Oswald's "Sole Guilt" - Refuted #3

[Ben Holmes]

David is now refusing to respond to the posts... this shows that he
*KNOWS* he lost. ROTFLMAO!!!

On to the next DVP blunder:

> 3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
> the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
> Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
> before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that
> Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched
> Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44
> PM).
>
> Is this just another in a series of "coincidences" that has Brennan's
> man in the window closely matching Oswald's description? Yes, I'll
> admit, the description was "general" in nature, and could fit
> thousands of men in the world. But out of ALL the possible
> descriptions he COULD have offered up to describe the person he saw in
> that window (even "general" descriptions), what description does he
> give just minutes after the assassination (and well BEFORE he ever
> laid eyes on Lee Oswald)? --- He describes a person who COULD INDEED
> BE LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
>
> Brennan COULD, conceivably, have seen a fat black man, with a beard,
> 5-feet-2, 200 pounds in that window. But, instead, he sees a slender
> white male, about 30, 5-feet-10, approx. 165 pounds. That description
> isn't a dead-on match for Oswald, no. But it's close enough so that
> LHO certainly isn't ELIMINATED from the pack when it comes to this
> description.
>
> BTW, concerning Brennan's "age" bracket of Oswald (30, or "early 30s")
> -- IMO, Oswald looked older than 24. (And he had just turned 24 one
> month prior to the assassination.) Oswald always seemed much older
> than 24 to me, in both looks and demeanor. Possibly, when it came to
> his looks, Howard Brennan agreed with me on that.

Amusingly, David didn't even bother to mention that Brennan REFUSED TO
IDENTIFY OSWALD AS THE PERSON HE'D SEEN! After months of intimidation,
he changed his tune, and did what the Warren Commission wanted... but
you won't know about this from David's misleading post. (Indeed, David
will not even admit that Brennan was intimidated.)

David argues that Oswald "closely matched" the assassin described, BUT
THIS IS SIMPLY A LIE! Witnesses all agreed that the assassin was
wearing a white shirt, and Brennan implies light colored trousers.
Oswald couldn't have come close to matching this. Sometimes believers
will whimper that Oswald simply took off his *dark* shirt - but this
is belied by Rowland's explicit assertion of what he saw.

Brennan: "He had on light colored clothing"; "Light colored clothes,
more of a khaki color"

Arnold Rowland: "He had on a light shirt, a very light–colored shirt,
white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the
collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a
regular T–shirt, a polo shirt under this."

Carolyn Walther: "a white shirt"

Ronald Fischer: "light in color; probably white ... it was open–neck
and light in color"

Robert Edwards: "light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck"

I certainly accept that a witness might be 20 or 30 pounds off on the
weight... 10 or 20 years off on the age... and four to six inches off
on the height - but it's absolutely INCREDIBLE to think that someone
wearing dark clothing can be mistaken for someone wearing light
clothing.

That simply doesn't pass the smell test. (No wonder believers won't
touch the topic of "Oswald's" clothing as seen by witnesses with a 10
foot pole!)

Notice that David's first paragraph implied that Brennan might have
been influenced in his identification of Oswald by TV and newspaper
reports, yet somehow missed letting the reader know that this
identification did *NOT* happen until months later.

Furthermore... we *KNOW* that Brennan lied. This is something that you
cannot get any believer to publicly acknowledge.

He either lied when he denied immediately that Oswald was the one he'd
seen...

Or he lied when he later asserted that it *WAS* Oswald he'd seen, and
he'd merely been afraid of the consequences of identifying the
suspect.

Believers assert that they believe the earliest accounts to be more
reliable and credible... but that's simply not true... they'll believe
the earliest accounts... UNLESS of course, it contradicts their faith
- as it does here. A man afraid of identifying suspects would not have
rushed to the police HIMSELF to do so - as Brennan did. No-one grabbed
him and tried to force him to identify a suspect. HE SOUGHT OUT THE
POLICE HIMSELF. This contradicts his later statement that he refused
to identify Oswald due to fear.

