Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #11

[Ben Holmes]

Continuing in this series exposing David Von Pein a liar, here's the
next item, and it's refutation:

> 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21,
> 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
> Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
>
> But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
> DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
> questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
> Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
> 22.
>
> Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
> mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
> Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.
>
> Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
> woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
> -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?

Once again, we have an item that doesn't show Oswald as the assassin,
let alone showing him as the "sole" assassin.

David REPEATEDLY makes the mistake of providing "evidence" that has
absolutely *NOTHING* to do with his claim.

And so far, not a SINGLE believer has been honest enough to state that
David has not supported his claim.

Nor have any believers offered a credible defense of David (David
himself runs from most of these refutations.)



So, let's go into more detail:

> 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday,

No, he'd made such trips before. Therefore it's only "unusual" in the
mind of someone desperate for anything at all to validate their faith.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald had ever been spotted
jaywalking to weave that "fact" into support for his "guilt."

Nor would such a visit, EVEN **IF** IT HAD BEEN UNIQUE, AND THEREFORE
"UNUSUAL," indict him in a murder days later. Only twisted speculation
does this.


> November 21,
> 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
> Ruth Paine's garage the following day.

Tut tut tut, David. You can't place any "rifle" there in the Paine's
garage, so what you can't show as being there cannot then be missing
later.

This is a nearly NON-STOP practice of believers... -speculation- you
cannot demonstrate by credible and reasonable evidence, so you are
constantly *SPECULATING* on how something happened.


> But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
> DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
> questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
> Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
> 22.


And the curtain rods which *WERE* found, were anathema to the Warren
Commission.

Can any believer offer a *credible* reason for this?


> Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
> mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
> Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.

How silly of you!

That you somehow believe that a person must constantly be telling
everyone around him what he's doing, what he's thinking, etc... it
just *CRAZY*.

I daresay that with similar information about *YOUR* recent actions &
deeds, I could easily convict you of a local murder.

But honest people don't think this way...


> Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
> woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
> -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?

No.

I see no particular reason to accept your speculations and
presumptions.

Once again we see that David has UTTERLY FAILED to support his "sole
guilt" conclusion... and not a single believer will address that fact,
or even *acknowledge* this to be true.

[Bud]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Continuing in this series exposing David Von Pein a liar, here's the
> next item, and it's refutation:

Ben doesn`t understand what the word "refutation" means, lurkers.

> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21,
> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
> >
> > But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
> > DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
> > questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
> > 22.
> >
> > Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
> > mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
> > Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.
> >
> > Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
> > woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
> > -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?
>
> Once again, we have an item that doesn't show Oswald as the assassin,
> let alone showing him as the "sole" assassin.

Once again we don`t see Ben refuting a single thing DVP said, lurkers.

> David REPEATEDLY makes the mistake of providing "evidence" that has
> absolutely *NOTHING* to do with his claim.
>
> And so far, not a SINGLE believer has been honest enough to state that
> David has not supported his claim.
>
> Nor have any believers offered a credible defense of David (David
> himself runs from most of these refutations.)
>
>
>
> So, let's go into more detail:
>
> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday,
>
> No, he'd made such trips before.

"unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before, lurkers. It is unusual for planes to crash, but it does happen. This is a strawman argument, where the actual argument made (unusual) is change to something else (never made before) and that created argument is addressed as if it is the argument made. Classic strawman, but Ben will lie, and say it isn`t a strawman at all. He loves to lie.

> Therefore it's only "unusual" in the
> mind of someone desperate for anything at all to validate their faith.

Retards like to pretend that nothing Oswald did is significant, lurkers, what could matter less?

> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald had ever been spotted
> jaywalking to weave that "fact" into support for his "guilt."

The tards have no ability to reason or think critically and are the least suited people to conduct a real investigation on the planet, lurkers.

> Nor would such a visit, EVEN **IF** IT HAD BEEN UNIQUE, AND THEREFORE
> "UNUSUAL," indict him in a murder days later. Only twisted speculation
> does this.

Lurkers, Oswald made a special trip to where his rifle was kept, he left there carrying a long package which he took to his work where his rifle was later found. This is "twisted speculation" to these stumps. They want to pretend this case is a mystery, its a free country, let them pretend.

> > November 21,
> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
>
> Tut tut tut, David. You can't place any "rifle" there in the Paine's
> garage, so what you can't show as being there cannot then be missing
> later.

Oswald`s wife placed the rifle there, lurkers. She took the police into the garage because that is where she knew her husband to keep a rifle.

> This is a nearly NON-STOP practice of believers... -speculation- you
> cannot demonstrate by credible and reasonable evidence, so you are
> constantly *SPECULATING* on how something happened.

We weigh the evidence correctly and draw reasonable conclusions from that evidence, lurkers. The tards are suspicious of this because they can`t do it.

> > But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
> > DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
> > questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
> > 22.
>
>
> And the curtain rods which *WERE* found, were anathema to the Warren
> Commission.

Empty claim, lurkers.

> Can any believer offer a *credible* reason for this?

Shifting the burden, lurkers.

> > Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
> > mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
> > Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.
>
> How silly of you!

It would be silly to involve either woman in the cover story Oswald used to sneak his rifle into work, lurkers. They weren`t necessary, only Frazier needed to be given the cover story.

> That you somehow believe that a person must constantly be telling
> everyone around him what he's doing, what he's thinking, etc... it
> just *CRAZY*.

Just *crazy* to think that Oswald might get some support on the stories he is telling, lurkers. Somehow to the retards these stories are even *more* believable with no support.

> I daresay that with similar information about *YOUR* recent actions &
> deeds, I could easily convict you of a local murder.

This stump has no understanding of criminal investigation, lurkers. Absolutely none. Far and away the most normal and natural expectation would be if Oswald went there for curtain rods that one or both of these woman would know about it. In fact I can`t think of a single thing Oswald ever said that he offered independent confirmation of what he said ("just ask my wife!", "Just ask my boss", "Just ask my coworkers"). In fact, in some cases you don`t get support, what you get is conflict, like with Frazier about the bag.

> But honest people don't think this way...

We don`t think like these retards think, lurkers.

>
> > Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
> > woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
> > -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?
>
> No.
>
> I see no particular reason to accept your speculations and
> presumptions.

