, and rendered speechless with the exception of "What?"

Is that the only question I asked you that you replied "What?" to?

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
>
> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
>
> You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
>

And you are totally nuts, "Boris", if you *really* think that ANY of my 8 questions above have truly been answered in a reasonable and believable fashion by *any* conspiracy theorist. Not one of my 8 inquiries has been satisfactorily answered by anybody in the Conspiracy Fantasy Camp. (And certainly not by "Boris".)

And Question #7 particularly stands out as a question I've asked CTers dozens of times in the last 15 years, and I've yet to hear any kind of a sensible answer. And the reason that no conspiracy theorist can reasonably answer Question #7 is because: There is no reasonable and sensible answer to that inquiry. Here's #7 again....

7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?

Good luck answering that one in a *reasonable* and *believable* fashion, "Boris".

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
> >

Well, what a perfectly convenient place for you to end my quote. Such a coward. Here's the quote.....

"You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...

In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald. Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand, but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it. Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying that perfectly well."

Lying by omission is still lying. You are a coward, and rather than BETTING THE FARM and answering to the charge, it's just easier for you to...snip it. Isn't it? I wonder how many times you've done that with evidence when you were writing that pulp piece of shit book with Ayton. Alas, your disciples will never know.

> And you are totally nuts, "Boris", if you *really* think that ANY of my 8 questions above have truly been answered in a reasonable and believable fashion by *any* conspiracy theorist. Not one of my 8 inquiries has been satisfactorily answered by anybody in the Conspiracy Fantasy Camp. (And certainly not by "Boris".)

Your "kook" and "nuts" and "whackjob" charges are totally boring, you waste. I thought you were a writer. Come up with some new shit.

Do I really think your questions were answered? Yes, in triplicate. By definition, they were answered. What you mean is, they were not answered to your liking. Which is fine. But to say they weren't is a lie. Which isn't fine. The title of this thread is a lie. This thread is manifest of what a dishonest person you are. You made a mistake by starting this thread. You should hope it dies and slowly slinks away into obscurity. Just like you asshole lone nutters.

> And Question #7 particularly stands out as a question I've asked CTers dozens of times in the last 15 years, and I've yet to hear any kind of a sensible answer. And the reason that no conspiracy theorist can reasonably answer Question #7 is because: There is no reasonable and sensible answer to that inquiry. Here's #7 again....

Possibly because it's a stupid question. But let's see...

> 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?

Simple. Because they didn't give a fuck what the public saw, they were going to sell the story anyway. And they did, at least to idiots like yourself. Not hard to do in 1963, in the days before Internet and back when trust in government was high. Operation Mockingbird helped as well. Or will you deny the existence of the Mighty Wurlitzer? Your refusing to address it will signal to me I'm right.

> Were those plotters just playing it safe?

Yes. The frontal shooters were insurance, in case the target still was not down before exiting the triangular kill zone.

> Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?

No. They didn't have to be retarded idiots. Only the people they sold their story to had to be.

[David Von Pein]

You're really rotten at this "Reasonable & Believable" thing, "Boris". Because any plot that requires a "Lone Patsy Named Oswald" would not have included ANY FRONTAL SHOOTERS. And all reasonable people know why this is so. But since you're a loon from the Anybody-But-Oswald Club, you have to (somehow) come up with some sorry-ass excuse for why those two wholly incompatible things—
"A Patsy In The TSBD" and "Frontal Gunshots"—can (somehow) fit together in this JFK case.

And your answer—"Because they didn't give a fuck what the public saw, they were going to sell the story anyway"—reeks of sorry-ass desperation for sure.*

* And I'm guessing that your above laughable response is the first time you've ever written down those sorry-ass words in your whole life. And it's understandable why you wouldn't want to type out those words previously—because who wants to deliberately embarrass themselves with such goofy and obviously-made-up dreck from the bottom of the conspiracy barrel? I sure wouldn't. You should have kept your yap shut this time too, because your desperate/lame-ass response is now available to this forum's one lurker from this day forward.

Now take a crack at Question #4, "Boris". I'm sure your answer to that inquiry will even exceed your last answer in the "lame-ass" department. (BTW, I forget your real name from our Amazon discussions, which have now been wiped out from existence forever by Amazon.com due to the discontinuation of their "Discussion Boards". But I'm pretty sure I have never conversed with anyone named "Boris" before.)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> You're really rotten at this "Reasonable & Believable" thing, "Boris". Because any plot that requires a "Lone Patsy Named Oswald" would not have included ANY FRONTAL SHOOTERS.

Imbecile, all that a plot requires is an audience stupid enough to believe it. Like you. The "Santa Claus" myth works in much the same way, in that all the evidence points to the impossibility of Santa Claus, but the myth gets the job done.

> But since you're a loon...

Like I said, get some new material, mental midget.

> ...from the Anybody-But-Oswald Club,

I'm more of an Everybody-And-Oswald Club member, though his contribution was minimal at best. And certainly not by himself.

> ...you have to (somehow) come up with some sorry-ass excuse for why those two wholly incompatible things—

> "A Patsy In The TSBD" and "Frontal Gunshots"—can (somehow) fit together in this JFK case.

Actually the sorry-ass excuse about gunshots was (somehow) the square peg squeezed into the round hole by Arlen Specter. SBT started as a hypothesis. You know that, right? It was literally a guess. The evidence was retrofitted around that total hypothetical guess. Not the other way around. Even you know that, don't you?

> And your answer—"Because they didn't give a fuck what the public saw, they were going to sell the story anyway"—reeks of sorry-ass desperation for sure.*

It reeks of sorry-ass that's exactly what happened, and the proof of it are the living, breathing, lumbering dipshits like David Von Pein writing books defending a report that even half the Warren Commission didn't believe.

> Now take a crack at Question #4, "Boris".

Nah, I've jumped through enough of your hoops. You've yet to respond to anything. Quid pro quo, asshole. Look it up. It's in the dictionary, between "absolve" and "retard"

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/questions-conspiracists-never-answer.html

All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to answer the questions I raised in response.

Why are believers such cowards?

Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions, when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?

Why'd you run away, David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben,

Your answers in [your March 2017 post] are just exactly the type of speculation, guesswork, and NON-evidence that I have come to expect from conspiracy theorists. You, Ben, have offered absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever in your feeble attempt to reasonably and sensibly answer my eight inquiries. (The key words there, of course, being "reasonably" and "sensibly".)

Anybody can easily pull a pile of half-baked speculation and forever-unprovable theories out of their rear end (as Ben Holmes has done in the post linked above) to try and explain away all the evidence which inexorably leads to the guilt of Lee Oswald. But when it comes to reasonably answering those questions, conspiracists always end up looking silly (and desperate)---as Ben Holmes does in this post, which is a post that contains about as much TRUTH and as many REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS as a Donald Trump campaign speech.

Let's have a gander at just a few of Ben Holmes' laughable answers to my questions concerning JFK's murder (and some of these half-baked theories gushed forth by Holmes contain outright lies):

[Holmes' Quotes On:]

"Any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case."

"Any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared."

"My guess would be [that the two bullets that CTers think entered JFK's upper body but never exited went] into Dr. Humes' pocket."

"The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references."

"Because they only needed a single patsy."

"The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence."

"CE-543...shows alteration in the evidence in this case. David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed."

"He [Lee Oswald] was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent."

"The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far. When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly."

"Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David." [Irony Alert!! LOL.]

[End Laughable Quotes.]

And just think --- Ben thinks his above answers and explanations, which have absolutely NO evidence or foundation in fact to back them up, are MORE reasonable than to just simply believe the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is REALLY pointing toward the guilty assassin named Oswald.

Such is the (strange) mindset of JFK conspiracy theorists.

And Ben's non-answer to my #4 question about the SBT is a typical lame non-response from a CTer who simply has no reasonable shot-by-shot alternative to the perfectly logical Single-Bullet Theory. And that's because even most CTers probably realize there simply is no reasonable alternative to the single-bullet conclusion, but they refuse to admit it.

For the record, my #4 question was this....

"If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?"

To which Ben Holmes replied....

"Multiple shooters... and more than three shots. Simple. So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered. David's a liar."

Boy, that was a great detailed rebuttal to the SBT, wasn't it? "Multiple shooters" and "More than three shots".

That's it, Ben? A second-grader leafing through a Harold Weisberg book could do better than that.

DVP
March 2017

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> Ben,
>
> Your answers in [your March 2017 post] are just exactly the type of speculation, guesswork, and NON-evidence....

DVP has just described the Single Bullet Theory to a tee. But he has no problems believing *that*.

[Ben Holmes]

If your questions had not been perfectly answered, you would have
argued the point.

Instead, you run away and refuse to debate.

That fact shows that you understand very well the weakness of your
case...

And the fact that you keep lying and claiming that your questions
haven't been answered shows your dishonest.

RUN COWARD... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:37:05 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


>Now take a crack at Question #4,

Why not take a crack at all my answers, coward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:08:15 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

And the fact that David is TERRIFIED of responding to my answers is
because he's long since figured out that I can make him look like a
fool anytime I care to.

He's just a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:55:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions....
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/questions-conspiracists-never-answer.html
>
>All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to answer the questions I raised in response.
>
>Why are believers such cowards?
>
>Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions, when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?
>
>Why'd you run away, David?
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tut tut tut, coward...

Go to the post, and *REPLY* to it in a normal fashion... just as I do
your posts.

Answer EVERY POINT RAISED, just as I do with your posts.

Anything else is simply sheer cowardice.

[donald willis]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
>
> 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
>
> 2.) What other weapons were used?
>
> 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
>
> 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
>
> 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?
>
> 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
>

> 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
>

> 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours

We don't know that he did. Lots of good stuff may have been lost when Fritz misplaced his little tape recorder....

dcw

[donald willis]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 11:06:14 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 5:45:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 1:22:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
> >

> > Yet believers are absolutely SCARED STIFF to answer those questions... nor are they "fairly meaningless & trivial" either...
> >
> > For example, what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
> >
> > Why wasn't the closest police eyewitness to the murder, photographed WATCHING the murder from less than a dozen feet away, never questioned for the Warren Commission's investigation?
> >
> > Why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to lie repeatedly on the evidence they had - such as the "hidden" clipboard, or Mrs. Tice's testimony?
> >
> > How does a single witness, testifying months later that he didn't see Oswald reading a newspaper - turn into evidence that he murdered, by himself, JFK?
> >
> > Why do EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER lie repeatedly on this case?
> >
> > Why did all of the interviews with Parkland doctors & nurses disappear from the record?
> >
> > Why did the Warren Commission bury Guinn's control NAA tests?

> >
> > > But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
> >
> >

> > That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.
> >
> > Believers, on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.
> >
> > (examples given above.)

> >
> >
> > > 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
> >

> > The FBI, most likely. I'm quite sure that bullets found that day, such as the one dug out of the grass, went to the FBI. I'm sure you remember that Tomlinson was threatened about talking about CE-399 (or what *became* CE-399) - there was no reason to threaten witnesses unless they knew things that would unravel the plot.
> >
> > The evidence quite OVERWHELMINGLY shows that there were multiple shooters... for example, the fact that the bullet that struck Connally's wrist struck it from the outside.
> >
> > Anyone can quickly see the problem by merely attempting to place the outside of their wrist facing their chest.
> >
> > And, of course, the evidence for a frontal throat shot - the one that Vincent Bugliosi found so damaging, that he blatantly lied about it.
> >
> > Additionally, any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case.
> >
> > Take, for example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/5606-additional-bullets-in-and-around-dealey-plaza/

> >
> > > 2.) What other weapons were used?
> >

> > This is a silly question.
> >
> > Other than stating it was a weapon that fired bullets - there's no way to know.
> >
> > Sorta like asking what brand of knife did O.J. Simpson use?
> >
> > My guess is that David will REFUSE to acknowledge the accurate analogy... or answer it.

> >
> >
> > > 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
> >

> > Simple... any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared.
> >
> > We *KNOW* for a fact that bullet fragments disappeared while under government control, that's something noted by Dr. Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.
> >
> > Watch as David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to give a credible explanation for the missing evidence.

> >
> >
> > > 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?
> >

> > Multiple shooters... and more than three shots.
> >
> > Simple.
> >
> > So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered.
> >
> > David's a liar.
> >
> >
> >

> > >And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets?
> >

> > Tut tut tut, David - you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what damage there was or wasn't... the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN to dissect the track of the bullet(s).
> >
> > So you're demanding that we accept your speculation, then explain it.
> >
> > Simply not needed.

> >
> >
> > > And where did those two bullets go?
> >
> >

> > My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket.
> >
> > And, not a guess on my part, but taken directly from my crystal ball - DAVID WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVEN *TRY* TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH JFK'S BODY BETWEEN 6:40PM AND 8:00PM.
> >
> > Nearly an hour and a half unaccounted for, in David's mind.

> >
> >
> > > If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
> >
> >

> > Again, Dr. Humes' pocket.
> >
> > What do you suppose he was doing between 6:40 and 8:00pm?

> >
> >
> >
> > > 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?
> >

> > Exactly where the trajectory suggests... the 'Grassy Knoll' on Tague's right... I've documented this on my forum...
> >
> > Here's a photo with a yellow line showing the trajectory:
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo2.png
> >
> > Here's the forum thread giving all the details:
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Throat-Wound
> >
> > The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references... Tell us David, WHERE IS THE 'PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL' LOCATED?
> >
> > Is there *ANY* part of the Occipital that is *NOT* located in the back of the head?
> >
> > (Watch as David twists and squirms and tells obvious lies in an attempt to avoid the simple fact that the Autopsy documented a read head wound...)

> >
> >
> > > 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald,
> >

> > Because they only needed a single patsy.
> >

> > I'm sure that if Frazier hadn't starting singing appropriately, they may well have indicted two men. Frazier was held by the police, had his rifle confiscated, and forced to undergo a lie detector test that night...
> >
> > But why would evidence not leading to the appropriate patsy survive?