It's interesting to note that critics have no problems at all
accepting the EARLIEST accounts... they generally support
conspiracy... and believers will simply deny that fact.

David can't acknowledge or explain any of these facts...

And, as we've seen, David will once again run away - AND REFUSE TO
ADDRESS MY REFUTATION POINT BY POINT.

Which simply shows that he knows he cannot...

[Ben Holmes]

David claimed that he'd be answering these... but he's clearly decided
that cowardice is better than being shown a fool.

Looks like David is now back in hiding in the censored forum.

[David Von Pein]

THE LIAR KNOWN AS BEN HOLMES SAID:

David claimed that he'd be answering these...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's yet another lie from the mouth of Benji. I never once said that *I* would be "answering" anything. I said I was enjoying seeing *BUD* (not me) destroy every stupid thing Benny says in his "Sole Guilt" series.

Here's exactly what I said on Dec. 7, proving that Ben The Stump lied yet again when he said "David claimed that he'd be answering these"....

[DVP Quote On:]

"Miserable?? You're on crack, Mr. Stump. I'm lovin' this. And I'm especially enjoying archiving on my site Bud's always insightful and relevant replies to your pathetic posts, which are posts that only prove--once again--your state of Complete Denial regarding the events of Nov. 22nd. (Maybe I should increase my "Oswald Did It" list to 30 or 40 items to keep this fun alive even longer. Ya think?) So bring on Part 2, Mr. Denial." -- DVP; December 7, 2017

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/xSQ7ZMUGM9A/4PPd_p3HAAAJ

[Bud]

Amusingly Ben doesn`t give the reason why Brennan said he didn`t, lurkers.

> After months of intimidation,

What does Ben mean by this, lurkers. Perhaps he will elaborate. Perhaps pigs will fly.

> he changed his tune, and did what the Warren Commission wanted...

Has Ben given any reason to believe that the WC wanted him to do anything but tell the truth about what he saw?

> but
> you won't know about this from David's misleading post. (Indeed, David
> will not even admit that Brennan was intimidated.)

Ben like to make declarations, lurkers, he hates to back them up.

And him being intimidated by being caught in this situation does nothing to show he was coerced into lying. These retards are always trying to jump the Grand Canyon on tricycles.

> David argues that Oswald "closely matched" the assassin described, BUT
> THIS IS SIMPLY A LIE!

Height, weight, race and build were all close, lurkers. These are descriptions of Oswald, not his clothes.

> Witnesses all agreed that the assassin was
> wearing a white shirt,

Not entirely true, some said light colored.

>and Brennan implies light colored trousers.
> Oswald couldn't have come close to matching this.

Of course he could. He was wearing a white t-shirt.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2431145.1447262209!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/oswald-charged-murder.jpg

One of the witnesses said the shooter could have been wearing a white t-shirt. A co-worker said Oswald was working in his white t-shirt that day. Mrs Reid, who saw Oswald very soon after the shooting said this...

"Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you."

So a witness who saw Oswald before the shooting said he was wearing a white t-shirt and witnesses after the shooting said Oswald was wearing a white t-shirt. Conspiracy retards have to call the witnesses liars, what the witnesses relate doesn`t support their faith.

> Sometimes believers
> will whimper that Oswald simply took off his *dark* shirt - but this
> is belied by Rowland's explicit assertion of what he saw.

I have no idea what Ben means by this, perhaps he will elaborate. Perhaps pigs will fly.

Rowland was probably the further witness to the man on the 6th floor. Here is his affidavit...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arowland.htm

"This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck."

Anyone looking at photos of Oswald in his t-shirt can see why this is not terribly inconsistent with a observation from a distance.

> Brennan: "He had on light colored clothing"; "Light colored clothes,
> more of a khaki color"

Not white, as Ben claimed earlier.