Ben shows once more he is a stump, lurkers. It is almost inconceivable that it wouldn`t come up.

> Once again we see that David has UTTERLY FAILED to support his "sole
> guilt" conclusion... and not a single believer will address that fact,
> or even *acknowledge* this to be true.

Watch as Ben refuses to acknowledge that he lies constantly, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Continuing in this series exposing David Von Pein a liar, here's the
>> next item, and it's refutation:
>
> Ben doesn`t understand what the word "refutation" means, lurkers.

I understand it quite well.

I could take this item to court, and no jury in the land would convict
Oswald of *JAYWALKING* based on this post. I really didn't need to say
anything at all. David's post is *self-refuting* to anyone looking for
the evidence.

David has UTTERLY FAILED to show the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

>> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday, November 21,
>> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
>> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
>> >
>> > But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
>> > DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
>> > questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
>> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
>> > 22.
>> >
>> > Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
>> > mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
>> > Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.
>> >
>> > Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
>> > woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
>> > -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?
>>
>> Once again, we have an item that doesn't show Oswald as the assassin,
>> let alone showing him as the "sole" assassin.
>
> Once again we don`t see Ben refuting a single thing DVP said, lurkers.

Just did. Went *RIGHT* over your head. Tell us stump, are you *really*
this ignorant, or are you just pretending?

>> David REPEATEDLY makes the mistake of providing "evidence" that has
>> absolutely *NOTHING* to do with his claim.
>>
>> And so far, not a SINGLE believer has been honest enough to state that
>> David has not supported his claim.
>>
>> Nor have any believers offered a credible defense of David (David
>> himself runs from most of these refutations.)

Dead silence... dufus couldn't think of an explanation for why David
himself refuses to defend his website.

>> So, let's go into more detail:
>>
>> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday,
>>
>> No, he'd made such trips before.
>
> "unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before, lurkers.

On this issue, it absolutely does.

Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guilt.

And failing every time.

It simply wasn't unusual for Oswald to make visits mid-week to his
wife & kids. He even had a perfectly valid reason for that trip. (Bet
you can't name it or cite for it!)

> It is unusual for planes to crash, but it does happen.

Then you've simply twisted the meaning of the term to where it means
nothing at all.

It's a *FACT* that the evidence shows Oswald making trips during the
weekdays... and nothing you can do can twist it into "unusual."

> This is a strawman
> argument, where the actual argument made (unusual) is change to
> something else (never made before) and that created argument is
> addressed as if it is the argument made. Classic strawman, but Ben
> will lie, and say it isn`t a strawman at all. He loves to lie.

The argument is that Oswald did something unique and unusual. The
Warren Commission uses "surprised" in relation to this visit.

The truth is, it was simply a visit to see his wife and kids, no
different than many other previous trips.

It cannot be a "strawman" - since believers have DESPERATELY tried to
paint this visit as being for the sole purpose of getting a rifle that
they need to put in his possession.

>> Therefore it's only "unusual" in the
>> mind of someone desperate for anything at all to validate their faith.
>

> I'm just a Retard...


No-one cares, stump. Speak to the evidence...

>> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald had ever been spotted
>> jaywalking to weave that "fact" into support for his "guilt."
>

> I'm just a tard with no ability to reason or think critically, lurkers.


You aren't going to convince anyone unless you start addressing the
evidence in this case.

>> Nor would such a visit, EVEN **IF** IT HAD BEEN UNIQUE, AND THEREFORE
>> "UNUSUAL," indict him in a murder days later. Only twisted speculation
>> does this.
>
> Lurkers, Oswald made a special trip to where his rifle was kept,

A meaningless and empty claim.

> he left there carrying a long package which he took to his work

Evidence shows that he *habitually* brought his lunch to work.


> where his

"his?"

Why are you making empty claims?

CITE THE EVIDENCE!

> rifle was later found.

There were quite a few rifles "found" in the TSBD.

> This is "twisted speculation" to these stumps.

And once again, you continue to speculate... not a single cite or
reference to evidence in sight.

> They want to pretend this case is a mystery, its a free country,
> let them pretend.

When you keep refusing to cite evidence, honest people will not come
to the conclusion *YOU* want them to.

>> > November 21,
>> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
>> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
>>
>> Tut tut tut, David. You can't place any "rifle" there in the Paine's
>> garage, so what you can't show as being there cannot then be missing
>> later.
>
> Oswald`s wife placed the rifle there, lurkers. She took the police
> into the garage because that is where she knew her husband to keep a
> rifle.

stump has no problems believing a proven liar - as long as the lie
supports his faith.

>> This is a nearly NON-STOP practice of believers... -speculation- you
>> cannot demonstrate by credible and reasonable evidence, so you are
>> constantly *SPECULATING* on how something happened.
>
> We weigh the evidence correctly and draw reasonable conclusions
> from that evidence, lurkers.

**WHAT** evidence?

You refuse to list or cite any.

Indeed, you prove even in *this* post that you rely on witnesses you
*KNOW* to be liars to support your faith.

Honest people know that this is not an example of "weighing evidence
correctly and drawing reasonable conclusions."


> I'm just a tard who can`t do it.


No one cares, stump.

>> > But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
>> > DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
>> > questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
>> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
>> > 22.
>>
>> And the curtain rods which *WERE* found, were anathema to the Warren
>> Commission.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

The "empty claim" is your cite to where the Warren Commission handled
the problem of the curtain rods... showing where they were found, and
how they relate to Oswald's claimed statements.

But you refuse to do so.

Why is that, stump?

>> Can any believer offer a *credible* reason for this?
>
> Shifting the burden, lurkers.

It's *YOUR* burden. *YOU* are the one defending the Warren Commission.

>> > Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
>> > mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
>> > Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.
>>
>> How silly of you!
>
> It would be silly to involve either woman in the cover story
> Oswald used to sneak his rifle into work, lurkers. They weren`t
> necessary, only Frazier needed to be given the cover story.

Lots of empty claims and speculation, not a single fact or cite.

Just like David Von Pein!

>> That you somehow believe that a person must constantly be telling
>> everyone around him what he's doing, what he's thinking, etc... it
>> just *CRAZY*.
>
> Just *crazy* to think that Oswald might get some support on the
> stories he is telling, lurkers.