> >
> >
> > > including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case,
> >

> > Untrue. The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence.
> >
> > The Money Order is physical evidence, and you've NEVER been able to demonstrate that it's legitimate... that rather nasty lack of any bank endorsements still haunt you!
> >
> > CE-543, which again, shows alteration in the evidence in this case... David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed.
> >
> > So no, it's simply not true that *ALL* physical evidence indicted Oswald.

> >
> >
> > > if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
> >

> > Why would he need to?
> >
> > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.

> >
> > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> >
> >

> > > 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists),
> >

> > The mere fact that you have to denigrate all critics with your ad hominem attacks shows that you well understand you can't answer on the basis of evidence, citation, and logical argument.

> >
> >
> > > then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza?
> >

> > This has been answered a number of times before.

> >
> > The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far.
> >
> > When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly.
> >

> > *YOU* for example, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the intimidation of eyewitnesses... so severe, that in some cases PEOPLE ACTUALLY MOVED OUT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE ELSEWHERE.
> >
> > Why the intimidation, David? Can you give a credible explanation?

> >
> >
> > > Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
> >

> > How silly! A logical fallacy on your part, of course. Check with Henry Sienzant, he'll set you straight.
> >
> >
> > > 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
> >
> >
> > Already answered... here it is again:
> >
> > Why would he need to?
> >
> > He was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent.

> >
> > Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David.
> >

> > Nor is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Oswald was "willing to take the long rap" - That's just nonsense on your part. You'll not *EVER* cite even the smallest bit of credible evidence for such nonsense.
> >
> > Of course, labeling critics as "conspiracy kooks" simply shows that you know you've lost the debate.
> >
> > As your refusal to address my points, ONE BY ONE, as I just did with yours, will support the charge of cowardice on your part.

> >
> >
> > > David Von Pein
> > > April 2008
> > > May 2012
> >
> >

> > Now, watch as David runs from the post above, AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO ANSWER IT, POINT BY POINT, AS I DID WITH HIS QUESTIONS...
> >
> > What a coward!!!
>
> This is what happens, folks, when a desperate CTers tries to explain away ALL the evidence that points to Oswald (which, of course, is ALL the evidence). The CTer ends up looking very silly when attempting to square away everything into a nice little "Conspiracy" package (with Oswald being featured as the make-believe "Patsy" in the conspiracy theorist's imaginary plot).
>
> My favorite gut-buster delivered by desperate Mr. Holmes above is this little gem below (in which Holmes was answering my question "Where did those two bullets go [that entered JFK's body but never exited]?"....
>
> "My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- B. Holmes
>
> Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got enough evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in the imaginary conspiracy and cover-up.

The DPD covering up Sgt Hill's "auto 38" transmission is certainly not "imaginary". And the WC was so lax it did not follow up on Hill's testimony's suggestion that it was a fellow officer who sent it! Sins, or crimes, of (Warren) commission *and* omission....
dcw


Needless to say, Holmes has ZERO evidence to make such an outrageous accusation against Dr. Humes.
>
> But "ZERO evidence" never stopped a determined JFK conspiracy theorist. Just ask Ben Holmes.

[Ben Holmes]

And "omission" - as we've been told by believers, is just another form
of lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I need only point out that these issues have NEVER been explored by
any believer without running away.

stump shows his cowardice ...

David is TERRIFIED to show his cowardice... but doesn't realize that
in refusing to answer, he is...

>> >You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
>> >
>> > In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept
>> > changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness
>> > whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald. Your response to
>> > me was that you could not think of one offhand, but that you BET THE
>> > FARM there was one, and that you would find it. Do you remember that?
>> > I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying that perfectly well.
>> >
>> >Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.
>>
>> I think all critics have their tales of believers asserting something,
>> then running away. It's happened to me more times than I can count.
>> One of my favorites is the guy who was going to demolish all my
>> examples of official intimidation, just as soon as he got to his files
>> that were in storage. (This was YEARS ago... still no files...)
>>
>> Why are believers TERRIFIED of answering questions on the evidence in
>> this case?
>

> Bluff, bluster, lies, assorted fallacies, ect.

Yet not a single answer to even a single question.

Such AMAZING cowardice!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
>>
>> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
>>
>> You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
>>
>> In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "absolve", do you mean like an alibi
> witness? Not sure a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of guilt.

Then you're more stupid than you seem. It would be *EASY* for a single
witness to prove Oswald shot no-one.

And if you cannot imagine such a situation, it merely proves your lack
of intelligence.

> It
> is interesting that although conspiracy types say it wasn`t Oswald at
> 10th and Patton there are no witnesses who say they are sure the
> person they saw *wasn`t* Oswald.

That's a lie. Do you presume that you'll convince people by lying
about the evidence?

> Also Ronald Fischer, witness at the
> assassination, who said...
>
> "Mr. FISCHER - Lee Harvey Oswald. That that could have been the man
> that I saw in the window of the School Book Depository Building, but
> that I was not sure. It's possible that a man fit the general
> description that I gave---but I can't say for sure."
>
> The police report...
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338054/m1/1/?q=fischer

Amusingly, you refuse to cite his AFFIDAVIT, which is what **FISCHER**
was stating.

You compare Fischer's testimony with a police officer's statement, and
you pretend on the basis of TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, a contradiction in
what **FISCHER** said.

**NOTHING** said in his testimony contradicts his actual affidavit.

Tell us stump, do you think lies will convince anyone?

> Oswald never gets a witness who says it definitely wasn`t him,
> which you would expect him to get once or twice if it wasn`t him being
> seen these places.

You're lying again, stump. Howard Brennan is well known to you.

>> Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand,
>> but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it.
>> Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying
>> that perfectly well.
>>
>> Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.

Doesn't surprise me that David is still running... and stump is lying
for him.

[Bud]

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/KSFRzr5Cpys/V8c_NJfDCAAJ

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
> >>
> >> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
> >>
> >> You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
> >>
> >> In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by "absolve", do you mean like an alibi
> > witness? Not sure a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of guilt.
>
>
> Then you're more stupid than you seem. It would be *EASY* for a single
> witness to prove Oswald shot no-one.

Bluff and bluster, lurkers. And a moving of the goal posts.

> And if you cannot imagine such a situation, it merely proves your lack
> of intelligence.

In what way am I responsible for Ben`s failure to do so, lurkers?

> > It
> > is interesting that although conspiracy types say it wasn`t Oswald at
> > 10th and Patton there are no witnesses who say they are sure the
> > person they saw *wasn`t* Oswald.
>
>
> That's a lie. Do you presume that you'll convince people by lying
> about the evidence?

Again, ad hominem, lurkers. Again, nothing of substance offered. Does he think he can impress people with nothing more than bluff and bluster? Why did he reply at all if he was only going to shoot blanks?

>
> > Also Ronald Fischer, witness at the
> > assassination, who said...
> >
> > "Mr. FISCHER - Lee Harvey Oswald. That that could have been the man
> > that I saw in the window of the School Book Depository Building, but
> > that I was not sure. It's possible that a man fit the general
> > description that I gave---but I can't say for sure."
> >
> > The police report...
> >
> > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338054/m1/1/?q=fischer
>
> Amusingly, you refuse to cite his AFFIDAVIT, which is what **FISCHER**
> was stating.

Ben is shooting more blanks, lurkers. He says I should have produced something else but he doesn`t say how that something else speaks to the point being made.

> You compare Fischer's testimony with a police officer's statement, and
> you pretend on the basis of TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, a contradiction in
> what **FISCHER** said.

Where did I claim a contradiction, lurkers? When Ben isn`t running from the arguments I do make he is attributing arguments to me I never made.

> **NOTHING** said in his testimony contradicts his actual affidavit.

It has nothing to do with the point I made either way, lurkers. My point had nothing to do with contradiction.

> Tell us stump, do you think lies will convince anyone?

Ben is fighting a strawman and losing, lurkers.

> > Oswald never gets a witness who says it definitely wasn`t him,
> > which you would expect him to get once or twice if it wasn`t him being
> > seen these places.
>
>
> You're lying again, stump. Howard Brennan is well known to you.

Let Ben quote Brennan saying Oswald was not the man he saw, lurkers.

> >> Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand,
> >> but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it.
> >> Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying
> >> that perfectly well.
> >>
> >> Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.
>
> Doesn't surprise me that David is still running... and stump is lying
> for him.

Ben stepped in for the other idiot, lurkers. He didn`t fare any better.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 7:50:54 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You're really rotten at this "Reasonable & Believable" thing, "Boris". Because any plot that requires a "Lone Patsy Named Oswald" would not have included ANY FRONTAL SHOOTERS.
>
> Imbecile, all that a plot requires is an audience stupid enough to believe it.

They couldn't fool Boris!

Like you. The "Santa Claus" myth works in much the same way, in that all the evidence points to the impossibility of Santa Claus, but the myth gets the job done.

Lol, Boris believes thousands plotted, planned, killed or covered up JFK's death. But he can't tell us who. Talk about believing a myth!

>
> > But since you're a loon...
>
> Like I said, get some new material, mental midget.
>
> > ...from the Anybody-But-Oswald Club,
>
> I'm more of an Everybody-And-Oswald Club member, though his contribution was minimal at best. And certainly not by himself.

Lay out your case, Boris.

>
> > ...you have to (somehow) come up with some sorry-ass excuse for why those two wholly incompatible things—
> > "A Patsy In The TSBD" and "Frontal Gunshots"—can (somehow) fit together in this JFK case.
>
> Actually the sorry-ass excuse about gunshots was (somehow) the square peg squeezed into the round hole by Arlen Specter. SBT started as a hypothesis. You know that, right? It was literally a guess. The evidence was retrofitted around that total hypothetical guess. Not the other way around. Even you know that, don't you?

Boris is unfamiliar with the case.

>
>
> > And your answer—"Because they didn't give a fuck what the public saw, they were going to sell the story anyway"—reeks of sorry-ass desperation for sure.*

Boris says they didn't give a f*ck about what the public saw and then outlines his Santa Claus-like belief that Specter retrofitted the SBT to fit the government narrative. Why go through such hoops if "they" didn't care about what the public saw? Just say JFK was hit by a separate shot than JBC?

>
> It reeks of sorry-ass that's exactly what happened, and the proof of it are the living, breathing, lumbering dipshits like David Von Pein writing books defending a report that even half the Warren Commission didn't believe.
>
>
> > Now take a crack at Question #4, "Boris".
>
> Nah, I've jumped through enough of your hoops. You've yet to respond to anything. Quid pro quo, asshole. Look it up. It's in the dictionary, between "absolve" and "retard"

Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the killer.

Get busy from figuring out Chemtrails and 9-11 and focus. You can start by convincing your fellow kooks why YOUR theory is the correct one over the dozens and dozens of other theories out there.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the
> job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory
> that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the
> killer.

Three times now I've matched, in both length, depth, and number of
citations to the evidence - any scenario posted by a believer.

Chucky won't post a scenario - because he knows... he *KNOWS* I can
match it.

So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.

He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
from others...

Nor will he answer any of my previous scenarios that I've posted,
explaining why it isn't credible, or why the evidence doesn't support
it.

Because Chucky is a coward. Aren't you Chucky?

[Bud]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the
> > job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory
> > that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the
> > killer.
>
> Three times now I've matched, in both length, depth, and number of
> citations to the evidence - any scenario posted by a believer.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. It`s his favorite thing to do.

> Chucky won't post a scenario - because he knows... he *KNOWS* I can
> match it.

I posted the WC`s conclusions, lurkers. Ben cut it out and run from it. Now he is telling tales.

And this is the thing. My beliefs are almost exactly like Chuck`s, DVP`s, McAdams and any other LNer when it comes to this event, and Ben is fully aware of what those beliefs are. If Ben and the other retards want to criticize those beliefs that have to have something most reasonable to offer for consideration.

Just like all their criticisms of the WC, apparently the retards think the WC should have said things like "Although Barbara Davis said she saw Lee Harvey Oswald hurrying away from Tippits body holding a gun, we figure somebody put her up to saying this". The problem with this is the WC was made up of accomplished men who had integrity, prestige and credibility, so they would pay a price for saying stupid shit like this, whereas conspiracy retards have no such restraints.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:25:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the
> > job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory
> > that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the
> > killer.
>
> Three times now I've matched, in both length, depth, and number of
> citations to the evidence - any scenario posted by a believer.

Lie.

>
> Chucky won't post a scenario - because he knows... he *KNOWS* I can
> match it.

I don't have a scenario. I believe the conclusions of the WC were correct.

>
> So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.

Right here.

>
> He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
> from others...

Post your scenario, and then Boris can post his. Hash it out between the two of you tinfoil-hat wearing JFK Truthers, and then I'll critique the "winning" submission in detail. You both can't be right.

>
> Nor will he answer any of my previous scenarios that I've posted,
> explaining why it isn't credible, or why the evidence doesn't support
> it.

Your body-snatching theories and "planted" bullet fragments on x-rays theories, etc. have been answered numerous times.

>
> Because Chucky is a coward. Aren't you Chucky?

Ben is projecting again. His own cowardice and classic "Little Man" complex drove him to try and be a Marine like his hero Oswald and Charles Whitman, his dwarfism drove him into a career alternately touching, then karate-chopping pre-pubescent children; the only type of human Ben doesn't get intimidated by.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Oh look, another voice heard from in "Chuck." How are these LN dipshits so prolific, I'll never know. Let's see if "Chuck" has anything fresh or new to add.

> > Imbecile, all that a plot requires is an audience stupid enough to believe it.
>
>
> They couldn't fool Boris!

No, they don't. But you fit the bill. Lincoln was surely thinking of your asshole simian ancestors when he said you could fool some of the people all of the time.

