Does Their Exist...

[Ben Holmes]

Does their exist anywhere online a critic who braces believers on their lies, cites the evidence, and shows the Warren Commission for the fraud that it is that will not be labeled "mentally ill" by believers?

Does their exist anywhere online in any forum a person who accepts the Warren Commission - yet is an honest person who will not post a provable lie?

Does their exist a believer anywhere online that will tell David Von Pein publicly that he's a liar when it comes to asserting that Guinn's tests supported the Warren Commission?

[Jason Burke]

Does there exist anywhere online someone who can diagnose Homey-boy's
psychosis?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:02:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Does their exist anywhere online a critic who braces believers on their lies, cites the evidence, and shows the Warren Commission for the fraud that it is that will not be labeled "mentally ill" by believers?

Conspiracy retards have to stop criticizing what other have done and put something on the table for consideration. Until they can do that the WC wins by default.

If Ben were to put what he believe happened in this event on the table for consideration it would clearly be the work of a twisted and irrational manner of thinking.

> Does their exist anywhere online in any forum a person who accepts the Warren Commission - yet is an honest person who will not post a provable lie?

Provable to who? I`ve proven Mark Lane has lied. I`ve proven that you have lied. You`ve appointed yourself the judge of honesty, which is as absurd as it gets.

> Does their exist a believer anywhere online that will tell David Von Pein publicly that he's a liar when it comes to asserting that Guinn's tests supported the Warren Commission?

You should put your ideas about how the NAA tests exonerate Oswald on the table for consideration.

If Ben had valid and supportable ideas, why does he need to take the approach of employing loaded questions couched with very carefully selected words?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:34:35 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:02:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Does their exist anywhere online a critic who braces believers on their lies, cites the evidence, and shows the Warren Commission for the fraud that it is that will not be labeled "mentally ill" by believers?
>
> Conspiracy retards have to stop criticizing what other have done and put something on the table for consideration. Until they can do that the WC wins by default.

The question was a simple one, and "Bud" ducked it.

So "Bud's" answer is "no, there's no critic that will not be denigrated by believers.

This fact shows that believers can't debate with knowledgeable critics...

> If Ben were to put what he believe happened in this event on the table for consideration it would clearly be the work of a twisted and irrational manner of thinking.

Already did. With JUST AS MUCH detail and with JUST AS MANY CITATIONS TO THE EVIDENCE as was posted by a believer.

Coward, aren't you "Bud?"

You keep asking me for something *YOU* refuse to provide, and that I've provably already provided.

> > Does their exist anywhere online in any forum a person who accepts the Warren Commission - yet is an honest person who will not post a provable lie?
>
> Provable to who?

An example from today... Mark claimed that the Warren Commission Report described the "lemonade" episode ... simply cite where they did.

If you cannot, THEN IT'S A PROVABLE LIE.

See how easy that is?

> I`ve proven Mark Lane has lied.

Cite it.

But you won't...

> I`ve proven that you have lied.

Cite it.

But you won't...

>You`ve appointed yourself the judge of honesty, which is as absurd as it gets.

I'm probably one of the few in this forum who *could* be.


But ... of course... this was another question you ducked...

Why the cowardice, "Bud?"

> > Does their exist a believer anywhere online that will tell David Von Pein publicly that he's a liar when it comes to asserting that Guinn's tests supported the Warren Commission?
>
> You should put your ideas about how the NAA tests exonerate Oswald on the table for consideration.

Tut tut tut, "Bud." No changing of the topic.

The answer to the question is clearly "no."

> If Ben had valid and supportable ideas, why does he need to take the approach of employing loaded questions couched with very carefully selected words?

Nothing "loaded" about 'em at all.

For example, if believers were *HONEST* - they'd be able to debate critics on the basis of the evidence, and not on the basis of ad hominem.

If you *could* name critics who aren't constantly denigrated with ad hominem insults from believers - this would show one thing.

The fact that you cannot... shows something quite different.

You lost!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:34:35 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:02:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Does their exist anywhere online a critic who braces believers on their lies, cites the evidence, and shows the Warren Commission for the fraud that it is that will not be labeled "mentally ill" by believers?
> >
> > Conspiracy retards have to stop criticizing what other have done and put something on the table for consideration. Until they can do that the WC wins by default.
>
> The question was a simple one, and "Bud" ducked it.
>
> So "Bud's" answer is "no, there's no critic that will not be denigrated by believers.