No stupid, I stated that it was crazy to think that a person must
constantly be telling everyone around him what he's doing & thinking.

You couldn't refute that fact.

Embarrassed, aren't you?


> I'm just a retard

No-one cares about your problems, stump.

>> I daresay that with similar information about *YOUR* recent actions &
>> deeds, I could easily convict you of a local murder.
>
> This stump has no understanding of criminal investigation,

And yet, I just made an assertion that you were unable to refute.

>> But honest people don't think this way...
>

> We don`t think like these people think, we're retards, lurkers.


Got a mouse in your pocket?

>> > Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
>> > woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
>> > -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> I see no particular reason to accept your speculations and
>> presumptions.
>
> Ben shows once more he is a stump, lurkers.

Another empty claim.

And since *YOU* give me no reason to accept David's speculations &
presumptions, I can only assume that you couldn't understand my
perfectly valid reason to refuse to accept such.

> It is almost inconceivable that it wouldn`t come up.

Inconceivable in your world, perhaps.

Not having a wife & kids, you wouldn't understand the relative
unimportance of some curtain rods.

>> Once again we see that David has UTTERLY FAILED to support his "sole
>> guilt" conclusion... and not a single believer will address that fact,
>> or even *acknowledge* this to be true.
>
> Watch as Ben refuses to acknowledge that he lies constantly, lurkers.

Another empty claim on stump's part.

Notice that stump *STILL* refuses to explain how any item on David's
list proves (or even *supports*) what he claims it does?

[Bud]

I can think of plenty, lurkers. I wonder what Ben feels will be gained if I list them, he will only either cut and run from them or change my words because most of my explanations would involve him being retarded.

> >> So, let's go into more detail:
> >>
> >> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday,
> >>
> >> No, he'd made such trips before.
> >
> > "unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before, lurkers.
>
>
> On this issue, it absolutely does.

Special pleading fallacy, lurkers.

> Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
> Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guilt.
>
> And failing every time.

All Ben is showing his desperation to be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.

> It simply wasn't unusual for Oswald to make visits mid-week to his
> wife & kids.

Ben is lying and he knows it, lurkers. He knows what Oswald`s normal pattern was.

Here is what Buell Wesley Frazier had to say in his affidavit...

"I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods."

> He even had a perfectly valid reason for that trip. (Bet
> you can't name it or cite for it!)

Will Ben ever become man enough to make his own points and arguments, lurkers?

> > It is unusual for planes to crash, but it does happen.
>
>
> Then you've simply twisted the meaning of the term to where it means
> nothing at all.

Ben is lying lurkers. The word "unusual" means "not habitually or commonly occurring or done", and it applies to this situation.

> It's a *FACT* that the evidence shows Oswald making trips during the
> weekdays... and nothing you can do can twist it into "unusual."

You wouldn`t use the word "unusal" if it was *never* done, lurkers.

>
> > This is a strawman
> > argument, where the actual argument made (unusual) is change to
> > something else (never made before) and that created argument is
> > addressed as if it is the argument made. Classic strawman, but Ben
> > will lie, and say it isn`t a strawman at all. He loves to lie.
>
>
> The argument is that Oswald did something unique and unusual.

Ben is lying, lurkers, nobody said "unique". He loves to lie.

> The

> Warren Commission uses "surprised" in relation to this visit.

That is the word Frazier used, lurkers. He was surprised that Oswald requested to go on a day other than Friday, his usual day.

> The truth is, it was simply a visit to see his wife and kids, no
> different than many other previous trips.

When Ben has to lie to make his points it shows his desperation to be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.

> It cannot be a "strawman" -

Of course it can, lurkers. Ben tried to change the argument from "unusual" to something else.

> since believers have DESPERATELY tried to
> paint this visit as being for the sole purpose of getting a rifle that
> they need to put in his possession.

Ans 'unusual" would be supportive of that, lurkers, in ways Ben can`t seem to fathom.

> >> Therefore it's only "unusual" in the
> >> mind of someone desperate for anything at all to validate their faith.
> >
> > I'm just a Retard...
>
>
> No-one cares, stump. Speak to the evidence...

The evidence is that Ben is a scumbag and a retard, lurkers.

>
> >> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald had ever been spotted
> >> jaywalking to weave that "fact" into support for his "guilt."
> >
> > I'm just a tard with no ability to reason or think critically, lurkers.
>
>
> You aren't going to convince anyone unless you start addressing the
> evidence in this case.

I`m pointing out the source of the problem, lurkers. The figuring of conspiracy retards.

>
>
> >> Nor would such a visit, EVEN **IF** IT HAD BEEN UNIQUE, AND THEREFORE
> >> "UNUSUAL," indict him in a murder days later. Only twisted speculation
> >> does this.
> >
> > Lurkers, Oswald made a special trip to where his rifle was kept,
>
> A meaningless and empty claim.

His wife said he did, lurkers.

> > he left there carrying a long package which he took to his work
>
>
> Evidence shows that he *habitually* brought his lunch to work.

Not that day, lurkers...

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.

>
> > where his
>
> "his?"
>
> Why are you making empty claims?
>
> CITE THE EVIDENCE!

A lot of the evidence can be found here, lurkers...

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

> > rifle was later found.
>
> There were quite a few rifles "found" in the TSBD.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. There is only one rifle found in the TSBD after the assassination. There may have been other rifles on the inside of the TSBD in it`s history, but what could that possibly matter?

> > This is "twisted speculation" to these stumps.
>
> And once again, you continue to speculate... not a single cite or
> reference to evidence in sight.

Actually I`m drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence, lurkers. The evidence isn`t the problem, it is the poor reasoning skill Ben is demonstrating here that cause him such difficulty.

> > They want to pretend this case is a mystery, its a free country,
> > let them pretend.
>
> When you keep refusing to cite evidence, honest people will not come
> to the conclusion *YOU* want them to.

If you lurkers been here for any time they should know that Ben is desperate to play the crooked game where I mention a piece of evidence and he provides the flimsy excuse that tards have contrived to disregard that evidence. This assumes that the flimsy reason the tards contrived is valid. I don`t make that assumption. In any case, my primary focus isn`t to debate evidence, it is to show the lurkers the silly games the tards have made out of the deaths of these men.