> Like you. The "Santa Claus" myth works in much the same way, in that all the evidence points to the impossibility of Santa Claus, but the myth gets the job done.
>
>
> Lol, Boris believes thousands plotted, planned, killed or covered up JFK's death. But he can't tell us who. Talk about believing a myth!

"Thousands" is just about as dumb (or dishonest) a comment as any LNer can make.

> > Actually the sorry-ass excuse about gunshots was (somehow) the square peg squeezed into the round hole by Arlen Specter. SBT started as a hypothesis. You know that, right? It was literally a guess. The evidence was retrofitted around that total hypothetical guess. Not the other way around. Even you know that, don't you?
>
>
> Boris is unfamiliar with the case.

"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet Conclusion."

-- Arlen Specter; 1967

Pulled that quote directly from your girlfriend DVP's website. You can address it...or not. Your response will be equally worthless either way.

> Boris says they didn't give a f*ck about what the public saw and then outlines his Santa Claus-like belief that Specter retrofitted the SBT to fit the government narrative. Why go through such hoops if "they" didn't care about what the public saw? Just say JFK was hit by a separate shot than JBC?

The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW, the myth would have fallen apart. For a conspiracy to work, some idiot somewhere has to believe it happened the way they said. Remember the Lincoln quote from earlier? It applies here.

> Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the killer.

Let's put this fallacy to bed once and for all. The burden of proof is not on CTers. Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore, he still remains legally innocent to this day. Which means the burden is YOURS to prove, because burden of proof rests with the prosecution (i.e., YOUR side). Now that your own pompous bravado has been reflected back at you, you have little recourse now but to address the HUNDREDS of pieces of evidence proving a minimum of two shooters, and the aftermath to follow. You'll likely "address" them by insulting me briefly, and clamming up like a coward.

> Get busy from figuring out Chemtrails and 9-11 and focus. You can start by convincing your fellow kooks why YOUR theory is the correct one over the dozens and dozens of other theories out there.

Yawn.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I don't have a scenario. I believe the conclusions of the WC were correct.

Luckily for Chuck, he gets to have his scenario spoonfed to him from his television set. He doesn't have to do his own research; Allen Dulles did it for him.

> > So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.
>
> Right here.

Amusingly, Chuck is unfamiliar with word usage and context. He believes "run" is meant in the literal sense here, as in lacing up the Reeboks. He doesn't understand that laconic non-responses like "right here" and "lie" is the intellectual equivalent of "running." Believers really are this stupid.

> >
> > He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
> > from others...
>
> Post your scenario, and then Boris can post his. Hash it out between the two of you tinfoil-hat wearing JFK Truthers, and then I'll critique the "winning" submission in detail. You both can't be right.

No need for us both to be right all the time. Hypothetically, Ben and I could disagree on 99% of every point we make, and the remaining 1% would STILL prove a conspiracy. It's only believers who are in the disadvantaged position of always having to agree on everything...even when, as with the case of the troll "Bud", who very clearly doesn't buy Alvarez and the "jet effect" theory, but CANNOT just flat-out admit that. Like all LNers, he is forbidden to disagree with anything they say.

> Ben is projecting again. His own cowardice and classic "Little Man" complex drove him to try and be a Marine like his hero Oswald and Charles Whitman, his dwarfism drove him into a career alternately touching, then karate-chopping pre-pubescent children; the only type of human Ben doesn't get intimidated by.

A whole paragraph wasted here trashing Ben. You could have used that time to post some evidence. Too bad.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:53:54 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh look, another voice heard from in "Chuck." How are these LN dipshits so prolific, I'll never know. Let's see if "Chuck" has anything fresh or new to add.

To a murder solved over fifty years ago?

> > > Imbecile, all that a plot requires is an audience stupid enough to believe it.
> >
> >
> > They couldn't fool Boris!
>
> No, they don't. But you fit the bill. Lincoln was surely thinking of your asshole simian ancestors when he said you could fool some of the people all of the time.
>
>
> > Like you. The "Santa Claus" myth works in much the same way, in that all the evidence points to the impossibility of Santa Claus, but the myth gets the job done.
> >
> >
> > Lol, Boris believes thousands plotted, planned, killed or covered up JFK's death. But he can't tell us who. Talk about believing a myth!
>
> "Thousands" is just about as dumb (or dishonest) a comment as any LNer can make.

Since none of you retards spell out your ideas we are forced to go with what the ideas you express imply. It could be tens of thousands.

> > > Actually the sorry-ass excuse about gunshots was (somehow) the square peg squeezed into the round hole by Arlen Specter. SBT started as a hypothesis. You know that, right? It was literally a guess. The evidence was retrofitted around that total hypothetical guess. Not the other way around. Even you know that, don't you?
> >
> >
> > Boris is unfamiliar with the case.
>
> "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet Conclusion."
>
> -- Arlen Specter; 1967
>
> Pulled that quote directly from your girlfriend DVP's website. You can address it...or not. Your response will be equally worthless either way.

How does anything in that quote support the nonsense you spewed?

> > Boris says they didn't give a f*ck about what the public saw and then outlines his Santa Claus-like belief that Specter retrofitted the SBT to fit the government narrative. Why go through such hoops if "they" didn't care about what the public saw? Just say JFK was hit by a separate shot than JBC?
>
> The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW,

What s *stupid* thing to say. Nobody saw a bullet in flight.

> the myth would have fallen apart. For a conspiracy to work, some idiot somewhere has to believe it happened the way they said. Remember the Lincoln quote from earlier? It applies here.
>
>
> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the killer.
>
> Let's put this fallacy to bed once and for all. The burden of proof is not on CTers.

If they try to express an idea they have the burden to support it.

> Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law.

Neither was Hitler.

> Therefore, he still remains legally innocent to this day.

Like Charles Whitman and the kids that shot up Columbine. If it weren`t for bad ideas these idiots would have no ideas at all.

> Which means the burden is YOURS to prove,

You can only show, you can`t make someone believe.

> because burden of proof rests with the prosecution (i.e., YOUR side). Now that your own pompous bravado has been reflected back at you, you have little recourse now but to address the HUNDREDS of pieces of evidence proving a minimum of two shooters,

Produce one thing in evidence and prove that that piece of evidence cannot exist if there was only Oswald shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 2:12:30 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a scenario. I believe the conclusions of the WC were correct.
>
> Luckily for Chuck, he gets to have his scenario spoonfed to him from his television set.

It was television that fooled conspiracy retards into thinking anything was possible.

> He doesn't have to do his own research;

By "research" you mean look at the wrong things and look at those wrong things incorrectly like you tards do.

> Allen Dulles did it for him.
>
>
> > > So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.
> >
> > Right here.
>
> Amusingly, Chuck is unfamiliar with word usage and context. He believes "run" is meant in the literal sense here, as in lacing up the Reeboks. He doesn't understand that laconic non-responses like "right here" and "lie" is the intellectual equivalent of "running." Believers really are this stupid.

Chuck understands Ben`s crooked games by now. He attempts to trap the people he engages with using ad hominem, so he can argue dishonestly (using bluff, bluster, lies, shifting of the burden, asking loaded questions, ect). Anyone can see that Ben acts like a child because I won`t play his crooked games by his crooked rules.

> > >
> > > He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
> > > from others...
> >
> > Post your scenario, and then Boris can post his. Hash it out between the two of you tinfoil-hat wearing JFK Truthers, and then I'll critique the "winning" submission in detail. You both can't be right.
>
> No need for us both to be right all the time.

Or any time, apparently.

> Hypothetically, Ben and I could disagree on 99% of every point we make, and the remaining 1% would STILL prove a conspiracy.

And if you give building blocks to a hundred kids they will build a hundred different things. It is a creative exercise and a hobby, not a search for the truth.

> It's only believers who are in the disadvantaged position of always having to agree on everything...even when, as with the case of the troll "Bud", who very clearly doesn't buy Alvarez and the "jet effect" theory, but CANNOT just flat-out admit that.

I have no problem saying that the jet effect can`t explain that motion. I told you my position, using small words. If the motion isn`t caused by a bullet throwing Kennedy back it becomes trivial. I challenged you a few times now to show what insight into the event this movement gives. You *ran*. But you still insist on focusing on it as if it is significant, even though you can`t show it is significant.

> Like all LNers, he is forbidden to disagree with anything they say.

It isn`t a problem. LNers generally make reasonable deductions and draw reasonable conclusions. And it isn`t really that we are so good at it, it is you guys really suck at it. You, for instance, were totally unaware that a bullet doesn`t exert enough force to throw a body back, and are probably still ignorant of this after I showed you.

> > Ben is projecting again. His own cowardice and classic "Little Man" complex drove him to try and be a Marine like his hero Oswald and Charles Whitman, his dwarfism drove him into a career alternately touching, then karate-chopping pre-pubescent children; the only type of human Ben doesn't get intimidated by.
>
> A whole paragraph wasted here trashing Ben. You could have used that time to post some evidence. Too bad.

It isn`t the evidence that is the problem. It is the silly games that retards play with the evidence that is the problem.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh look, another voice heard from in "Chuck." How are these LN dipshits so prolific, I'll never know. Let's see if "Chuck" has anything fresh or new to add.

I have nothing fresh or new to add. That's your calling. UFOs killed JFK with a direct energy beam, an invisible cloaking device hid a sniper at the curb...what's YOUR "fresh or new" idea Boris?

>
> > > Imbecile, all that a plot requires is an audience stupid enough to believe it.
> >
> >
> > They couldn't fool Boris!
>
> No, they don't. But you fit the bill. Lincoln was surely thinking of your asshole simian ancestors when he said you could fool some of the people all of the time.

Irony alert.

>
>
> > Like you. The "Santa Claus" myth works in much the same way, in that all the evidence points to the impossibility of Santa Claus, but the myth gets the job done.
> >
> >
> > Lol, Boris believes thousands plotted, planned, killed or covered up JFK's death. But he can't tell us who. Talk about believing a myth!
>
> "Thousands" is just about as dumb (or dishonest) a comment as any LNer can make.

It's accurate. All of you JFK Truthers believe the CIA, FBI, Hoover, LBJ, the press, the "Military Industrial Complex" etc. had a hand plotting/carrying out/covering up the destruction of Camelot. That adds up to thousands or a fifty-plus year history.

>
>
> > > Actually the sorry-ass excuse about gunshots was (somehow) the square peg squeezed into the round hole by Arlen Specter. SBT started as a hypothesis. You know that, right? It was literally a guess. The evidence was retrofitted around that total hypothetical guess. Not the other way around. Even you know that, don't you?
> >
> >
> > Boris is unfamiliar with the case.
>
> "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet Conclusion."
>
> -- Arlen Specter; 1967
>
> Pulled that quote directly from your girlfriend DVP's website. You can address it...or not. Your response will be equally worthless either way.

Then why address it?

>
> > Boris says they didn't give a f*ck about what the public saw and then outlines his Santa Claus-like belief that Specter retrofitted the SBT to fit the government narrative. Why go through such hoops if "they" didn't care about what the public saw? Just say JFK was hit by a separate shot than JBC?
>
> The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW, the myth would have fallen apart. For a conspiracy to work, some idiot somewhere has to believe it happened the way they said. Remember the Lincoln quote from earlier? It applies here.

Truther Mumbo-Jumbo.

>
>
> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the killer.
>
> Let's put this fallacy to bed once and for all. The burden of proof is not on CTers.

Um, yeah, Boris. It is. You're shooting spitballs at an M-1 tank. The burden of proof is on you to come up with something that ties together the case in such a way that would overturn the null hypothesis that Oswald acted alone, no help.

You can start by POSTING what you believe happened. IN DETAIL.

But you won't.

Because you can't.

Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law.

Good work, Johnny Cochrane. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit?

Therefore, he still remains legally innocent to this day. Which means the burden is YOURS to prove, because burden of proof rests with the prosecution (i.e., YOUR side).

Earth to Johnny Cochrane: It's already been investigated.

Now that your own pompous bravado has been reflected back at you, you have little recourse now but to address the HUNDREDS of pieces of evidence proving a minimum of two shooters, and the aftermath to follow. You'll likely "address" them by insulting me briefly, and clamming up like a coward.
>
>
> > Get busy from figuring out Chemtrails and 9-11 and focus. You can start by convincing your fellow kooks why YOUR theory is the correct one over the dozens and dozens of other theories out there.
>
> Yawn.

Back at 'cha. Post your detailed scenario.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> Since none of you retards spell out your ideas we are forced to go with what the ideas you express imply. It could be tens of thousands.

This forum alone is filled with hundreds of posts of critics spelling out their ideas. Just in this forum. This is the LN equivalent of "Who's On First?" asking the same question over and over when they don't realize it's been answered a hundred times.

> > The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW,
>
> What s *stupid* thing to say. Nobody saw a bullet in flight.

With this comment, Bud cements his reputation as the stupidest believer on the Internet...stupider even than Mogul Cast, who did not even know the name of the street Kennedy was shot on.

> > Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law.
>
> Neither was Hitler.

What a ***STUPID*** comparison. And even then, Hitler committed nothing to paper that would connect him with anything. And there was not a single death camp in Germany. They were all in Poland. Why do you think that is?

>
> You can only show, you can`t make someone believe.

Finally we agree on something.

> Produce one thing in evidence and prove that that piece of evidence cannot exist if there was only Oswald shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Connally's wrist wound and the "lead snowstorm" X-ray. You asked for *one* thing. Now you have two. And you lose.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 2:03:57 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Since none of you retards spell out your ideas we are forced to go with what the ideas you express imply. It could be tens of thousands.
>
> This forum alone is filled with hundreds of posts of critics spelling out their ideas.

Disjointed ideas addressing different aspects in isolation. If anyone attempted to put them together in a cohesive package even an idiot like yourself would be able to determine just how silly the whole package is.

> Just in this forum. This is the LN equivalent of "Who's On First?" asking the same question over and over when they don't realize it's been answered a hundred times.