> Arnold Rowland: "He had on a light shirt, a very light–colored shirt,
> white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the
> collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway,

Oswald`s t-shirt could give that impression viewed from a distance, lurkers...

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-dallas-police-department-mug-shots-of-lee-harvey-oswald-following-picture-id576877682

> and then he had a
> regular T–shirt, a polo shirt under this."

> Carolyn Walther: "a white shirt"
>
> Ronald Fischer: "light in color; probably white ... it was open–neck
> and light in color"

> Robert Edwards: "light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck"

Nothing to dispute there, lurkers. Oswald in his t-shirt is not terribly inconsistent with any of those descriptions.

> I certainly accept that a witness might be 20 or 30 pounds off on the
> weight... 10 or 20 years off on the age... and four to six inches off
> on the height -

Many of these witnesses were a lot closer than that, lurkers. Fisher and Edward practically nailed Oswald`s age. Some said "slender", a perfect description of Oswald`s build. DVP is right, these witnesses did not do a bad job at all of describing Oswald.

> but it's absolutely INCREDIBLE to think that someone
> wearing dark clothing can be mistaken for someone wearing light
> clothing.

If the evidence strongly suggests Oswald was wearing his t-shirt when shooting there is no reason to believe he was wearing a dark shirt, lurkers. The retards want to make pretend that such a mundane thing couldn`t have happened, while on the other hand entertaining the most insanely fantastic ideas.

> That simply doesn't pass the smell test. (No wonder believers won't
> touch the topic of "Oswald's" clothing as seen by witnesses with a 10
> foot pole!)

It has been dealt with over and over, lurkers. That this hasn`t shown on Ben`s radar on illustrates the conspiracy retard mindset.

> Notice that David's first paragraph implied that Brennan might have
> been influenced in his identification of Oswald by TV and newspaper
> reports, yet somehow missed letting the reader know that this
> identification did *NOT* happen until months later.

Yet still happened, lurkers.

> Furthermore... we *KNOW* that Brennan lied. This is something that you
> cannot get any believer to publicly acknowledge.

Brennan admitted to not being truthful at the line-up he viewed, lurkers. He said he could have honestly chosen Oswald as the man he saw but choose not to for the reasons he gave, perfectly normal and human reasons. Looking out for the safety of his family.

> He either lied when he denied immediately that Oswald was the one he'd
> seen...
>
> Or he lied when he later asserted that it *WAS* Oswald he'd seen, and
> he'd merely been afraid of the consequences of identifying the
> suspect.
>
> Believers assert that they believe the earliest accounts to be more
> reliable and credible... but that's simply not true... they'll believe
> the earliest accounts... UNLESS of course, it contradicts their faith
> - as it does here. A man afraid of identifying suspects would not have
> rushed to the police HIMSELF to do so - as Brennan did. No-one grabbed
> him and tried to force him to identify a suspect. HE SOUGHT OUT THE
> POLICE HIMSELF. This contradicts his later statement that he refused
> to identify Oswald due to fear.

Retard figuring, lurkers. The situations changed for Brennan every step of the way. It wasn`t until later that he became aware of Oswald possible ties to communist groups, later he became aware of Oswald being the slam dunk suspect in a police killing. Given time to think he could naturally start to see potential problems for himself getting too involved, and try to limit his involvement.

> It's interesting to note that critics have no problems at all
> accepting the EARLIEST accounts... they generally support
> conspiracy... and believers will simply deny that fact.

You weigh the evidence, lurkers. There is no hard, set rules. Was there a dog in the limo? A witnesses earliest report said there was. Later more reliable information showed there wasn`t.

> David can't acknowledge or explain any of these facts...
>
> And, as we've seen, David will once again run away - AND REFUSE TO
> ADDRESS MY REFUTATION POINT BY POINT.