>
> >> > November 21,
> >> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
> >> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
> >>
> >> Tut tut tut, David. You can't place any "rifle" there in the Paine's
> >> garage, so what you can't show as being there cannot then be missing
> >> later.
> >
> > Oswald`s wife placed the rifle there, lurkers. She took the police
> > into the garage because that is where she knew her husband to keep a
> > rifle.
>
>
> stump has no problems believing a proven liar - as long as the lie
> supports his faith.

I just know how to make reasonable deductions and weigh the available information, lurkers. Ben wants to play the silly game "Yippie, Marina told a lie, now I don`t have to accept a single word she ever said!". Of course he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but he has no interest in determining what actually occurred, he is merely playing silly games.

> >> This is a nearly NON-STOP practice of believers... -speculation- you
> >> cannot demonstrate by credible and reasonable evidence, so you are
> >> constantly *SPECULATING* on how something happened.
> >
> > We weigh the evidence correctly and draw reasonable conclusions
> > from that evidence, lurkers.
>
> **WHAT** evidence?

the cas evidence, lurkers.

> You refuse to list or cite any.

Ben is, of course, lying, lurkers (something he loves to do). I cite more evidence than he does. Often when I cite evidence he snips it out because he hates the evidence in this case.

> Indeed, you prove even in *this* post that you rely on witnesses you
> *KNOW* to be liars to support your faith.

Can Ben show Marina lied in her testimony, lurkers?

> Honest people know that this is not an example of "weighing evidence
> correctly and drawing reasonable conclusions."

Notice Ben has produced no lies by Marina so they can be looked at in context, lurkers? This is what it means to weigh information properly, and Ben has no interest in it.

>
> > I'm just a tard who can`t do it.
>
>
> No one cares, stump.

Ben doesn`t care that he identifies himself as a scumbag when he changes my words, lurkers.

> >>
> >> > But, interestingly, some curtain rods, which Mrs. Paine testified she
> >> > DID have in her garage prior to the assassination (via 1986
> >> > questioning of her by Vincent Bugliosi during the TV Docu-Trial "On
> >> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), were STILL IN HER GARAGE AFTER NOVEMBER
> >> > 22.
> >>
> >> And the curtain rods which *WERE* found, were anathema to the Warren Commission.

> > Empty claim, lurkers.
>
> The "empty claim"

Is this statement by Ben, lurkers...

"And the curtain rods which *WERE* found, were anathema to the Warren Commission."

Ben made it but he wound`t support it.

> is your cite to where the Warren Commission handled
> the problem of the curtain rods... showing where they were found, and
> how they relate to Oswald's claimed statements.
>
> But you refuse to do so.
>
> Why is that, stump?

I`ve explained this to Ben before, perhaps he is too stupid to understand my explanation, lurkers. I`ve never used that evidence in support of an idea.

>
> >> Can any believer offer a *credible* reason for this?
> >
> > Shifting the burden, lurkers.
>
>
> It's *YOUR* burden. *YOU* are the one defending the Warren Commission.

Non sequitur, lurkers.

>
> >> > Plus: Never ONCE did Ruth Paine or Marina Oswald hear Lee Oswald
> >> > mention anything at all about "curtain rods" during his surprise
> >> > Thursday visit to Irving, Texas.
> >>
> >> How silly of you!
> >
> > It would be silly to involve either woman in the cover story
> > Oswald used to sneak his rifle into work, lurkers. They weren`t
> > necessary, only Frazier needed to be given the cover story.
>
>
> Lots of empty claims and speculation, not a single fact or cite.

Oswald neglected to let make known his planning, lurkers. Ben`s whole silly hobby would be shot to hell if he had.

> Just like David Von Pein!
>
>
> >> That you somehow believe that a person must constantly be telling
> >> everyone around him what he's doing, what he's thinking, etc... it
> >> just *CRAZY*.
> >
> > Just *crazy* to think that Oswald might get some support on the
> > stories he is telling, lurkers.
>
>
> No stupid, I stated that it was crazy to think that a person must
> constantly be telling everyone around him what he's doing & thinking.

You can bet it is a red flag to *real* criminal investigators when a suspect fails to get support for his stories at every turn, lurkers.

> You couldn't refute that fact.

The fact is that Ben is going to extraordinary length to make excuses for Oswald`s behavior, lurkers.

> Embarrassed, aren't you?
>
>
> > I'm just a retard
>
> No-one cares about your problems, stump.

Ben is a scumbag, lurkers.

> >> I daresay that with similar information about *YOUR* recent actions &
> >> deeds, I could easily convict you of a local murder.
> >
> > This stump has no understanding of criminal investigation,
>
>
> And yet, I just made an assertion that you were unable to refute.

He didn`t say anything, lurkers.

>
> >> But honest people don't think this way...
> >
> > We don`t think like these people think, we're retards, lurkers.
>
>
> Got a mouse in your pocket?

Ben is a scumbag who feels the need to change my words, lurkers.

>
> >> > Don't you think he might have at least MENTIONED the "rods" to either
> >> > woman if the only reason for his Irving visit was to pick up said rods
> >> > -- especially seeing as how it was Mrs. Paine's house, not Oswald's?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> I see no particular reason to accept your speculations and
> >> presumptions.
> >
> > Ben shows once more he is a stump, lurkers.
>
> Another empty claim.
>
> And since *YOU* give me no reason to accept David's speculations &
> presumptions, I can only assume that you couldn't understand my
> perfectly valid reason to refuse to accept such.
>
> > It is almost inconceivable that it wouldn`t come up.
>
> Inconceivable in your world, perhaps.

In the real world, lurkers.

> Not having a wife & kids, you wouldn't understand the relative
> unimportance of some curtain rods.

Oswald goes to the place with an expressed purpose, spends the evening with the two people there and never mentions this purpose with either, lurkers. Ben is either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that this is consistent with the idea that the curtain rod cover story was only told to Frazier because he is the only person Oswald needed to dupe.

>
> >> Once again we see that David has UTTERLY FAILED to support his "sole
> >> guilt" conclusion... and not a single believer will address that fact,
> >> or even *acknowledge* this to be true.
> >
> > Watch as Ben refuses to acknowledge that he lies constantly, lurkers.
>
> Another empty claim on stump's part.