You are only showing you didn`t understand the question.

> > > The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW,
> >
> > What s *stupid* thing to say. Nobody saw a bullet in flight.
>
> With this comment, Bud cements his reputation as the stupidest believer on the Internet...

From the guy who just wrote...

"The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT."

Why would you think anyone should see the bullets, or the wounds, let along piece that information together correctly? This is why I call them stumps, the least suited people to be looking at this case imaginable.

Tell me, "Boris", what were the wounds on these two guys?

http://www.military.com/video/specialties-and-personnel/snipers/two-syrians-one-bullet/1845779145001

And while I`m at it here is a video compilation of people being shot by snipers...

http://www.military.com/video/specialties-and-personnel/snipers/sniper-operations-in-somalia/1147691843001

I look forward to your comments illustrating that you don`t understand a single thing you saw with your own eyes.

>stupider even than Mogul Cast, who did not even know the name of the street Kennedy was shot on.
>
>
> > > Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law.
> >
> > Neither was Hitler.
>
> What a ***STUPID*** comparison. And even then, Hitler committed nothing to paper that would connect him with anything.

Are you saying he was a patsy?

> And there was not a single death camp in Germany. They were all in Poland. Why do you think that is?

I think you are wrong that they were all in Poland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajmi%C5%A1te_concentration_camp

> >
> > You can only show, you can`t make someone believe.
>
> Finally we agree on something.

Then why critique the WC? Especially when you fail to put an alternative on the table for consideration.

> > Produce one thing in evidence and prove that that piece of evidence cannot exist if there was only Oswald shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> Connally's wrist wound and the "lead snowstorm" X-ray. You asked for *one* thing. Now you have two. And you lose.

I wasn`t contesting your ability to just *say* things. Your burden is to *prove* that either of those things cannot coexist with the idea that Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor of the TSBD. And please try to refrain from just *saying* more things just for the sake of saying them.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:03:57 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Since none of you retards spell out your ideas we are forced to go with what the ideas you express imply. It could be tens of thousands.
>
> This forum alone is filled with hundreds of posts of critics spelling out their ideas. Just in this forum. This is the LN equivalent of "Who's On First?" asking the same question over and over when they don't realize it's been answered a hundred times.

And it's also been answered by you JFK Truthers in a hundred different ways. But it only happened ONE way. Spell out what you think happened, Truther.

>
>
> > > The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW,
> >
> > What s *stupid* thing to say. Nobody saw a bullet in flight.
>
> With this comment, Bud cements his reputation as the stupidest believer on the Internet...stupider even than Mogul Cast, who did not even know the name of the street Kennedy was shot on.

Trivia Pursuit isn't for everyone.

>
>
> > > Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law.
> >
> > Neither was Hitler.
>
> What a ***STUPID*** comparison. And even then, Hitler committed nothing to paper that would connect him with anything. And there was not a single death camp in Germany. They were all in Poland. Why do you think that is?

If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit, right Johnny Cochrane? Now the JFK Truther is apparently going to lay out his ideas that there was no Holocaust.

>
>
> >
> > You can only show, you can`t make someone believe.
>
> Finally we agree on something.
>
> > Produce one thing in evidence and prove that that piece of evidence cannot exist if there was only Oswald shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> Connally's wrist wound and the "lead snowstorm" X-ray. You asked for *one* thing. Now you have two. And you lose.

Connally's wrist wounds do not negate the Single Bullet Fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 20:13:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:25:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the
>> > job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory
>> > that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the
>> > killer.
>>
>> Three times now I've matched, in both length, depth, and number of
>> citations to the evidence - any scenario posted by a believer.
>
>Lie.

You're lying again, Chucky.

And the PROOF of that lie is that you'll refuse to offer your
scenario.

>> Chucky won't post a scenario - because he knows... he *KNOWS* I can
>> match it.
>
>I don't have a scenario. I believe the conclusions of the WC were correct.

Yep... just as I predicted... a gutless coward completely unable to
post what he believed happened, along with the evidence.

>> So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.
>
>Right here.

And yes, you ran.

>> He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
>> from others...
>
> Post your scenario, and then Boris can post his. Hash it out between
> the two of you tinfoil-hat wearing JFK Truthers, and then I'll
> critique the "winning" submission in detail. You both can't be right.

I've tried this before... answering a believer's question first, but
INVARIABLY the believer refuses to then answer the question.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

So I'll just keep pointing out your abject cowardice, Chucky... and
you keep right on lying and running...

>> Nor will he answer any of my previous scenarios that I've posted,
>> explaining why it isn't credible, or why the evidence doesn't support
>> it.
>
> Your body-snatching theories and "planted" bullet fragments on
> x-rays theories, etc. have been answered numerous times.

You don't *DARE* quote them here.

This is a famous trick that Anthony Marsh pioneered... the "I did it
long ago and in a far away place once before" tactic.

Yet strangely enough, believers can't simply quote it.

>> Because Chucky is a coward. Aren't you Chucky?
>
> Ben is projecting again. His own cowardice and classic "Little Man"
> complex drove him to try and be a Marine like his hero Oswald and
> Charles Whitman, his dwarfism drove him into a career alternately
> touching, then karate-chopping pre-pubescent children; the only type
> of human Ben doesn't get intimidated by.

Now Chucky is pretending to psychoanalyse me... how amusing! Your
silly ad hominem doesn't do the job, Chucky...

WHAT IS YOUR SCENARIO!???

Why are you so afraid to post it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:03:57 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Since none of you retards spell out your ideas we are forced to go with what the ideas you express imply. It could be tens of thousands.
>>
>> This forum alone is filled with hundreds of posts of critics spelling out their ideas. Just in this forum. This is the LN equivalent of "Who's On First?" asking the same question over and over when they don't realize it's been answered a hundred times.
>
> And it's also been answered by you JFK Truthers in a hundred
> different ways. But it only happened ONE way. Spell out what you think
> happened, Truther.

Been there, done that... you ran.

Why are you so afraid to answer your OWN question?

>> > > The public didn't SEE Specter's SBT. They SAW the shooting in Dealey Plaza. And if zero effort was made after the fact to match the narrative of what people SAW,
>> >
>> > What s *stupid* thing to say. Nobody saw a bullet in flight.
>>
>> With this comment, Bud cements his reputation as the stupidest believer on the Internet...stupider even than Mogul Cast, who did not even know the name of the street Kennedy was shot on.
>
>Trivia Pursuit isn't for everyone.

It's not "trivial" that dufus can't read and put coherent logical
argument on the table.

Neither can you, Chucky...

>> > > Oswald was never proven guilty in a court of law.
>> >
>> > Neither was Hitler.
>>
>> What a ***STUPID*** comparison. And even then, Hitler committed nothing to paper that would connect him with anything. And there was not a single death camp in Germany. They were all in Poland. Why do you think that is?
>
> If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit, right Johnny Cochrane? Now
> the JFK Truther is apparently going to lay out his ideas that there
> was no Holocaust.

Another common logical fallacy...

>> > You can only show, you can`t make someone believe.
>>
>> Finally we agree on something.
>>
>> > Produce one thing in evidence and prove that that piece of evidence cannot exist if there was only Oswald shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>>
>> Connally's wrist wound and the "lead snowstorm" X-ray. You asked for *one* thing. Now you have two. And you lose.
>
>Connally's wrist wounds do not negate the Single Bullet Fact.

You will *NEVER* cite a photo showing how Connally could have had his
wrist hit by the SBT, nor will you *EVER* state where you see the
larger bullet fragments in the trail of fragments seen in JFK's side
X-ray.

Your cowardice on these issues shows that you understand quite well
the weakness of your position.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:09:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Oh look, another voice heard from in "Chuck." How are these LN dipshits so prolific, I'll never know. Let's see if "Chuck" has anything fresh or new to add.
>
>
>I have nothing fresh or new to add.

Not even your scenario of what happened that day.

Despite the fact that you're willing to ask others that question, YOU
REFUSE TO ANSWER IT YOURSELF.

Or respond to my previous answers to that question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
>> >>
>> >> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
>> >>
>> >> You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
>> >>
>> >> In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald.
>> >
>> > Not sure what you mean by "absolve", do you mean like an alibi
>> > witness? Not sure a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of guilt.
>>
>>
>> Then you're more stupid than you seem. It would be *EASY* for a single
>> witness to prove Oswald shot no-one.
>
> Bluff and bluster, lurkers. And a moving of the goal posts.

The "goalpost" was that not a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of
guilt.

I'm telling you that it would be possible for a *SINGLE* witness to
"absolve" Oswald.

If you want speculation, you'd better be prepared for someone who can
"speculate" as well as any believer.

No "goalpost" moving necessary.

>> And if you cannot imagine such a situation, it merely proves your lack
>> of intelligence.
>
> In what way am I responsible for Ben`s failure to do so, lurkers?

It's *YOUR* failure to imagine a situation where a single witness
could "absolve" someone of a crime.

Not mine.

I'm perfectly willing to prove you wrong.

>> > It
>> > is interesting that although conspiracy types say it wasn`t Oswald at
>> > 10th and Patton there are no witnesses who say they are sure the
>> > person they saw *wasn`t* Oswald.
>>
>>
>> That's a lie. Do you presume that you'll convince people by lying
>> about the evidence?
>
> Again, ad hominem, lurkers. Again, nothing of substance offered.

I'm not the one who made claims about what the witnesses stated.

*YOU* are the one who offered no substance.

> Does he think he can impress people with nothing more than bluff and
> bluster? Why did he reply at all if he was only going to shoot blanks?

You're the one shooting blanks... I merely point it out.

>> > Also Ronald Fischer, witness at the
>> > assassination, who said...
>> >
>> > "Mr. FISCHER - Lee Harvey Oswald. That that could have been the man
>> > that I saw in the window of the School Book Depository Building, but
>> > that I was not sure. It's possible that a man fit the general
>> > description that I gave---but I can't say for sure."
>> >
>> > The police report...
>> >
>> > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338054/m1/1/?q=fischer
>>
>> Amusingly, you refuse to cite his AFFIDAVIT, which is what **FISCHER**
>> was stating.
>
> Ben is shooting more blanks, lurkers. He says I should have
> produced something else but he doesn`t say how that something else
> speaks to the point being made.

Then simply point to that statement quoted above in the police report.

But you won't.

You can't. It wasn't Fischer.

You lied.

>> You compare Fischer's testimony with a police officer's statement, and
>> you pretend on the basis of TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, a contradiction in
>> what **FISCHER** said.
>
> Where did I claim a contradiction, lurkers? When Ben isn`t running
> from the arguments I do make he is attributing arguments to me I never
> made.

So all you have to do is PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that you agree with what
Fischer said.

But you won't. You can't.

>> **NOTHING** said in his testimony contradicts his actual affidavit.
>
> It has nothing to do with the point I made either way, lurkers. My
> point had nothing to do with contradiction.

So you *DO* acknowledge that Fischer didn't identify Oswald.

How uncharacteristically honest of you!

>> Tell us stump, do you think lies will convince anyone?
>
> Ben is fighting a strawman and losing, lurkers.

Yep... you win.

Fischer failed to identify Oswald.

>> > Oswald never gets a witness who says it definitely wasn`t him,
>> > which you would expect him to get once or twice if it wasn`t him being
>> > seen these places.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, stump. Howard Brennan is well known to you.
>
> Let Ben quote Brennan saying Oswald was not the man he saw, lurkers.

Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the
time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive
identification.

And indeed, since the clothing description he gave matched others, AND
NOT OSWALD - his earliest statements are far more honest.

>> >> Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand,
>> >> but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it.
>> >> Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying
>> >> that perfectly well.
>> >>
>> >> Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.
>>
>> Doesn't surprise me that David is still running... and stump is lying
>> for him.
>

> I stepped in for the other idiot, lurkers. He didn`t fare any better.

That's true. You've done no better than David.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:37:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Sorry moron, that link doesn't show you answering these questions.

You have the chance right here... PICK ONE, and answer it.

But you won't.

You're a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the
>> > job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory
>> > that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the
>> > killer.
>>
>> Three times now I've matched, in both length, depth, and number of
>> citations to the evidence - any scenario posted by a believer.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers. It`s his favorite thing to do.

And yet, dufus knows I'm telling the truth.

dufus doesn't *DARE* prove me wrong... which would be simple to do...
simply post his scenario.

And if I don't match it in length, detail, and number of cites - dufus
would be proven to be telling the truth.

But he can't ... dufus *KNOWS* he's lying.

>> Chucky won't post a scenario - because he knows... he *KNOWS* I can
>> match it.
>
> I posted the WC`s conclusions, lurkers. Ben cut it out and run
> from it. Now he is telling tales.

You're lying again, dufus. You'll NEVER cite that post.

If you were honest, you'd have cited it right from the beginning...
and lurkers could *READ* my response, or lack of response.

Tell us stump, why do you think lies will convince anyone?

> And this is the thing. My beliefs are almost exactly like Chuck`s,
> DVP`s, McAdams and any other LNer when it comes to this event, and Ben
> is fully aware of what those beliefs are.

As you are of what critics accept. A conspiracy. Multiple shooters.

Yet despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted a scenario JUST as
detailed, and with JUST as many citations - believers keep whining
that we can't do it.


> I'm just a retard


Nah, you're simply illustrating yet again that you know you lost.

>> So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.
>>
>> He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
>> from others...
>>
>> Nor will he answer any of my previous scenarios that I've posted,
>> explaining why it isn't credible, or why the evidence doesn't support
>> it.
>>
>> Because Chucky is a coward. Aren't you Chucky?

Dead silence from the troll.

My prediction will continue to be true, Chucky's a coward and won't
post his scenario here.

dufus is a coward too - he's learned the hard way that I actually can
and DO post a scenario just as detailed and with just as many cites as
any believer in these forums.