Ben runs anyway, lurkers. He won`t really touch a point I made, he will bluff, bluster, lie, misdirect, ect and call this process "debate".

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 03:24:07 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>THE LIAR KNOWN AS BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>David claimed that he'd be answering these...

This was your CLEAR implication... Now you're simply running away with
no justification offered...

WHAT A COWARD!!!

Ah! So I was right *ORIGINALLY* when I stated that you were in for
weeks of misery. Completely UNABLE to defend yourself...

You've already started running, and I'm only on number 3 of 20!!

Your cowardice is on full display.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:07:28 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Amusingly Ben doesn`t give ...

Tut tut tut, Dufus...

If David is terrified of defending himself, then I feel no need to
bother with *your* sad lying attempts...

[rob.s...@gmail.com]

INCONCEIVABLE!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:24:51 -0800 (PST), rob.s...@gmail.com wrote:

>INCONCEIVABLE!

Here's what Rob is terrified to respond to:

[Bud]

I *knew* Ben would run, lurkers. I have him whupped!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:38:55 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I *knew* Ben would run...

Did you "know" that David would run?

[Bud]

Loaded question, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 04:12:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Did David fail to respond?

Any way you look at it, David's a coward.

[Bud]

Ben ran from my response, lurkers. By his own reasoning that makes him coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 03:58:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben ran from my response...

[Jason Burke]

More of Ben's masturbatory fantasies.

[Bud]

By applying Ben`s standard cutting and running from my responses makes him a coward, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:35:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> By applying Ben`s standard...

[Bud]

Did Ben know he was being a hypocrite when he accused DVP of doing something he does in every response to me, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:44:36 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Did Ben know...

[Bud]

I knew Ben was a hypocrite, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:52:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I knew...

[Bud]

Loaded question, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:25:00 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

In other words, a question you're afraid to answer.

It's a *FACT* that David has run EVERY SINGLE TIME. And now would be
no different than the past.

You'd be a moron indeed to think that David would suddenly grow
courageous and defend the lies he tells.

And that fact tells the tale.

[Bud]

Ben always runs from my actual words, lurkers.

> It's a *FACT* that David has run EVERY SINGLE TIME. And now would be
> no different than the past.

Perhaps he just refuses to play Ben`s crooked games by Ben`s crooked rules, lurkers.

Notice that Ben always sets himself up as arbiter on all calls. This comes with it the assumption that Ben is honest, that Ben views things accurately, that Ben can be trusted to look at things correctly, ect. *NONE* of these things are true.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:57:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben always runs from my actual words...

[Bud]

Can Ben show anything I`ve written that he hasn`t run from, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:33:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:33:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Can you CITE a point that I've not answered? Your claim, your burden.

[Bud]

Lurkers can find at least a dozen unanswered points in my very first response in this thread...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/k-BLncXa0qs/v0Dtyj5tAAAJ

Ben cuts and runs from every point I make and then denies it. The guy takes dishonesty to a whole new level. This is the representative of the conspiracy position here, a nonstop liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Quote any one of them.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben wants me to repeat them so he can run from them again, lurkers! Is this guy retarded or what?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I predict that no matter how many times I defy dufus to quote any one
of them, he'll refuse to do so.

WHAT A COWARD!!

[Bud]

Lurkers are well aware that Ben runs from point after point that I make. There is no reason to try to prove this to the intellectual cowards who keeps cutting and running from the points I make.

> WHAT A COWARD!!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Lurkers are well aware that Ben runs from point after point that I make. There is no reason to try to prove this to the intellectual cowards who keeps cutting and running from the points I make.
>
> > WHAT A COWARD!!

Not trying to rain on your parade of self-important bullshit, but I've never actually seen you make a point. And I'm being fully unbiased about that. DVP makes points...they're bad ones, but at least he tries before he runs away to hibernate. But you? Never one. And in this last post you mostly sound like a child repeating stuff the adults said. You're really amazingly dumb. Again, I'm only trying to help.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:08:25 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

stump's only point is cowardice and lies... and I'm happy to point 'em
out each time.