My prediction came true, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Continuing in this series exposing David Von Pein a liar, here's the
>> >> next item, and it's refutation:
>> >
>> > Ben doesn`t understand what the word "refutation" means, lurkers.
>>
>> I understand it quite well.
>>
>> I could take this item to court, and no jury in the land would convict
>> Oswald of *JAYWALKING* based on this post. I really didn't need to say
>> anything at all. David's post is *self-refuting* to anyone looking for
>> the evidence.
>>
>> David has UTTERLY FAILED to show the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

So too has stump.

Empty claim.

It would be easier to list them than to whine excuses why you
aren't...

>> >> So, let's go into more detail:
>> >>
>> >> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday,
>> >>
>> >> No, he'd made such trips before.
>> >
>> > "unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> On this issue, it absolutely does.
>
> Special pleading fallacy, lurkers.

Oswald did nothing on *this* Thursday than he hadn't done before.

This **PROVES** that you're merely presuming Oswald's guilt, then
looking around for evidence.

>> Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
>> Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guilt.
>>
>> And failing every time.
>
> All Ben is showing his desperation to be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.

Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guil

And failing every time.

>> It simply wasn't unusual for Oswald to make visits mid-week to his
>> wife & kids.
>
> Ben is lying and he knows it, lurkers. He knows what Oswald`s normal pattern was.

Then all you need to do is *CITE* the evidence that I'm in conflict
with.

But you can't.

> Here is what Buell Wesley Frazier had to say in his affidavit...
>
> "I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I
> knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he
> would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak
> Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and
> then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode
> home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday,
> November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me
> that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me
> Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to
> get some curtain rods."

A great example of cherry-picking the evidence.

You should be ashamed of yourself telling such lies.

>> He even had a perfectly valid reason for that trip. (Bet
>> you can't name it or cite for it!)
>
> Will Ben ever become man enough to make his own points and arguments, lurkers?

Yep... once again, we see where stump proves that he simply doesn't
know the evidence, and isn't interested enough to go look it up.

>> > It is unusual for planes to crash, but it does happen.
>>
>> Then you've simply twisted the meaning of the term to where it means
>> nothing at all.
>
> Ben is lying lurkers. The word "unusual" means "not habitually or
> commonly occurring or done", and it applies to this situation.

How silly of you! I don't eat deviled eggs " habitually or commonly" -
yet no-one would suggest that it's "unusual" for me to eat them.

Nor would anyone go looking for an unsolved murder (yes, I'm going to
eat some deviled eggs this evening.)

>> It's a *FACT* that the evidence shows Oswald making trips during the
>> weekdays... and nothing you can do can twist it into "unusual."
>
> You wouldn`t use the word "unusal" if it was *never* done, lurkers.

I wouldn't *ever* use that word.

ROTFLMAO!

>> > This is a strawman
>> > argument, where the actual argument made (unusual) is change to
>> > something else (never made before) and that created argument is
>> > addressed as if it is the argument made. Classic strawman, but Ben
>> > will lie, and say it isn`t a strawman at all. He loves to lie.
>>
>>
>> The argument is that Oswald did something unique and unusual.
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers, nobody said "unique". He loves to lie.

The argument fails when it's shown that a midweek visit wasn't very
unusual at all.

stump doesn't even know the reason *for* the visit... as found in the
evidence.

>> The
>> Warren Commission uses "surprised" in relation to this visit.
>
> That is the word Frazier used, lurkers. He was surprised that
> Oswald requested to go on a day other than Friday, his usual day.

This is the word used by the Warren Commission.

>> The truth is, it was simply a visit to see his wife and kids, no
>> different than many other previous trips.
>
> When Ben has to lie to make his points it shows his desperation to
> be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.

And yet, you failed to produce a citation that I'm contradicting.

How COWARDLY of you!

>> It cannot be a "strawman" -
>
> Of course it can, lurkers. Ben tried to change the argument from
> "unusual" to something else.

The midweek visit simply wasn't "unusual."

You failed.

>> since believers have DESPERATELY tried to
>> paint this visit as being for the sole purpose of getting a rifle that
>> they need to put in his possession.
>
> Ans 'unusual" would be supportive of that, lurkers, in ways Ben can`t seem to fathom.

Nope.

>> >> Therefore it's only "unusual" in the
>> >> mind of someone desperate for anything at all to validate their faith.
>> >
>> > I'm just a Retard...
>>
>> No-one cares, stump. Speak to the evidence...
>

> The evidence is that I'm a scumbag and a retard, lurkers.

No-one cares, stump. Speak to the evidence...

>> >> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald had ever been spotted
>> >> jaywalking to weave that "fact" into support for his "guilt."
>> >
>> > I'm just a tard with no ability to reason or think critically, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> You aren't going to convince anyone unless you start addressing the
>> evidence in this case.
>

> I`m just a retard.


You never learn, do you?

>> >> Nor would such a visit, EVEN **IF** IT HAD BEEN UNIQUE, AND THEREFORE
>> >> "UNUSUAL," indict him in a murder days later. Only twisted speculation
>> >> does this.
>> >
>> > Lurkers, Oswald made a special trip to where his rifle was kept,
>>
>> A meaningless and empty claim.
>
> His wife said he did, lurkers.

Marina is a proven liar.

>> > he left there carrying a long package which he took to his work
>>
>>
>> Evidence shows that he *habitually* brought his lunch to work.
>
> Not that day, lurkers...
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always
> brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his
> lunch that day.

Yep... he was just *pretending* to eat his lunch....


ROTFLMAO!!!

>> > where his
>>
>> "his?"
>>
>> Why are you making empty claims?
>>
>> CITE THE EVIDENCE!
>
> A lot of the evidence can be found here, lurkers...

Fail.

>> > rifle was later found.
>>
>> There were quite a few rifles "found" in the TSBD.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

And yet, it's simply a FACT that other rifles were in the TSBD that
week.

Anyone can see who the liar is.

>> > This is "twisted speculation" to these stumps.
>>
>> And once again, you continue to speculate... not a single cite or
>> reference to evidence in sight.
>
> Actually I`m drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence,
> lurkers. The evidence isn`t the problem, it is the poor reasoning
> skill Ben is demonstrating here that cause him such difficulty.