And all dufus can do is lie about it...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 03:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:53:54 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Oh look, another voice heard from in "Chuck." How are these LN dipshits so prolific, I'll never know. Let's see if "Chuck" has anything fresh or new to add.
>
> To a murder solved over fifty years ago?

"Solved" so well that dufus & Chucky refuse to cite the evidence...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The case is pretty well known, Ben. Read the Warren Commission Report.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

A troll is accidentally civil for a moment....

>
> The case is pretty well known, Ben. Read the Warren Commission Report.

Tell us about the WCR, Chuck. Can you explain why three members of that very Commission were seriously dissatisfied with their OWN findings? So much so that Richard Russell didn't even want to sign his name to the final report? And Hale Boggs thought Hoover was a flat-out liar? Why is that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:09:10 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

I've read it many times... it's on my desk.

Unfortunately for you, I also read the 27 volumes. And I know, AND CAN
PROVE, that the Warren Commission lied about their own evidence.

You can't explain this fact, so you run like the coward you are.

And continue to refuse to cite evidence...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:07:46 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>A troll is accidentally civil for a moment....

Don't worry... Chucky will quickly disabuse you of that thought...

The fact that Chucky cannot admit or explain even the most *OBVIOUS*
'errors' of the Warren Commission show *his* inherent dishonesty.

For believers, the Warren Commission Report is the bible, and
inerrant.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:54:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:37 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> David Von Pein, one would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
> >> >>
> >> >> In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald.
> >> >
> >> > Not sure what you mean by "absolve", do you mean like an alibi
> >> > witness? Not sure a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of guilt.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then you're more stupid than you seem. It would be *EASY* for a single
> >> witness to prove Oswald shot no-one.
> >
> > Bluff and bluster, lurkers. And a moving of the goal posts.
>
> The "goalpost" was that not a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of
> guilt.

And Ben moved that goalpost to "It would be *EASY* for a single witness to prove Oswald shot no-one", a different concept, lurkers.

> I'm telling you that it would be possible for a *SINGLE* witness to
> "absolve" Oswald.

Bluff and bluster, lurkers.

> If you want speculation, you'd better be prepared for someone who can
> "speculate" as well as any believer.

Bluff and bluster, lurkers.

> No "goalpost" moving necessary.
>
>
> >> And if you cannot imagine such a situation, it merely proves your lack
> >> of intelligence.
> >
> > In what way am I responsible for Ben`s failure to do so, lurkers?
>
> It's *YOUR* failure to imagine a situation where a single witness
> could "absolve" someone of a crime.

Has a reason been given to believe this is possible, lurkers? All we are treated to is bluff and bluster with no substance.

> Not mine.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to prove you wrong.

More bluff and buster, lurkers. Why do these idiots waste so much time saying nothing. To recap, Boris said...

"In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald."

I replied "Not sure what you mean by "absolve", do you mean like an alibi witness? Not sure a single witness could "absolve" Oswald of guilt."

So clearing I`m looking for a clarification of the concept Boris was going for. What I wasn`t looking for was several posts of hot air non-responses from Ben.

> >> > It
> >> > is interesting that although conspiracy types say it wasn`t Oswald at
> >> > 10th and Patton there are no witnesses who say they are sure the
> >> > person they saw *wasn`t* Oswald.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's a lie. Do you presume that you'll convince people by lying
> >> about the evidence?
> >
> > Again, ad hominem, lurkers. Again, nothing of substance offered.
>
>
> I'm not the one who made claims about what the witnesses stated.

Ben was the one who made am ad hominem response devoid of substance, lurkers.

> *YOU* are the one who offered no substance.

Heres the support for what I said, lurkers, Ben`s ad hominem response that contained no substance...

"That's a lie. Do you presume that you'll convince people by lying about the evidence?"

> > Does he think he can impress people with nothing more than bluff and
> > bluster? Why did he reply at all if he was only going to shoot blanks?
>
> You're the one shooting blanks... I merely point it out.

I wrote this, lurkers...

"It is interesting that although conspiracy types say it wasn`t Oswald at 10th and Patton there are no witnesses who say they are sure the person they saw *wasn`t* Oswald."

Ben made the empty claim that it was a lie, but it was his usual meaningless declaration devoid of support.

> >> > Also Ronald Fischer, witness at the
> >> > assassination, who said...
> >> >
> >> > "Mr. FISCHER - Lee Harvey Oswald. That that could have been the man
> >> > that I saw in the window of the School Book Depository Building, but
> >> > that I was not sure. It's possible that a man fit the general
> >> > description that I gave---but I can't say for sure."
> >> >
> >> > The police report...
> >> >
> >> > https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338054/m1/1/?q=fischer
> >>
> >> Amusingly, you refuse to cite his AFFIDAVIT, which is what **FISCHER**
> >> was stating.
> >
> > Ben is shooting more blanks, lurkers. He says I should have
> > produced something else but he doesn`t say how that something else
> > speaks to the point being made.
>
> Then simply point to that statement quoted above in the police report.

Ben needs to grow up and learn how to make his own points, lurkers. He wants to vaguely allude to things like he is making an argument but he isn`t man enough to actually make the argument.

> But you won't.
>
> You can't. It wasn't Fischer.
>
> You lied.

*what* wasn`t Fisher, lurkers. Why is this coward so afraid to make arguments, lurkers?

>
> >> You compare Fischer's testimony with a police officer's statement, and
> >> you pretend on the basis of TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, a contradiction in
> >> what **FISCHER** said.
> >
> > Where did I claim a contradiction, lurkers? When Ben isn`t running
> > from the arguments I do make he is attributing arguments to me I never
> > made.
>
> So all you have to do is PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that you agree with what
> Fischer said.

Now he props up a strawman, lurkers. Ben said I was advancing the idea of a contradiction, let him show the contradiction I was saying existed.

> But you won't. You can't.

Why doesn`t Ben address the arguments I *actually* make, lurkers?

This was the point I made, the point Ben has yet to touch...

"Oswald never gets a witness who says it definitely wasn`t him, which you would expect him to get once or twice if it wasn`t him being seen these places."

> >> **NOTHING** said in his testimony contradicts his actual affidavit.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with the point I made either way, lurkers. My
> > point had nothing to do with contradiction.
>
> So you *DO* acknowledge that Fischer didn't identify Oswald.

Another strawman, lurkers.

> How uncharacteristically honest of you!
>
>
> >> Tell us stump, do you think lies will convince anyone?
> >
> > Ben is fighting a strawman and losing, lurkers.
>
> Yep... you win.
>
> Fischer failed to identify Oswald.

Has nothing to do with the point I made, lurkers.

>
> >> > Oswald never gets a witness who says it definitely wasn`t him,
> >> > which you would expect him to get once or twice if it wasn`t him being
> >> > seen these places.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're lying again, stump. Howard Brennan is well known to you.
> >
> > Let Ben quote Brennan saying Oswald was not the man he saw, lurkers.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the
> time of the lineup?
> Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive
> identification.

Which is a completely different concept than Brennan stating that Oswald wasn`t the man he saw, lurkers. Ben lied.

> And indeed, since the clothing description he gave matched others, AND
> NOT OSWALD -

Empty claim, lurkers.

> his earliest statements are far more honest.

>
> >> >> Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand,
> >> >> but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it.
> >> >> Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying
> >> >> that perfectly well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.
> >>
> >> Doesn't surprise me that David is still running... and stump is lying
> >> for him.
> >
> > I stepped in for the other idiot, lurkers. He didn`t fare any better.
>
> That's true. You've done no better than David.

Scumbags like to change words, lurkers, thats how you can tell they are scumbags.

[Bud]

As I pointed out they consisted almost exclusively of loaded questions and empty claims, lurkers. That was all the exploration that was necessary.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:54:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Boris doesn't understand how it works. It's Boris's job---and the
> >> > job of the rest of the tinfoil-hat brigade---to lay out THEIR theory
> >> > that explains away all of the evidence that points to Oswald as the
> >> > killer.
> >>
> >> Three times now I've matched, in both length, depth, and number of
> >> citations to the evidence - any scenario posted by a believer.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. It`s his favorite thing to do.
>
>
> And yet, dufus knows I'm telling the truth.

The guy just can`t stop lying, lurkers.

> dufus doesn't *DARE* prove me wrong... which would be simple to do...
> simply post his scenario.

I`ve done it before, lurkers.

> And if I don't match it in length, detail, and number of cites - dufus
> would be proven to be telling the truth.

This is the similar to the challenge Ben made before, lurkers. But when I did post it he cut and ran from it.

> But he can't ... dufus *KNOWS* he's lying.
>
>
> >> Chucky won't post a scenario - because he knows... he *KNOWS* I can
> >> match it.
> >
> > I posted the WC`s conclusions, lurkers. Ben cut it out and run
> > from it. Now he is telling tales.
>
>
> You're lying again, dufus. You'll NEVER cite that post.

Easily done. Lurkers can see that Ben makes the challenge "So anything *YOU* post, I'll match." I replied with the Summery and Conclusions of the Warren Commission...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/wEYKnOVDmu4/idCneI9pBAAJ

Ben`s reply to this post was this...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/wEYKnOVDmu4/AyBRxF1xBAAJ

Lurkers can clearly see that Ben snipped and ran from the scenario I presented. He said he would match what I posted but as everyone can see, he lied. And then he lied again when he claimed this never happened. And in his next response, he will lie some more.

> If you were honest, you'd have cited it right from the beginning...
> and lurkers could *READ* my response, or lack of response.

Lurkers, I don`t get paid to track down every lie Ben makes. I do it pro bono as a service to you lurkers.

> Tell us stump, why do you think lies will convince anyone?
>
>
> > And this is the thing. My beliefs are almost exactly like Chuck`s,
> > DVP`s, McAdams and any other LNer when it comes to this event, and Ben
> > is fully aware of what those beliefs are.
>
>
> As you are of what critics accept.

Ben is, of course, lying. None of them will put their beliefs of what happened in this event on the table for consideration, they know how absurd their ideas would look if they were all laid out.

> A conspiracy. Multiple shooters.

A conspiracy could be just someone giving Oswald the bullets to do the deed, it doesn`t require multiple shooters. And the dishonesty is palatable, it is like trying to put all the believers in a higher power under the tent of "God". The differences in all the beliefs are glaring, and the more details taken into account the more the differences become apparent.

> Yet despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted a scenario JUST as
> detailed, and with JUST as many citations - believers keep whining
> that we can't do it.

He could do it, but he is ashamed to, lurkers. He knows how ridiculous his beliefs are and if he spelled them out they would clearly be ludicrous.

> > I'm just a retard
>
>
> Nah, you're simply illustrating yet again that you know you lost.

Ben is illustrating again that he is a scumbag, lurkers.

>
> >> So my prediction is clear... Chucky will run.
> >>
> >> He will *NOT* post his own scenario - even though he's demanding one
> >> from others...
> >>
> >> Nor will he answer any of my previous scenarios that I've posted,
> >> explaining why it isn't credible, or why the evidence doesn't support
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Because Chucky is a coward. Aren't you Chucky?
>
> Dead silence from the troll.
>
> My prediction will continue to be true, Chucky's a coward and won't
> post his scenario here.
>
> dufus is a coward too - he's learned the hard way that I actually can
> and DO post a scenario just as detailed and with just as many cites as
> any believer in these forums.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. Fingerpainting a childish concoction isn`t providing an explaination of what occurred in this event. The challenge was not to play silly games sticking shooters around Dealey Plaza, the challenge was to explain the event. The WC did that and the tards have nothing to offer against it, so it wins by default.

[Bud]

Solved so well that it was clear what occurred, lurkers.

[Bud]

If these issues are a concern for you why not do research and find the answers?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Can you name a report or an investigation of that magnitude with unanimity? Doesn't the fact that there was some dissent point to the strength of the report and the integrity of the participants? If "Everyone was in on it" was true, wouldn't Russell and Boggs have been told to "play ball" for the good of the country and agree in lockstep with the conclusions? And how does Boggs thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone?

Heads you win, tails the WC loses, right?

Keep shooting spitballs.

This isn't a criminal trial, Johnny Cochrane. If you have a case that explains all of the interlocking evidence that points to other people or groups other than Oswald alone, present it.

I won't hold my breath.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Tell us about the WCR, Chuck. Can you explain why three members of that very Commission were seriously dissatisfied with their OWN findings? So much so that Richard Russell didn't even want to sign his name to the final report? And Hale Boggs thought Hoover was a flat-out liar? Why is that?

Quoting myself to show the straightforward questions Chuck cannot answer. The answer to these is he doesn't know why, or does know why (or at least the implication therein), and knows the importance of redirecting the conversation at the point. Which he does...without answering anything. That's what cowards do.

> Can you name a report or an investigation of that magnitude with unanimity?

Hate to break it, Charlie, but when someone is found guilty it is ALWAYS unanimous. Always. It's a hung jury otherwise.

> Doesn't the fact that there was some dissent point to the strength of the report and the integrity of the participants?

Yes. Though if you bothered to learn anything about the Commission, it was entirely Dulles-run. Yes, the man with means, motive and opportunity spent the most hours on it, put in the most time, questioned the most witnesses, and did most of the work. Staff jokingly called it the Dulles Report. This is not hyperbolic. But of course you'll reply...what's the big deal, that the man with means, motive and opportunity to murder the president was also the one who investigated the assassination?

> If "Everyone was in on it" was true, wouldn't Russell and Boggs have been told to "play ball" for the good of the country and agree in lockstep with the conclusions?

They did. And because they did play ball, we can't really know if they were *told to* or not. It's a possibility you can't confirm or deny, but to speculate that it never happened. While I don't speculate it did. But I know they cooperated when the cameras were on. And they signed their names to the report, despite not wanting to. That would tell most *intelligent* people something. And naturally it tells you nothing.

> And how does Boggs thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone?

