Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #10

[Ben Holmes]

> 10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from
> behind the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository
> Building.
>
> In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
> EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
> (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
>
> I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
> virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
> riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
> immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
> television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
> Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
> the Depository.
>
> This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
> Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
> a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).
>
> Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
> newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
> their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan? An odd "coincidence" if there
> had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday. Don't
> conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
> DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
> shots?

Once again, David is blatantly lying in order to try to support his
claim of Oswald's "sole guilt." I post his entire item 10 in order for
readers to get a sense of David's argument, now I'm going to refute it
statement by statement here:


> 10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from
> behind the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository
> Building.

Nope. This is a lie.

It presumes a fact fixed in time... one point where a poll was taken,
and most pointed to one direction.

The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
"compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers.

Even some of those standing on the steps of the entrance to the TSBD
pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the origin location of the shots.
Again, this is something David is well aware of.

Why he feels the need to lie to support his faith is the real question
here.


> In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
> EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
> (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.

Two more lies right in a row...

First, the official coverup began quite early, with witnesses being
coerced into the "three shot" theory... and simply disregarded if they
reported something different. David knows the term "flurry"... it's
documented in the record. He's desperate to try to conform everything
to the official theory, but he can't do it without lying.

He knows as well the evidence for **TWO** shots being fired from the
TSBD - the photo of the official evidence showing just two empty
cartridges.

Why does David hide these facts?

> I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
> virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
> riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
> immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
> television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
> Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
> the Depository.

I don't find it interesting or amazing at all. Newsmen are not famous
for being knowledgeable on guns, and the CIA had concerted efforts to
have friendly contacts in the mass media - everyone simply "went
along" with the story.

I find it more interesting to pay attention to former servicemen who
had experience hearing shots fired.

Nor did the "plotters" *need* just three shots... had the Zapruder
film never surfaced, and tests with the Mannlicher never been done,
no-one would be constrained to the artificial number of "three."

The Warren Commission was CONTROLLED BY EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T LIE
ABOUT.


> This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
> Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
> a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).


"Rush to Judgment" comes to mind...

But let's examine this claim a tad more closely... David is on record
as stating that 75% of the witnesses stated that there were PRECISELY
three shots.

Disregarding the truth or falsity of that statement for a moment, it's
in good agreement with many polls placing 75% or thereabouts of the
population who accept a conspiracy in this case.

So David goes with the 75% when it's convenient, then sides with the
minority when *that* is convenient.

And then discounts that facts can be judged by polling entirely when
*that* is convenient.

There's no real attempt to figure out what *REALLY* happened, merely a
desperate attempt to validate what he *believes* happened.

Also, when you examine the list of reporters more closely, it looks
like David was lying. For example: "When the sedan stopped, Smith
said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for
the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone,
saying, “No one knows if there was any gunfire.” In the AP Dallas
bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – “This is Jack Bell…” –
before the line went dead."

It would be interesting if David could actually *document* that these
reporters said on 11/22 that they heard three shots. My guess is that
he's using decades old statements... and merely repeating it over and
over again because he's never been challenged to document it.


> Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
> newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
> their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan?


No more than you believe that most American's are spitefully believing
in a conspiracy... as the government *now* accepts.


> An odd "coincidence" if there
> had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday.

Why?

What makes you believe that the official intimidation of witnesses to
go along with the official "three shot scenario" is a way of finding
out what really happened?

Indeed, you can't even *admit* the tremendous evidence of official
intimidation - because there's no innocent explanation of it.

(Watch as dufus starts spouting "empty claim, empty claim" despite my
detailed and oft posted post on that very topic.)


> Don't conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
> DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
> shots?

The "evil plotters" had no such requirement for a maximum of three
shots, as David keeps asserting.

Asserting with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*.

One reporter who was there heard one motorcycle backfiring, and two
rifle shots... (But David simply ignores this... as it doesn't fit his
theory.)