Ad hominem is simply an admission on your part that you know you lost.

>> > They want to pretend this case is a mystery, its a free country,
>> > let them pretend.
>>
>> When you keep refusing to cite evidence, honest people will not come
>> to the conclusion *YOU* want them to.
>

> I"m just a silly tard playing silly games for the deaths of these men.

No-one cares.

>> >> > November 21,
>> >> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
>> >> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
>> >>
>> >> Tut tut tut, David. You can't place any "rifle" there in the Paine's
>> >> garage, so what you can't show as being there cannot then be missing
>> >> later.
>> >
>> > Oswald`s wife placed the rifle there, lurkers. She took the police
>> > into the garage because that is where she knew her husband to keep a
>> > rifle.
>>
>>
>> stump has no problems believing a proven liar - as long as the lie
>> supports his faith.
>

> I just know how...

You can't even publicly *admit* that she's a liar!

[Bud]

Lurkers, Ben is desperately trying to move the goalposts. DVP said "unusual". "unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before.

> This **PROVES** that you're merely presuming Oswald's guilt, then
> looking around for evidence.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. The evidence *is* that it was unusual. Here is from the affidavit of the person who customarily drove him, Buell Wesley Frazier...

"He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No"."

The person who would ordinarily drive him was *surprised* by the change in routine.

> >> Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
> >> Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guilt.
> >>
> >> And failing every time.
> >
> > All Ben is showing his desperation to be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.
>
> Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
> Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guil
>
> And failing every time.

This is why retards are rarely tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

> >> It simply wasn't unusual for Oswald to make visits mid-week to his
> >> wife & kids.
> >
> > Ben is lying and he knows it, lurkers. He knows what Oswald`s normal pattern was.
>
> Then all you need to do is *CITE* the evidence that I'm in conflict
> with.

Ben *continues* to lie, even though he is well aware of what Oswald`s normal pattern was, lurkers.

> But you can't.
>
> > Here is what Buell Wesley Frazier had to say in his affidavit...
> >
> > "I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I
> > knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he
> > would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak
> > Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and
> > then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode
> > home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday,
> > November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me
> > that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me
> > Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to
> > get some curtain rods."
>
> A great example of cherry-picking the evidence.

<snicker> What a lame objection, lurkers! Naturally you use evidence that speaks to the issue being discussed, which is Oswald`s normal routine.

> You should be ashamed of yourself telling such lies.

There you go, lurkers. These retards always claim to follow the evidence, but when it goes against their ideas they simply handwave it away. They`ve been ignoring pertinent information for so long they have themselves convinced it doesn`t exist.

> >> He even had a perfectly valid reason for that trip. (Bet
> >> you can't name it or cite for it!)
> >
> > Will Ben ever become man enough to make his own points and arguments, lurkers?
>
> Yep... once again, we see where stump proves that he simply doesn't
> know the evidence, and isn't interested enough to go look it up.

Again Ben fails to make an argument, lurkers. He will never be man enough to make his own arguments.

>
> >> > It is unusual for planes to crash, but it does happen.
> >>
> >> Then you've simply twisted the meaning of the term to where it means
> >> nothing at all.
> >
> > Ben is lying lurkers. The word "unusual" means "not habitually or
> > commonly occurring or done", and it applies to this situation.
>
> How silly of you! I don't eat deviled eggs " habitually or commonly" -
> yet no-one would suggest that it's "unusual" for me to eat them.

Ben`s desperation is reaching a fever pitch, lurkers, he is now contesting the dictionary.

> Nor would anyone go looking for an unsolved murder (yes, I'm going to
> eat some deviled eggs this evening.)
>
>
> >> It's a *FACT* that the evidence shows Oswald making trips during the
> >> weekdays... and nothing you can do can twist it into "unusual."
> >
> > You wouldn`t use the word "unusal" if it was *never* done, lurkers.
>
> I wouldn't *ever* use that word.

He doesn`t seem to know what it means, lurkers.

> ROTFLMAO!
>
>
>
> >> > This is a strawman
> >> > argument, where the actual argument made (unusual) is change to
> >> > something else (never made before) and that created argument is
> >> > addressed as if it is the argument made. Classic strawman, but Ben
> >> > will lie, and say it isn`t a strawman at all. He loves to lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> The argument is that Oswald did something unique and unusual.
> >
> > Ben is lying, lurkers, nobody said "unique". He loves to lie.
>
> The argument fails when it's shown that a midweek visit wasn't very
> unusual at all.

Caught moving the goalposts Ben is now going to try to escape using weasel words and semantics, lurkers.

It was unusual enough for the person who routinely drove him to be surprised.

> stump doesn't even know the reason *for* the visit... as found in the
> evidence.

Whenever Ben doesn`t spell out what he is referring to it is best to assume he is lying about something, lurkers. Why else would he vaguely allude rather than come right out and say?

>
> >> The
> >> Warren Commission uses "surprised" in relation to this visit.
> >
> > That is the word Frazier used, lurkers. He was surprised that
> > Oswald requested to go on a day other than Friday, his usual day.
>
>
> This is the word used by the Warren Commission.

It is the word the witnesses used before the Warren Commission was even formed, lurkers. I don`t know why Ben is misdirecting to the WC, habit I guess.

>
> >> The truth is, it was simply a visit to see his wife and kids, no
> >> different than many other previous trips.
> >
> > When Ben has to lie to make his points it shows his desperation to
> > be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.
>
> And yet, you failed to produce a citation that I'm contradicting.

Wesley Buell Frazier`s affidavit...

"He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods."

> How COWARDLY of you!
>
>
> >> It cannot be a "strawman" -
> >
> > Of course it can, lurkers. Ben tried to change the argument from
> > "unusual" to something else.
>
>
> The midweek visit simply wasn't "unusual."

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. The evidence clearly shows his usual routine. A Thursday visit was *not* his usual routine.

> You failed.
>
>
> >> since believers have DESPERATELY tried to
> >> paint this visit as being for the sole purpose of getting a rifle that
> >> they need to put in his possession.
> >
> > Ans 'unusual" would be supportive of that, lurkers, in ways Ben can`t seem to fathom.
>
> Nope.