Gee Chuck, did you just start researching the assassination this afternoon or what? Give me a plausible reason why the head of the FBI would *ever* lie in the murder investigation of the president...which by the way is not only obstruction of justice, but treason. Give me your "scenario" on why you think that would be?

> I won't hold my breath.

Nor I.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Tell us about the WCR, Chuck. Can you explain why three members of that very Commission were seriously dissatisfied with their OWN findings? So much so that Richard Russell didn't even want to sign his name to the final report? And Hale Boggs thought Hoover was a flat-out liar? Why is that?
>
> Quoting myself to show the straightforward questions Chuck cannot answer.

Stupid questions. If Russell had reservations either he said what they were or he didn`t. If he did, look it up, if he didn`t, why ask anyone here? Likewise, if Boggs thought Hoover was a liar, either he said why or he didn`t.

> The answer to these is he doesn't know why, or does know why (or at least the implication therein), and knows the importance of redirecting the conversation at the point. Which he does...without answering anything. That's what cowards do.
>
>
> > Can you name a report or an investigation of that magnitude with unanimity?
>
> Hate to break it, Charlie, but when someone is found guilty it is ALWAYS unanimous. Always. It's a hung jury otherwise.

Hate to break it to you "Boris", it wasn`t a trial.

> > Doesn't the fact that there was some dissent point to the strength of the report and the integrity of the participants?
>
> Yes. Though if you bothered to learn anything about the Commission, it was entirely Dulles-run. Yes, the man with means, motive and opportunity spent the most hours on it, put in the most time, questioned the most witnesses, and did most of the work. Staff jokingly called it the Dulles Report. This is not hyperbolic. But of course you'll reply...what's the big deal, that the man with means, motive and opportunity to murder the president was also the one who investigated the assassination?

Dulles is a patsy, a fall-guy created by the Oswald fan club.

> > If "Everyone was in on it" was true, wouldn't Russell and Boggs have been told to "play ball" for the good of the country and agree in lockstep with the conclusions?
>
> They did. And because they did play ball, we can't really know if they were *told to* or not. It's a possibility you can't confirm or deny, but to speculate that it never happened. While I don't speculate it did. But I know they cooperated when the cameras were on. And they signed their names to the report, despite not wanting to. That would tell most *intelligent* people something. And naturally it tells you nothing.

What were their reservations? Or is it asking too much for a conspiracy retard to look at information correctly?

> > And how does Boggs thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone?
>
> Gee Chuck, did you just start researching the assassination this afternoon or what? Give me a plausible reason why the head of the FBI would *ever* lie in the murder investigation of the president...which by the way is not only obstruction of justice, but treason. Give me your "scenario" on why you think that would be?

<snicker> If the tards don`t like someone they can convict them of all kinds of crimes with one word out of context. When they like someone a whole truckload of evidence isn`t enough.

> > I won't hold my breath.
>
> Nor I.

Try.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Tell us about the WCR, Chuck. Can you explain why three members of that very Commission were seriously dissatisfied with their OWN findings? So much so that Richard Russell didn't even want to sign his name to the final report? And Hale Boggs thought Hoover was a flat-out liar? Why is that?
>
> Quoting myself to show the straightforward questions Chuck cannot answer. The answer to these is he doesn't know why, or does know why (or at least the implication therein), and knows the importance of redirecting the conversation at the point. Which he does...without answering anything. That's what cowards do.

Already answered. Read the Warren Commission Report. That's my answer, it always will be my answer. Read the other supporting investigations. Just not going to play your silly games. The case against Oswald is extremely well known and accepted historically. This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, where you get to announce that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If you have something that explains away all of the evidence away from Oswald towards another individual or group BETTER than what the WC presented, I'd love to hear it.

>
>
> > Can you name a report or an investigation of that magnitude with unanimity?
>
> Hate to break it, Charlie, but when someone is found guilty it is ALWAYS unanimous. Always. It's a hung jury otherwise.

You keep making the same mistake over and over again by styling this as a criminal trial with you as a defense attorney. Kooks like you are challenging the accepted, historic narrative, backed by investigations participated in by Dems and Repubs. Put something up or STFU. All you do is pick at the work of others. This looks fishy to you. It doesn't look fishy to Ben, but this other thing looks fishy to Ben. You think a shot came from over there. Ben thinks two shots came from that direction and the bullet was found and hidden forever. This guy wrote this. Harold Weisberg said this. Oliver Stone said that. That's a very unconvincing method to turn over the null hypothesis that Oswald shot three men that day (not counting Tague), with two of the victims tragically losing their lives.

>
> > Doesn't the fact that there was some dissent point to the strength of the report and the integrity of the participants?
>
> Yes. Though if you bothered to learn anything about the Commission, it was entirely Dulles-run. Yes, the man with means, motive and opportunity spent the most hours on it, put in the most time, questioned the most witnesses, and did most of the work. Staff jokingly called it the Dulles Report. This is not hyperbolic. But of course you'll reply...what's the big deal, that the man with means, motive and opportunity to murder the president was also the one who investigated the assassination?

So Dulles was in on it? WC staff attorneys over the years have repeatedly said they were given broad latitude to pursue their segments of the investigation any way they wanted. Hardly how you'd run a fake investigation.

>
> > If "Everyone was in on it" was true, wouldn't Russell and Boggs have been told to "play ball" for the good of the country and agree in lockstep with the conclusions?
>
> They did. And because they did play ball, we can't really know if they were *told to* or not. It's a possibility you can't confirm or deny, but to speculate that it never happened. While I don't speculate it did. But I know they cooperated when the cameras were on. And they signed their names to the report, despite not wanting to. That would tell most *intelligent* people something. And naturally it tells you nothing.

It tells me the investigation was run with a good amount of integrity. The investigation wasn't perfect, just as the 9-11 Commission didn't produce a perfect body of work. I'd be suspicious if everyone agreed with everything. In fact, you'd be too. Heads you win, tails you win. Because you can "pick" at it, you think something major is being hidden. If EVERYONE agreed with it, you'd find that suspicious too. Kooks can turn any part of the case back against itself without producing anything that counters the conclusions Oswald acted alone. You hold others to an incredible high standard of proof, and you don't feel your work needs to be held to the same standards.

>
>
> > And how does Boggs thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone?
>
> Gee Chuck, did you just start researching the assassination this afternoon or what? Give me a plausible reason why the head of the FBI would *ever* lie in the murder investigation of the president...which by the way is not only obstruction of justice, but treason. Give me your "scenario" on why you think that would be?

Changing the subject. How does Bogg thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone? Take your time.

>
> > I won't hold my breath.
>
> Nor I.

Boris is another in a long line of JFK Truthers who can't (or won't) lay out a case that explains all of the evidence in the murder of JFK in a way that overturns the work done decades ago.

Where is the JFK Truther "A" team nowadays (sarcasm alert)? Walt? Tom Rossley??? Rob Caprio? Yoo Hoo!

Are you "it" Boris?

In a few years, the remaining JFK Truthers---all of you dirty, unbathed, draft dodging, pot smoking, AmeriKKKa hating, Kennedy family disrespecting, disability collecting, tinfoil hat wearing remnants from Timothy Leary's 60s USA---will have all mercifully passed on, and the JFK family will breathe a sigh of relief that your ilk can no longer continue treating as a cartoon the tragic events of that day.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Already answered. Read the Warren Commission Report. That's my answer, it always will be my answer.

Then you can *answer* as to why the main source of the Warren Commission's evidence "lied his eyes out" by the admission of one of the WC's own members, and failed to establish proper chain of custody for much of the evidence. Or is that common too in investigations?

> Read the other supporting investigations.

And the HSCA's conclusion was what?

> The case against Oswald is extremely well known and accepted historically.

Only about 50% of the public accepted the Warren Report upon publication. Now it's less than a third. And if the assassination were accepted historically, we would not be discussing it.

> This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, where you get to announce that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If you have something that explains away all of the evidence away from Oswald towards another individual or group BETTER than what the WC presented, I'd love to hear it.

You've proven ad nauseum that you would *not* love to hear it.

> >
> >
> So Dulles was in on it?

Allegedly the troll really *did* start studying the assassination this afternoon.

> WC staff attorneys over the years have repeatedly said they were given broad latitude to pursue their segments of the investigation any way they wanted. Hardly how you'd run a fake investigation.

"Any way they wanted" are exactly the key words you should focus on there, buffoon. What they wanted was not an investigation, but a persecution. That's a fact, as outlined by the Nov. 25/63 memo by LBJ's attorney general. The WC's *sole function* was to find ways to link everything to Oswald and, more importantly...**to no one else EXCEPT Oswald.** That means "no confederates." Maybe you should read the Katzenbach memo again. Or once.

>
> It tells me the investigation was run with a good amount of integrity. The investigation wasn't perfect, just as the 9-11 Commission didn't produce a perfect body of work. I'd be suspicious if everyone agreed with everything.

So you're suspicious of everything the WC *did* agree on? Interesting to know.

> > Give me a plausible reason why the head of the FBI would *ever* lie in the murder investigation of the president...which by the way is not only obstruction of justice, but treason. Give me your "scenario" on why you think that would be?
>
> Changing the subject.

Naturally, coward.

> How does Bogg thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone? Take your time.

You must not have read what I wrote. What would compel JEH to risk committing a felony and treason, just to wrap up a so-called open-and-shut case? Seems weird...well, not to you. It obviously doesn't bother Chuck that the head of an organization handling all the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in a murder investigation would LIE to the investigators about that evidence. Actually, these actions are Chuck's proof that their main suspect must have acted alone. This is reasoning for the ages.

> Where is the JFK Truther "A" team nowadays (sarcasm alert)? Walt? Tom Rossley??? Rob Caprio? Yoo Hoo!
>
> Are you "it" Boris?

You can't handle "it" Chuck. You prove that in your next paragraph, which is mostly just a butt-hurt meltdown as you fly off into full-out G. Gordon Liddy tantrum mode:

> In a few years, the remaining JFK Truthers---all of you dirty, unbathed, draft dodging, pot smoking, AmeriKKKa hating, Kennedy family disrespecting, disability collecting, tinfoil hat wearing remnants from Timothy Leary's 60s USA---will have all mercifully passed on, and the JFK family will breathe a sigh of relief that your ilk can no longer continue treating as a cartoon the tragic events of that day.

Don't forget, "lurkers", that Chuck has also called me a Holocaust denier, among other things. The above is not a mere demonstration of dislike. It's hatred. And we are to believe someone filled with this much hatred can be impartial and unbiased to tangible evidence. You're losing. And it hurts.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:14:28 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Already answered. Read the Warren Commission Report. That's my answer, it always will be my answer.
>
> Then you can *answer* as to why the main source of the Warren Commission's evidence "lied his eyes out" by the admission of one of the WC's own members, and failed to establish proper chain of custody for much of the evidence. Or is that common too in investigations?

Begging the question.

>
>
> > Read the other supporting investigations.
>
> And the HSCA's conclusion was what?

That the bullets that killed JFK and wounded JBC were fired by Oswald. The acoustics evidence hurriedly introduced in the waning days of the committee for a 4th shot fired from the knoll was overturned decades ago. Try and keep up with the latest research. You know all of this.

>
> > The case against Oswald is extremely well known and accepted historically.
>
> Only about 50% of the public accepted the Warren Report upon publication. Now it's less than a third. And if the assassination were accepted historically, we would not be discussing it.

I said accepted historically. Read for comprehension. Opinion polls, and why they are useless in solving crimes, have been discussed at this forum many times.

>
> > This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, where you get to announce that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If you have something that explains away all of the evidence away from Oswald towards another individual or group BETTER than what the WC presented, I'd love to hear it.
>
> You've proven ad nauseum that you would *not* love to hear it.

We've been waiting for decades to see what you're "side" is going put up against the principal, accepted narrative---the null hypothesis accepted historically---that Oswald killed JFK with no known help. So far, your side can't even agree whether it was the Mob, CIA, FBI, Military/Industrial Complex, the number of bullets, who fired and from where, etc. All you do is "pick" at the work in isolation, which is what a Johnny Cochrane would do. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

> > >
> > >
> > So Dulles was in on it?
>
> Allegedly the troll really *did* start studying the assassination this afternoon.

Is that a yes, or are you embarrassed to give us even a tiny hint of your theory, if you even have a theory.

>
> > WC staff attorneys over the years have repeatedly said they were given broad latitude to pursue their segments of the investigation any way they wanted. Hardly how you'd run a fake investigation.
>
> "Any way they wanted" are exactly the key words you should focus on there, buffoon. What they wanted was not an investigation, but a persecution.

Who is they? Be specific.

That's a fact, as outlined by the Nov. 25/63 memo by LBJ's attorney general. The WC's *sole function* was to find ways to link everything to Oswald and, more importantly...**to no one else EXCEPT Oswald.** That means "no confederates." Maybe you should read the Katzenbach memo again. Or once.

Maybe you should read the memo again. For comprehension. Otherwise, you are alleging Katzenbach is at least a small part of the plot, too, correct? There's an interview taped some years ago the I believe you can find on YouTube where Katzenbach explains what was meant in context about the memo. Not that it'll change your mind that thousands conspired to kill Camelot and turn America into AmeriKKKa.

>
>
> >
> > It tells me the investigation was run with a good amount of integrity. The investigation wasn't perfect, just as the 9-11 Commission didn't produce a perfect body of work. I'd be suspicious if everyone agreed with everything.
>
> So you're suspicious of everything the WC *did* agree on? Interesting to know.

Is that what you're inferring from I wrote? I said I'd be suspicious if everyone agreed with everything, you turn around and wonder if I'm suspicious of everything the WC DID agree on. More proof that dolts like you are buffs playing a game. Word games. This is a hobby to you.

>
> > > Give me a plausible reason why the head of the FBI would *ever* lie in the murder investigation of the president...which by the way is not only obstruction of justice, but treason. Give me your "scenario" on why you think that would be?
> >
> > Changing the subject.
>
> Naturally, coward.