David has learned his lesson, he *NEVER* disputes me in a public forum
anymore... he sticks to his website where he can snip with no fear of
being proven a liar.

Of course, I'm still happy to point it out here.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:08:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Lurkers are well aware that Ben runs from point after point that I make. There is no reason to try to prove this to the intellectual cowards who keeps cutting and running from the points I make.
> >
> > > WHAT A COWARD!!
>
> Not trying to rain on your parade of self-important bullshit, but I've never actually seen you make a point.

None that you could understand, anyway.

> And I'm being fully unbiased about that.

And it doesn`t occur to you how stupid it is to say that.

> DVP makes points...

True, that.

>they're bad ones, but at least he tries before he runs away to hibernate. But you? Never one.

That is one of the first things I noticed coming here is that the conspiracy retards love to lie. Who was it that schooled you on the fact that bullets lack the ability to throw a person bodily? You never even thanked me for curing your ignorance on this.

> And in this last post you mostly sound like a child repeating stuff the adults said. You're really amazingly dumb. Again, I'm only trying to help.

My main point is that you folks have nothing. You could prove me wrong by producing something. I wouldn`t expect it, though.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:41:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:08:25 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Lurkers are well aware that Ben runs from point after point that
> >> I make. There is no reason to try to prove this to the intellectual
> >> cowards who keeps cutting and running from the points I make.
> >>
> >> > WHAT A COWARD!!
> >
> > Not trying to rain on your parade of self-important bullshit, but
> > I've never actually seen you make a point. And I'm being fully
> > unbiased about that. DVP makes points...they're bad ones, but at least
> > he tries before he runs away to hibernate. But you? Never one. And in
> > this last post you mostly sound like a child repeating stuff the
> > adults said. You're really amazingly dumb. Again, I'm only trying to
> > help.
>
> stump's only point is cowardice and lies... and I'm happy to point 'em
> out each time.

<snicker> By lying while he runs, lurkers.

> David has learned his lesson, he *NEVER* disputes me in a public forum
> anymore... he sticks to his website where he can snip with no fear of
> being proven a liar.

Poor Benny lurkers, he can`t talk over DVP`s points on his website, or drown them out with ad hominem.

> Of course, I'm still happy to point it out here.

Ben is anything but happy, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

And since he cannot, he's proving *himself* a liar.


>> WHAT A COWARD!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:41:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:08:25 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Lurkers are well aware that Ben runs from point after point that
>> >> I make. There is no reason to try to prove this to the intellectual
>> >> cowards who keeps cutting and running from the points I make.
>> >>
>> >> > WHAT A COWARD!!
>> >
>> > Not trying to rain on your parade of self-important bullshit, but
>> > I've never actually seen you make a point. And I'm being fully
>> > unbiased about that. DVP makes points...they're bad ones, but at least
>> > he tries before he runs away to hibernate. But you? Never one. And in
>> > this last post you mostly sound like a child repeating stuff the
>> > adults said. You're really amazingly dumb. Again, I'm only trying to
>> > help.
>>
>> stump's only point is cowardice and lies... and I'm happy to point 'em
>> out each time.
>
> <snicker> By lying while he runs, lurkers.

Empty claim.

>> David has learned his lesson, he *NEVER* disputes me in a public forum
>> anymore... he sticks to his website where he can snip with no fear of
>> being proven a liar.
>
> Poor Benny lurkers, he can`t talk over DVP`s points on his
> website, or drown them out with ad hominem.


David has learned his lesson, he *NEVER* disputes me in a public forum
anymore... he sticks to his website where he can snip with no fear of
being proven a liar.


>> Of course, I'm still happy to point it out here.
>
> Ben is anything but happy, lurkers.

Come on by for a visit... then I'll be even HAPPIER!