This is why retards are rarely tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

> >> >> Therefore it's only "unusual" in the
> >> >> mind of someone desperate for anything at all to validate their faith.
> >> >
> >> > I'm just a Retard...
> >>
> >> No-one cares, stump. Speak to the evidence...
> >
> > The evidence is that I'm a scumbag and a retard, lurkers.
>
>
> No-one cares, stump. Speak to the evidence...

The evidence is that Ben is a liar, a scumbag and a retard, lurkers.

> >> >> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Oswald had ever been spotted
> >> >> jaywalking to weave that "fact" into support for his "guilt."
> >> >
> >> > I'm just a tard with no ability to reason or think critically, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> You aren't going to convince anyone unless you start addressing the
> >> evidence in this case.
> >
> > I`m just a retard.
>
>
> You never learn, do you?

Ben will never stop being a retarded scumbag, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> Nor would such a visit, EVEN **IF** IT HAD BEEN UNIQUE, AND THEREFORE
> >> >> "UNUSUAL," indict him in a murder days later. Only twisted speculation
> >> >> does this.
> >> >
> >> > Lurkers, Oswald made a special trip to where his rifle was kept,
> >>
> >> A meaningless and empty claim.
> >
> > His wife said he did, lurkers.
>
>
> Marina is a proven liar.

Using this standard you lurkers should never listen to a word Ben says.

> >> > he left there carrying a long package which he took to his work
> >>
> >>
> >> Evidence shows that he *habitually* brought his lunch to work.
> >
> > Not that day, lurkers...
> >
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always
> > brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his
> > lunch that day.
>
> Yep... he was just *pretending* to eat his lunch....

The lunch Frazier said he hadn`t carried, lurkers?

>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>
> >> > where his
> >>
> >> "his?"
> >>
> >> Why are you making empty claims?
> >>
> >> CITE THE EVIDENCE!
> >
> > A lot of the evidence can be found here, lurkers...
>
> Fail.

Snip and run Benny, lurkers.

> >> > rifle was later found.
> >>
> >> There were quite a few rifles "found" in the TSBD.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
>
> And yet, it's simply a FACT that other rifles were in the TSBD that
> week.

Moving the goalposts, lurkers. Ben never misses an opportunity to argue dishonestly.

> Anyone can see who the liar is.

And yet Ben keeps lying, lurkers. He hasn`t a shred of credibility left.

>
> >> > This is "twisted speculation" to these stumps.
> >>
> >> And once again, you continue to speculate... not a single cite or
> >> reference to evidence in sight.
> >
> > Actually I`m drawing reasonable conclusions from the evidence,
> > lurkers. The evidence isn`t the problem, it is the poor reasoning
> > skill Ben is demonstrating here that cause him such difficulty.
>
> Ad hominem is simply an admission on your part that you know you lost.

I`m identifying the problem, lurkers. It is the only way problems can get solved.

>
> >> > They want to pretend this case is a mystery, its a free country,
> >> > let them pretend.
> >>
> >> When you keep refusing to cite evidence, honest people will not come
> >> to the conclusion *YOU* want them to.
> >
> > I"m just a silly tard playing silly games for the deaths of these men.
>
> No-one cares.

Yet Ben continues to play these silly games with the deaths of these men, lurkers.

>
> >> >> > November 21,
> >> >> > 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from
> >> >> > Ruth Paine's garage the following day.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tut tut tut, David. You can't place any "rifle" there in the Paine's
> >> >> garage, so what you can't show as being there cannot then be missing
> >> >> later.
> >> >
> >> > Oswald`s wife placed the rifle there, lurkers. She took the police
> >> > into the garage because that is where she knew her husband to keep a
> >> > rifle.
> >>
> >>
> >> stump has no problems believing a proven liar - as long as the lie
> >> supports his faith.
> >
> > I just know how...
>
> You can't even publicly *admit* that she's a liar!

Has Ben showed that Marina lied in her testimony, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 10:25:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:54:49 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 13:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> Continuing in this series exposing David Von Pein a liar, here's the
>> >> >> next item, and it's refutation:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben doesn`t understand what the word "refutation" means, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> I understand it quite well.
>> >>
>> >> I could take this item to court, and no jury in the land would convict
>> >> Oswald of *JAYWALKING* based on this post. I really didn't need to say
>> >> anything at all. David's post is *self-refuting* to anyone looking for
>> >> the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> David has UTTERLY FAILED to show the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>>
>> So too has stump.

Dead silence...

Dead silence...

dufus refuses to support his empty claim.

>> >> >> So, let's go into more detail:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 11.) Oswald makes an unusual trip to Irving on Thursday,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, he'd made such trips before.
>> >> >
>> >> > "unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On this issue, it absolutely does.
>> >
>> > Special pleading fallacy, lurkers.
>>
>> Oswald did nothing on *this* Thursday than he hadn't done before.
>
> Lurkers, Ben is desperately trying to move the goalposts. DVP said
> "unusual". "unusual" doesn`t mean it never happened before.


Oswald did nothing on *this* Thursday than he hadn't done before.


>> This **PROVES** that you're merely presuming Oswald's guilt, then
>> looking around for evidence.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

Interestingly, dufus proceeds to lie:

> The evidence *is* that it was unusual.
> Here is from the affidavit of the person who customarily drove him,
> Buell Wesley Frazier...
>
> "He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday
> morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to
> ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he
> was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No"."
>
> The person who would ordinarily drive him was *surprised* by the
> change in routine.

The Warren Commission did not believe this, *YOU* don't believe this.
You *KNOW* for a fact that Oswald had been to the Paines during the
week.

Go ahead, stump - DENY IT.

And if you're stupid enough to do so, I'll merely cite the evidence
that proves you a liar.

>> >> Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
>> >> Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guilt.
>> >>
>> >> And failing every time.
>> >
>> > All Ben is showing his desperation to be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.
>>
>> Believers are DESPERATELY pulling out *ANYTHING* at all that they know
>> Oswald did or said, and trying to use it as evidence of his guil
>>
>> And failing every time.
>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.


And your point is...?