No, you really did change the subject. And you're Begging the Question. Again. You're assuming your premise of treason is correct and asking me to support with a "plausible" reason why the head of the FBI would lie in the investigation and commit treason.

>
> > How does Bogg thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone? Take your time.
>
> You must not have read what I wrote. What would compel JEH to risk committing a felony and treason, just to wrap up a so-called open-and-shut case?

Begging the Question again.

Seems weird...well, not to you. It obviously doesn't bother Chuck that the head of an organization handling all the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in a murder investigation would LIE to the investigators about that evidence. Actually, these actions are Chuck's proof that their main suspect must have acted alone. This is reasoning for the ages.

You won't go far if you can't stop using logical fallacies.

>
>
>
> > Where is the JFK Truther "A" team nowadays (sarcasm alert)? Walt? Tom Rossley??? Rob Caprio? Yoo Hoo!
> >
> > Are you "it" Boris?
>
> You can't handle "it" Chuck. You prove that in your next paragraph, which is mostly just a butt-hurt meltdown as you fly off into full-out G. Gordon Liddy tantrum mode:
>
> > In a few years, the remaining JFK Truthers---all of you dirty, unbathed, draft dodging, pot smoking, AmeriKKKa hating, Kennedy family disrespecting, disability collecting, tinfoil hat wearing remnants from Timothy Leary's 60s USA---will have all mercifully passed on, and the JFK family will breathe a sigh of relief that your ilk can no longer continue treating as a cartoon the tragic events of that day.
>
> Don't forget, "lurkers", that Chuck has also called me a Holocaust denier, among other things. The above is not a mere demonstration of dislike. It's hatred. And we are to believe someone filled with this much hatred can be impartial and unbiased to tangible evidence. You're losing. And it hurts.

Boris the JFK Truther can accuse people of treason and murder, no problem, but throw a little admittedly ad hominem shade towards the sad-sack bunch still defending their Hero, Lee Oswald, and his feelings get all hurt. Boo Hoo.

Retreat to your safe-space.

While you're at it Johnny Cochrane, post your detailed scenario of what happened that day which ties together all of the evidence better than the work the WC did. Compare it with Ben's Zapruder film altering/body snatching/vanishing bullets fired from the other side of Dealey Plaza scenario, and after you guys agree on what occurred, I'll critique the winning submission. Explain why your work shouldn't be held to the same standards you expect the WC/HSCA, etc. to be held to.

Get busy troll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 17:53:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:07:47 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A troll is accidentally civil for a moment....
>>
>> >
>> > The case is pretty well known, Ben. Read the Warren Commission Report.
>>
>> Tell us about the WCR, Chuck. Can you explain why three members of that very Commission were seriously dissatisfied with their OWN findings? So much so that Richard Russell didn't even want to sign his name to the final report? And Hale Boggs thought Hoover was a flat-out liar? Why is that?
>
>
> Can you name a report or an investigation of that magnitude with
> unanimity?

Meaningless.

> Doesn't the fact that there was some dissent point to the
> strength of the report and the integrity of the participants?

No. Indeed, it proved precisely the opposite. Had it been reported in
the WCR, it may well have supported your claim... but they didn't...
THEY LIED ABOUT IT!

The WC intentionally lied, as Russell was to find out.

> If "Everyone was in on it" was true, wouldn't Russell and Boggs
> have been told to "play ball" for the good of the country and agree
> in lockstep with the conclusions?

This is, of course, exactly what happened.

You cannot cite any part of the WCR that shows this dissent.

> And how does Boggs thinking JEH was a "liar"
> disprove Oswald acted alone?

Logical fallacy.

>Heads you win, tails the WC loses, right?

No, we base our convictions on the EVIDENCE.

Evidence you deny even exists.


>Keep shooting spitballs.

They can't be "spitballs" if you keep running away.

> This isn't a criminal trial, Johnny Cochrane. If you have a case
> that explains all of the interlocking evidence that points to other
> people or groups other than Oswald alone, present it.

Been there, done that. You ran.

>I won't hold my breath.

Quite the coward, aren't you Chucky?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:21:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Tell us about the WCR, Chuck. Can you explain why three members of that very Commission were seriously dissatisfied with their OWN findings? So much so that Richard Russell didn't even want to sign his name to the final report? And Hale Boggs thought Hoover was a flat-out liar? Why is that?
>>
>> Quoting myself to show the straightforward questions Chuck cannot answer. The answer to these is he doesn't know why, or does know why (or at least the implication therein), and knows the importance of redirecting the conversation at the point. Which he does...without answering anything. That's what cowards do.
>
> Already answered. Read the Warren Commission Report.

If you were *honest*, you'd say: "Read the 27 Volumes."

You refuse to address the lies told by the Warren Commission.

Why is that, Chucky? What terrifies you so much?

> That's my answer, it always will be my answer.

Sad to say, you can't defend it.

> Read the other supporting investigations.

Such as the HSCA, which held to a "probable conspiracy?"

> Just not going to play your silly games.

Your cowardice is your own, has nothing to do with critics.

> The case against Oswald is extremely well known and accepted
> historically.

Provably false.

> This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, where you get to announce that if the
> glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If you have something that
> explains away all of the evidence away from Oswald towards another
> individual or group BETTER than what the WC presented, I'd love to
> hear it.

No you don't.

You can't even explain Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment" - let alone more
recent books such as the 5 volume set by Douglas Horne.

Tell us Chucky, do you think you can convince people by lying?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 4/8/2018 1:05 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Oh! And I did not notice this reply from "sen...aol.com" because the
> >> box was minimized....David Von Pein posting the EXACT SAME EIGHT
> >> QUESTIONS (you know, the ones which are apparently never
> >> answered)....answered yet again by another critic:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MpbKunKQCIQ/RUdPhSlcFTwJ
> >>
> >> What the hell is wrong with you, David? How many times do your
> >> lame-ass questions have to "not" be answered?
> >
> > More importantly, why is David so incredibly DISHONEST not to publicly
> > acknowledge that his questions have been answered every time they've
> > been posted?
> >
> > EVERY.
> >
> > SINGLE.
> >
> > TIME.
> >
>
> One more retard and you can circle jerk!

Sit down little guy. DVP getting his ass kicked is no reason for you to make a fool out of yourself. Unless, of course you have a penchant for same. Focus on the evidence tootsie-roll. Case evidence...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 05:43:55 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:14:28 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Already answered. Read the Warren Commission Report. That's my answer, it always will be my answer.
>>
>> Then you can *answer* as to why the main source of the Warren
>> Commission's evidence "lied his eyes out" by the admission of one of
>> the WC's own members, and failed to establish proper chain of custody
>> for much of the evidence. Or is that common too in investigations?
>
>Begging the question.

No, it's not. I've gone into explicit detail on more than one
occasion... so you *KNOW* these to be facts. You can run, Chucky, but
you can't hide in a public forum.

>> > Read the other supporting investigations.
>>
>> And the HSCA's conclusion was what?
>
> That the bullets that killed JFK and wounded JBC were fired by
> Oswald.

It's amusing that you knew the answer, and refused to give it.

> The acoustics evidence hurriedly introduced in the waning days
> of the committee for a 4th shot fired from the knoll was overturned
> decades ago. Try and keep up with the latest research. You know all of
> this.

And was, in return, refuted...

Try to keep up, Chucky...

Indeed, the common whining by believers that it was *ONLY* this fourth
shot evidence that led to the charge of probable conspiracy is a
provable lie. You know that, right?

>> > The case against Oswald is extremely well known and accepted historically.
>>
>> Only about 50% of the public accepted the Warren Report upon
>> publication. Now it's less than a third. And if the assassination were
>> accepted historically, we would not be discussing it.
>
> I said accepted historically.

Yet refused to say BY WHOM.

Nitpicking who "accepted" it simply shows that you know you're a liar.


> Read for comprehension.


**ANYONE** can note that you failed to say who it was that "accepted
historically" the case against Oswald.

And when someone points this out, you whine.

> Opinion polls, and why they are useless in solving crimes, have been
> discussed at this forum many times.

And they'll *CONTINUE* to be brought up every time you lie about it.

>>> This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, where you get to announce
>>> that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If you have something
>>> that explains away all of the evidence away from Oswald towards
>>> another individual or group BETTER than what the WC presented, I'd
>>> love to hear it.
>>
>> You've proven ad nauseum that you would *not* love to hear it.
>
>
> We've been waiting for decades to see what you're "side" is going
> put up against the principal, accepted narrative---the null hypothesis
> accepted historically

"Accepted" by who?

WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD, CHUCKY!??

> ---that Oswald killed JFK with no known help.

Actually, the last investigation concluded otherwise.

> So far, your side can't even agree whether it was the Mob, CIA, FBI,
> Military/Industrial Complex, the number of bullets, who fired and from
> where, etc.

The evidence is contradictory... *WE* acknowledge that fact. You
refuse to do so.

Now, which frame was the SBT?

And why can't believers agree?

Why are you a provable hypocrite?

> All you do is "pick" at the work in isolation, which is
> what a Johnny Cochrane would do. If the glove doesn't fit, you must
> acquit.

All we do is the same thing the Warren Commission did - examine the
evidence.

*WE* on the other hand, don't have to cover up for the sake of the
country.

>> > So Dulles was in on it?
>>
>> Allegedly the troll really *did* start studying the assassination this afternoon.
>
> Is that a yes, or are you embarrassed to give us even a tiny hint of
> your theory, if you even have a theory.

Do you have even enough character to be embarrassed that Dulles was
even placed on the Warren Commission?

Do you have enough honesty to publicly acknowledge what a mistake this
was?

>>> WC staff attorneys over the years have repeatedly said they were
>>> given broad latitude to pursue their segments of the investigation any
>>> way they wanted. Hardly how you'd run a fake investigation.
>>
>> "Any way they wanted" are exactly the key words you should focus
>> on there, buffoon. What they wanted was not an investigation, but a
>> persecution.
>
>Who is they? Be specific.

You can start with those who wrote the outline for the Warren
Commission before it started.

RUN COWARD... RUN!!!

>> That's a fact, as outlined by the Nov. 25/63 memo by LBJ's attorney
>> general. The WC's *sole function* was to find ways to link everything
>> to Oswald and, more importantly...**to no one else EXCEPT Oswald.**
>> That means "no confederates." Maybe you should read the Katzenbach
>> memo again. Or once.
>
> Maybe you should read the memo again. For comprehension. Otherwise,
> you are alleging Katzenbach is at least a small part of the plot, too,
> correct? There's an interview taped some years ago the I believe you
> can find on YouTube where Katzenbach explains what was meant in
> context about the memo. Not that it'll change your mind that thousands
> conspired to kill Camelot and turn America into AmeriKKKa.

When you're forced to blatantly lie, you've demonstrated your
knowledge of the weakness of your case.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:14:28 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Already answered. Read the Warren Commission Report. That's my answer, it always will be my answer.
>
> Then you can *answer* as to why the main source of the Warren Commission's evidence "lied his eyes out" by the admission of one of the WC's own members, and failed to establish proper chain of custody for much of the evidence. Or is that common too in investigations?

Critic criticize, thats all they can do. They can`t offer anything more reasonable for consideration.

> > Read the other supporting investigations.
>
> And the HSCA's conclusion was what?

That Lee Harvey Oswald, shooting from the TSBD inflicted all the wounds on the occupants of the limo. Being retarded you will insist on looking at the wrong things.

> > The case against Oswald is extremely well known and accepted historically.
>
> Only about 50% of the public accepted the Warren Report upon publication.

How many read it?

> Now it's less than a third.

How many people believe in angels?

> And if the assassination were accepted historically, we would not be discussing it.

The history books will reflect the WC`s findings, whether we discuss it here or not.

> > This isn't a trial, Johnny Cochrane, where you get to announce that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If you have something that explains away all of the evidence away from Oswald towards another individual or group BETTER than what the WC presented, I'd love to hear it.
>
> You've proven ad nauseum that you would *not* love to hear it.
> > >
> > >
> > So Dulles was in on it?
>
> Allegedly the troll really *did* start studying the assassination this afternoon.

Include Dulles` participation in this huge, far reaching conspiracy you envision. Include everyone and include everyone`s actions to further the cause. Then produce it. Even you might not be too far gone to see how ridiculous it is.

> > WC staff attorneys over the years have repeatedly said they were given broad latitude to pursue their segments of the investigation any way they wanted. Hardly how you'd run a fake investigation.
>
> "Any way they wanted" are exactly the key words you should focus on there, buffoon. What they wanted was not an investigation, but a persecution. That's a fact, as outlined by the Nov. 25/63 memo by LBJ's attorney general.

Who was Katzenbach`s boss? And what was Bill Moyer`s job to facilitate this cover-up you imagine? How does this memo translate into specific instructions for the field agents needed to implement a cover-up? And how was that army kept silent all these years?

Retards have been using things like the Katzenbach memo as an excuse for them to believe stupid shit for way to long.

> The WC's *sole function* was to find ways to link everything to Oswald and, more importantly...**to no one else EXCEPT Oswald.** That means "no confederates."

If you read it for comprehension you`d see it was in response to specific concerns, the DPD speculation that the commies were behind it and the commies trying to spin it into the right wing being behind it. Katzenbach was very astute about the problems that were going to occur when everyone starting fingerpainting this event to suit their own agendas. His mistake was thinking this was something that could be prevented.

> Maybe you should read the Katzenbach memo again. Or once.

Perhaps you can explain how this can be achieved by releasing "all facts".

> >
> > It tells me the investigation was run with a good amount of integrity. The investigation wasn't perfect, just as the 9-11 Commission didn't produce a perfect body of work. I'd be suspicious if everyone agreed with everything.
>
> So you're suspicious of everything the WC *did* agree on? Interesting to know.