They denigrate themselves. Grown men playing silly kid games with the deaths of these men. You are exhibit "A".

> This fact shows that believers can't debate with knowledgeable critics...

You can`t reason with retards.

> > If Ben were to put what he believe happened in this event on the table for consideration it would clearly be the work of a twisted and irrational manner of thinking.
>
>
> Already did.

Did you really? Did you mention how you think the autopsy photos were faked, the x-rays were faked, the film footage take of the event was faked? Did you mention that you think the DPD was willing to let the murderer of one of there own go free in order to frame Oswald? Did you mention the hundreds of people you think risked careers, reputation and freedom to frame Oswald? And even all this is just the tip of the retard iceberg.

> With JUST AS MUCH detail and with JUST AS MANY CITATIONS TO THE EVIDENCE as was posted by a believer.
>
> Coward, aren't you "Bud?"

It only seems that way because you are retarded.

> You keep asking me for something *YOU* refuse to provide, and that I've provably already provided.

Nonsense. You didn`t scratch the surface of your crackpot ideas.

> > > Does their exist anywhere online in any forum a person who accepts the Warren Commission - yet is an honest person who will not post a provable lie?
> >
> > Provable to who?
>
> An example from today... Mark claimed that the Warren Commission Report described the "lemonade" episode ... simply cite where they did.
>
> If you cannot, THEN IT'S A PROVABLE LIE.
>
> See how easy that is?
>
>
> > I`ve proven Mark Lane has lied.
>
> Cite it.
>
> But you won't...

How many times now?

>
>
> > I`ve proven that you have lied.
>
>
> Cite it.
>
> But you won't...

How many times now?

Do I need for you to accept it? I think not.

> >You`ve appointed yourself the judge of honesty, which is as absurd as it gets.
>
> I'm probably one of the few in this forum who *could* be.

Bob Harris picked up on your lie right away.

>
> But ... of course... this was another question you ducked...
>
> Why the cowardice, "Bud?"

I make the points I want to make.

> > > Does their exist a believer anywhere online that will tell David Von Pein publicly that he's a liar when it comes to asserting that Guinn's tests supported the Warren Commission?
> >
> > You should put your ideas about how the NAA tests exonerate Oswald on the table for consideration.
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud." No changing of the topic.

I make the points I want to make. Your inability to make that case shows the weakness of your position.

> The answer to the question is clearly "no."
>
>
> > If Ben had valid and supportable ideas, why does he need to take the approach of employing loaded questions couched with very carefully selected words?
>
> Nothing "loaded" about 'em at all.

Of course there is. Every question you ask is either a begged question, a loaded question or both. You know you can`t make you case by just putting your ideas on the table for consideration. Your ideas suck and you know it.

> For example, if believers were *HONEST* - they'd be able to debate critics on the basis of the evidence, and not on the basis of ad hominem.

You don`t want a debate, Ben, you aren`t honest enough for that. You want to ask begged and loaded questions and make pronouncements. You want to narrowly define what can be talked about and won`t discuss the real issues. Most of what you want to talk about has precious little to do with whether Oswald took his rifle to his work and assassinated Kennedy with it from there.

> If you *could* name critics who aren't constantly denigrated with ad hominem insults from believers - this would show one thing.

Every "critic" has done the same thing. Spent years of their lives and lots of money on conspiracy books with the purpose of supporting the retard fantasy that Oswald was innocent. I didn`t make them retards, they choose this path, they adopted this ridiculous hobby.

> The fact that you cannot... shows something quite different.
>
> You lost!

Can`t lose. You guys have nothing to put on the table.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:53:14 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:34:35 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:02:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Does their exist anywhere online a critic who braces believers on their lies, cites the evidence, and shows the Warren Commission for the fraud that it is that will not be labeled "mentally ill" by believers?
> > >
> > > Conspiracy retards have to stop criticizing what other have done and put something on the table for consideration. Until they can do that the WC wins by default.
> >
> > The question was a simple one, and "Bud" ducked it.
> >
> > So "Bud's" answer is "no, there's no critic that will not be denigrated by believers.
>
> They denigrate themselves.

You prove my point.

[Bud]

You prove mine.