>> >> It simply wasn't unusual for Oswald to make visits mid-week to his
>> >> wife & kids.
>> >
>> > Ben is lying and he knows it, lurkers. He knows what Oswald`s normal pattern was.
>>
>> Then all you need to do is *CITE* the evidence that I'm in conflict
>> with.
>
> Ben *continues* to lie, even though he is well aware of what
> Oswald`s normal pattern was, lurkers.


Then all you need to do is *CITE* the evidence that I'm in conflict
with.

But you can't.


>> But you can't.


And didn't.

>> > Here is what Buell Wesley Frazier had to say in his affidavit...
>> >
>> > "I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I
>> > knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he
>> > would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak
>> > Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and
>> > then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode
>> > home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday,
>> > November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me
>> > that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me
>> > Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to
>> > get some curtain rods."
>>
>> A great example of cherry-picking the evidence.
>
> <snicker> What a lame objection, lurkers! Naturally you use
> evidence that speaks to the issue being discussed, which is Oswald`s
> normal routine.

Go ahead, stump... PUBLICLY STATE that Oswald never went to the Paines
except as you just cited.

I DARE YOU!!!

But you won't. You know that such a lie would be instantly rebutted.

Without being specific, you're still lying...

>> You should be ashamed of yourself telling such lies.
>

> There you go, lurkers. I'm a retard.


Amusingly, you simply will *NOT* publicly state that Oswald's visits
were limited to what Frazier testified to.

Because you *KNOW* I'm only stating what I can cite for, and you're
*LYING* with dishonest cherry-picking.

>> >> He even had a perfectly valid reason for that trip. (Bet
>> >> you can't name it or cite for it!)
>> >
>> > Will Ben ever become man enough to make his own points and arguments, lurkers?
>>
>> Yep... once again, we see where stump proves that he simply doesn't
>> know the evidence, and isn't interested enough to go look it up.
>
> Again Ben fails to make an argument, lurkers. He will never be
> man enough to make his own arguments.

I *made* the argument. You *PROVED* it's accuracy.

You neither know nor care what Oswald's perfectly valid reason for
that trip was.

You've been schooled.

>> >> > It is unusual for planes to crash, but it does happen.
>> >>
>> >> Then you've simply twisted the meaning of the term to where it means
>> >> nothing at all.
>> >
>> > Ben is lying lurkers. The word "unusual" means "not habitually or
>> > commonly occurring or done", and it applies to this situation.
>>
>> How silly of you! I don't eat deviled eggs " habitually or commonly" -
>> yet no-one would suggest that it's "unusual" for me to eat them.
>
> Ben`s desperation is reaching a fever pitch, lurkers, he is now
> contesting the dictionary.

What's the definition of "unusual?"

What's the definition of "conspiracy?"

What's the definition of "evidence?"

Do you even know how to look up words?

>> Nor would anyone go looking for an unsolved murder (yes, I'm going to
>> eat some deviled eggs this evening.)

And I did.

>> >> It's a *FACT* that the evidence shows Oswald making trips during the
>> >> weekdays... and nothing you can do can twist it into "unusual."
>> >
>> > You wouldn`t use the word "unusal" if it was *never* done, lurkers.
>>
>> I wouldn't *ever* use that word.
>
> He doesn`t seem to know what it means, lurkers.

That's okay, folks; stump is too STUPID to cite the dictionary meaning
of "unusal."

Nor will he ever even try.

>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> >> > This is a strawman
>> >> > argument, where the actual argument made (unusual) is change to
>> >> > something else (never made before) and that created argument is
>> >> > addressed as if it is the argument made. Classic strawman, but Ben
>> >> > will lie, and say it isn`t a strawman at all. He loves to lie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The argument is that Oswald did something unique and unusual.
>> >
>> > Ben is lying, lurkers, nobody said "unique". He loves to lie.
>>
>> The argument fails when it's shown that a midweek visit wasn't very
>> unusual at all.
>
> Caught moving the goalposts Ben is now going to try to escape
> using weasel words and semantics, lurkers.
>
> It was unusual enough for the person who routinely drove him to be surprised.

You're lying again, stump.

>> stump doesn't even know the reason *for* the visit... as found in the
>> evidence.
>
> Whenever Ben doesn`t spell out what he is referring to it is best
> to assume he is lying about something, lurkers. Why else would he
> vaguely allude rather than come right out and say?

I **DID** come right out and say it. YOU'RE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE
REASON GIVEN IN THE TESTIMONY FOR THAT THURSDAY VISIT.

I've been proven right, you *don't* know.

>> >> The
>> >> Warren Commission uses "surprised" in relation to this visit.
>> >
>> > That is the word Frazier used, lurkers. He was surprised that
>> > Oswald requested to go on a day other than Friday, his usual day.
>>
>> This is the word used by the Warren Commission.
>
> It is the word the witnesses used before the Warren Commission was
> even formed, lurkers. I don`t know why Ben is misdirecting to the WC,
> habit I guess.

Another lie on your part.


One you'll *NEVER* cite for...

>> >> The truth is, it was simply a visit to see his wife and kids, no
>> >> different than many other previous trips.
>> >
>> > When Ben has to lie to make his points it shows his desperation to
>> > be an Oswald apologist, lurkers.
>>
>> And yet, you failed to produce a citation that I'm contradicting.
>
> Wesley Buell Frazier`s affidavit...
>
> "He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods."

Tut tut tut, stupid... that doesn't contradict what I stated.

>> How COWARDLY of you!
>>
>> >> It cannot be a "strawman" -
>> >
>> > Of course it can, lurkers. Ben tried to change the argument from
>> > "unusual" to something else.
>>
>> The midweek visit simply wasn't "unusual."
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers. The evidence clearly shows his usual
> routine. A Thursday visit was *not* his usual routine.

Oswald had done it several times before that we have evidence of.
Contradicting your witness.

A fact that you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to specifically deny.

Because you know I'm telling the truth.

>> You failed.
>>
>> >> since believers have DESPERATELY tried to
>> >> paint this visit as being for the sole purpose of getting a rifle that
>> >> they need to put in his possession.
>> >
>> > Ans 'unusual" would be supportive of that, lurkers, in ways Ben can`t seem to fathom.
>>
>> Nope.
>

> I'm a retard rarely tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

"never" is the word you're looking for...