You couldn`t understand the simple concept that was expressed?

> > > Give me a plausible reason why the head of the FBI would *ever* lie in the murder investigation of the president...which by the way is not only obstruction of justice, but treason. Give me your "scenario" on why you think that would be?
> >
> > Changing the subject.
>
> Naturally, coward.

You have nothing to offer but criticisms.

> > How does Bogg thinking JEH was a "liar" disprove Oswald acted alone? Take your time.
>
> You must not have read what I wrote. What would compel JEH to risk committing a felony and treason, just to wrap up a so-called open-and-shut case?

Circular argument.

> Seems weird...well, not to you. It obviously doesn't bother Chuck that the head of an organization handling all the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in a murder investigation would LIE to the investigators about that evidence.

For instance?

> Actually, these actions are Chuck's proof that their main suspect must have acted alone. This is reasoning for the ages.

Focusing on the investigation in order to distract and misdirect away from the obviously guilty party worked wonders for the OJ Simpson defense.

>
> > Where is the JFK Truther "A" team nowadays (sarcasm alert)? Walt? Tom Rossley??? Rob Caprio? Yoo Hoo!
> >
> > Are you "it" Boris?
>
> You can't handle "it" Chuck. You prove that in your next paragraph, which is mostly just a butt-hurt meltdown as you fly off into full-out G. Gordon Liddy tantrum mode:
>
> > In a few years, the remaining JFK Truthers---all of you dirty, unbathed, draft dodging, pot smoking, AmeriKKKa hating, Kennedy family disrespecting, disability collecting, tinfoil hat wearing remnants from Timothy Leary's 60s USA---will have all mercifully passed on, and the JFK family will breathe a sigh of relief that your ilk can no longer continue treating as a cartoon the tragic events of that day.
>
> Don't forget, "lurkers", that Chuck has also called me a Holocaust denier, among other things. The above is not a mere demonstration of dislike. It's hatred.

What is the whole driving force behind the conspiracy hobby if not hatred of the government? Why does Dulles get devil horns if not because he is a right winger?

> And we are to believe someone filled with this much hatred can be impartial and unbiased to tangible evidence. You're losing. And it hurts.

We can`t lose. Your whole hobby will be delegated to, at best, a footnote in history books. Unless you can get A) Tangible results, or B) are able to put a more compelling explanation of this event on the table for consideration. Neither are going to happen. The reason you folks have gone nowhere is simple, there was really never anywhere for you to go.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Do you have even enough character to be embarrassed that Dulles was
> even placed on the Warren Commission?

Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard" was a really comprehensive and in-depth read about Allen Dulles. His criminal influence is so far-reaching, the Kennedy assassination is barely a blip on this guy's personal history. It's amusing that believers who clearly don't know anything about Dulles and the things he's done defend him so vehemently, just because he was on the WC. It also amuses me when the trolls trash the book as "CT nonsense," as it's so obvious they didn't read it, because barely a quarter of that book is even about the assassination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:22:17 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

You need nothing more than the fact that believers have no problems
whatsoever in appointed a man FIRED by JFK to the Commission.

This *ONE* fact - that believers find no problems with this - shows
their complete and utter dishonesty.

[Bud]

The fact that these retards cover up for the guy who FIRED a bullet into JFK`s head show their complete and utter retardation, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > You need nothing more than the fact that believers have no problems
> > whatsoever in appointed a man FIRED by JFK to the Commission.
> >
> > This *ONE* fact - that believers find no problems with this - shows
> > their complete and utter dishonesty.
>
> The fact that these retards cover up for the guy who FIRED a bullet into JFK`s head show their complete and utter retardation, lurkers.

You're embarrassing yourself, defending someone like Allen Dulles. Of course, you'd defend Mussolini's integrity if he'd been on the Warren Commission. You'd have to. Which is sad, and really compromises your own integrity. Please give up.

[David Von Pein]

If Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer had all served on the Warren Commission, it still wouldn't change all the evidence of Oswald's (double) guilt into evidence of *someone else's* guilt. How could it? There's way too much stuff on the "LHO Did It" table that proves his guilt---regardless of *WHO* examined that evidence later on for the U.S. Government. And it isn't the *WC's Evidence* (as many CTers seem to like to suggest). The WC didn't collect a single item of evidence that hangs Oswald. The WC merely evaluated and examined that evidence.

So, even if Dulles, McCloy, and Ford ("The Troika", as Jim DiEugenio enjoys calling them) were all rotten lying scumbags (which I don't think for a minute they were), it still doesn't change all this evidence into proof of somebody else's guilt. Lee Oswald is guilty no matter *who* sat on Earl Warren's commission....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:31:31 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You need nothing more than the fact that believers have no problems
>> > > whatsoever in appointed a man FIRED by JFK to the Commission.
>> > >
>> > > This *ONE* fact - that believers find no problems with this - shows
>> > > their complete and utter dishonesty.
>> >
>>> The fact that these retards cover up for the guy who FIRED a
>>> bullet into JFK`s head show their complete and utter retardation,
>>> lurkers.
>>
>> You're embarrassing yourself, defending someone like Allen Dulles.
>> Of course, you'd defend Mussolini's integrity if he'd been on the
>> Warren Commission. You'd have to. Which is sad, and really compromises
>> your own integrity. Please give up.
>
> If Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer had
> all served on the Warren Commission, it still wouldn't change all the
> evidence of Oswald's (double) guilt into evidence of *someone else's*
> guilt.

Nor would it change your absent complaint of such members.

Just as you refuse to publicly acknowledge the INCREDIBLE stupidity of
putting someone who'd been *FIRED* by JFK on a panel to find the
truth... it wouldn't matter to you at all (as you've just indicated)
to have the scum of the Earth on the WC.

You really don't care for honesty & truth.

You really believe that the most dishonest and character starved
people in the world can duplicate the same results as honest people.

That *ONE* fact is an indictment of *YOUR* character and intelligence.


> How could it?


That you believe honest people will come to the exact same conclusions
as the scum of the earth shows how badly you want to believe.

It shows a rather sad level of intelligence.

> There's way too much stuff on the "LHO Did It" table that proves
> his guilt---regardless of *WHO* examined that evidence
> later on for the U.S. Government.

And yet, you refuse to cite it.

You refuse to defend it against critical AND CREDIBLE review.

Why is that, David?

Why the cowardice?

Why do you lose every time you try?

> And it isn't the *WC's Evidence* (as many CTers seem to like to
> suggest).

Since you virtually *NEVER* address the evidence from the HSCA and
ARRB, yes, it's completely credible to deal with the evidence that you
*WILL* pretend is authoritative.

> The WC didn't collect a single item of evidence that hangs Oswald.
> The WC merely evaluated and examined that evidence.

Good! So we can throw out *ALL* of the testimony.


But, of course, you don't really mean that. You'd be *LOST* without
the evidence that the Warren Commission *gathered* as well as
"evaluated."

> So, even if Dulles, McCloy, and Ford ("The Troika", as Jim DiEugenio
> enjoys calling them) were all rotten lying scumbags (which I don't
> think for a minute they were), it still doesn't change all this
> evidence into proof of somebody else's guilt. Lee Oswald is guilty no
> matter *who* sat on Earl Warren's commission....
>

>[Lying website reference snipped]


Then it wouldn't bother you to have me on your jury, right?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

<Ben's nonsense snipped>

Maybe Bobby Kennedy was in on the cover-up?


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/WalterJenkins11-29-63.pdf

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:03:58 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

><Ben's nonsense snipped>

Snip away coward... you can't answer it anyway.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Looks like Bobby Kennedy was fine with Dulles being on the "Blue Ribbon" panel to investigate his own brother's death.

You really need to retire from this hobby.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Looks like Bobby Kennedy was fine with Dulles being on the "Blue Ribbon" panel to investigate his own brother's death.
>

And we all know how Bobby Kennedy fared. Tell us, is your support of Allen Dulles willful ignorance, or is scum just incapable of recognizing fellow scum?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 9:30:48 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Looks like Bobby Kennedy was fine with Dulles being on the "Blue Ribbon" panel to investigate his own brother's death.
> >
> And we all know how Bobby Kennedy fared. Tell us, is your support of Allen Dulles willful ignorance, or is scum just incapable of recognizing fellow scum?

No ad hominem from Boris!

So now Boris the Truther is going to connect Bobby's assassination with the JFK assassination? I'll bet you can find a 9-11 connection too!

Wow!

Check under your bed in mommy's basement tonight for secret agents, Truther!!!! Everyone is after you! It's all a secret plot!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> No ad hominem from Boris!
>
> So now Boris the Truther is going to connect Bobby's assassination with the JFK assassination? I'll bet you can find a 9-11 connection too!
>
> Wow!
>
> Check under your bed in mommy's basement tonight for secret agents, Truther!!!! Everyone is after you! It's all a secret plot!

Well you've just insulted Vincent Bugliosi. He believed the RFK assassination was a conspiracy. Now you're in a quandary.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Your speculation isn't evidence.

>You really need to retire from this hobby.

You're doing fine on the side of believers... speculation is their
bread & butter.

But you CAN'T debate the actual topic... so you snip and run.

WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE CHUCKY!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:56:52 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

This is probably a good time to repeat a golden oldie:

There are a few nuts around here that like to quote VB... so I thought
perhaps it's time to do some authentic Bugliosi quotes myself:

Asking a judge to take judicial notice (with reference to the
overwhelming concern of Americans about unresolved questions of
conspiracy: "They want to know if there is a pernicious force alive in
this land, which is threatening to destroy our representative form of
government by systematically orchestrating the cutting down of those
Presidents or candidates for President who espouse political
philosophies antithetical to theirs." pg 184

To newsmen at a press conference:
VB: "Gentlemen, the time for us to keep looking for additional bullets
in this case has passed. The time has come for us to start looking for
the members of the firing squad that night."
Q: "Does all this mean that Sirhan is not guilty?"
VB: "No, not at all. Sirhan is as guilty as sin, and his conviction
was a proper one. But just because Sirhan is guilty does not
automatically exclude the possibility that more than one gun was fired
at the assassination scene." pg 191

"I think the court can take judicial notice that the whole tone, the
whole tenor in this country at this particular moment is that there is
a tremendous distrust, there is a tremendous suspicion, there is a
tremendous skepticism about whether or not people like Oswald and
Sirhan acted alone, and many, many people, many substantial people - I
am not talking about conspiracy buffs who see a conspiracy behind
every tree - many, many substantial people feel that Sirhan did not
act alone, that he did act in concert." ...

"No one is going to say that they saw Mr. Owen pull the trigger and
shoot Senator Kennedy. We intend to offer evidence from which a very
strong inference could be drawn that possibly Mr. Owen was a
co-conspirator in this case." ... "I have to say, as a prosecutor for
eight years I find it extremely strange that the LAPD would not want
this information [on the LAPD investigation of Mr. Owen] at this point
to be public. I find it very strange indeed. If Owen was not involved,
as LAPD, I assume, has concluded, there is no conceivable reason under
the moon why they shouldn't permit us to look at those records."
(Despite a court order to produce them, the LAPD successfully refused
to do so) pg 248

Bugliosi, making an "offer of proof to the judge:
"There is some evidence in this case, and we will put the evidence on,
which smacks of a possible cover-up. And I am not using the word
cover-up because it's a word that's fashionable right now, but there
are some strange things that happened in this case, and I will mention
just a few of them to you. The most obvious thing is something that
happened in this very courtroom about thirty minutes ago. An officer
from the LAPD took the witness stand and testified that he could find
no records on Jerry Owen over at the Los Angeles Police Department in
response to a subpoena duces tecum. It is a matter of common
knowledge, your Honor, that Jerry Owen was investigated by the LAPD.
If the court will give us time we will present documentary evidence
that he was investigated by the LAPD. A book was written by the chief
detective in this case, I think the name of the book was Special Unit
Senator, in which pages upon pages are devoted to Jerry Owen. And yet
we have an officer from the LAPD taking the witness stand and
searching for the records for an entire day and coming up with nothing
on Jerry Owen. That's the first point.." pg 253-254

VB asserted that it was not necessary to present "a tape recorded
conversation between Owen and Sirhan in which Owen is saying, 'I want
you to bump off Kennedy for me.' Conspiracies are proven bit by bit,
speck by speck, brick by brick, until all of a sudden you have a
mosaic. They are proven by circumstantial evidence. Conspiracies are
conceived in shadowy recesses. They are not hatched on television in
front of 5,000,000 witnesses." pg 304

VB: "If Owen's story is just a silly Alice in Wonderland concoction to
focus some cheap attention on himself, your Honor, and Powers lied on
that witness stand, how come everyone is in fear in this case? Owen, I
believe, testified that people are making death threats against him,
which would be compatible with the notion that he was a lowly
operative in the conspiracy, and people up above are the ones making
the threats." pg 305

"This young lad, Johnny Beckley, flees for his life. Bill Powers has
to be brought into court with a crane. Jonn Christian, no one can find
him. I don't think this is typical. I have handled many murder cases,
but I have never seen a case where so many people are frightened. Are
these things all meaningless? Are these people all cuckoo birds?" pg
305

"Who knows where we might have been able to take this case if things
had been different? But there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of now:
this case [RFK's assassination] has to be reopened and re-examined,
from top to bottom - and not by those law enforcement officials who
gave us the original conclusions either." pg 308

All references are from "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - The
Conspiracy and Coverup" by William Turner & Jonn Christian, paperback
edition 2006.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Great quotes, thank you!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

And even if true (it's absolutely not true), how is this connected to the murder of his brother?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's your job to make a positive case that ties together all of the evidence into a cohesive narrative that supplants the null hypothesis---Oswald alone, no help.

Good luck with that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:14:14 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Coward that Chucky is, he cannot deny these quotes from Bugliosi:

Chucky has *NOTHING* to support his belief... and is too much a coward
to explain this evidence from Bugliosi himself.