Had the original evidence of two empty shells stood up - and another
empty shell had not appeared later - today's story might well be that
two shots were fired, and those who thought three had been fired got
confused by the motorcycle backfiring.

The Warren Commission would have called on at least three bike
mechanics, who would testify that the motorcycles were backfiring, and
the cause of that backfiring.

And *YOU* would now be spouting the two shot theory of the case.

The true problem was when the available evidence forced the Warren
Commission to limit the shots to three - in order to avoid the
**PROOF** of a conspiracy.

Had the Zapruder film never been released, there'd be no problem with
asserting that the assassination lasted 5 minutes or longer (as some
witnesses believed and said!)

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that, as *usual*, David refuses to respond?

But what's truly funny, is that something VERY UNUSUAL has happened...
stump has remained silent.

[Bud]

He only posted this yesterday, lurkers. I just now read it.

[Bud]

It presumes no such thing, lurkers. Ben presumes it presumes.

> The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
> PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
> pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

This is called moving the goalposts, lurkers. Ben changes the argument, then declares DVP`s assertion a lie by a standard he has created.

> David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
> "compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers.

What Ben is saying is that using the criteria DVP used his assertion is true.

> Even some of those standing on the steps of the entrance to the TSBD
> pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the origin location of the shots.
> Again, this is something David is well aware of.
>
> Why he feels the need to lie to support his faith is the real question
> here.

Yes, why did Ben feel the need to lie to support his faith, lurkers?

>
> > In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
> > EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
> > (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
>
> Two more lies right in a row...
>
> First, the official coverup began quite early, with witnesses being
> coerced into the "three shot" theory... and simply disregarded if they
> reported something different.

Two empty claims right in a row, lurkers. You`ll see neither supported.

> David knows the term "flurry"... it's
> documented in the record.

These are the kind of things Ben likes to say, it looks like he is making an argument but he really isn`t saying anything, lurkers.

> He's desperate to try to conform everything
> to the official theory,

Ben is lying here, lurkers. What DVP is doing is claiming that a preponderance of evidence indicates certain things.

>but he can't do it without lying.
>
> He knows as well the evidence for **TWO** shots being fired from the
> TSBD - the photo of the official evidence showing just two empty
> cartridges.
>
> Why does David hide these facts?

Because they aren`t facts, lurkers. They are retard talking points.

> > I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
> > virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
> > riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
> > immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
> > television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
> > Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
> > the Depository.
>
> I don't find it interesting or amazing at all. Newsmen are not famous
> for being knowledgeable on guns,

How stupid is this argument, lurkers? Newsmen don`t know enough about guns to be able to count gunshots.

> and the CIA had concerted efforts to
> have friendly contacts in the mass media - everyone simply "went
> along" with the story.

How fantastic is this idea, lurkers? The CIA immediately got on the phone and told the members of the media to say they heard three shots. This is the kind of desperate nonsense these retards reach for because they hate the truth.

> I find it more interesting to pay attention to former servicemen who
> had experience hearing shots fired.

Lets see Ben`s breakdown along those lines, lurkers. He alludes it would support his ideas, but as usual he is shooting blanks.

> Nor did the "plotters" *need* just three shots... had the Zapruder
> film never surfaced, and tests with the Mannlicher never been done,
> no-one would be constrained to the artificial number of "three."

Conspiracy retards never feels constrained by reality, lurkers.

> The Warren Commission was CONTROLLED BY EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T LIE
> ABOUT.

This assumes what Ben can`t show, lurkers.

>
> > This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
> > Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
> > a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).
>
>
> "Rush to Judgment" comes to mind...

Again Ben pretends to make an argument, lurkers.

> But let's examine this claim a tad more closely... David is on record
> as stating that 75% of the witnesses stated that there were PRECISELY
> three shots.
>
> Disregarding the truth or falsity of that statement for a moment, it's
> in good agreement with many polls placing 75% or thereabouts of the
> population who accept a conspiracy in this case.

Ben is going to lie about polls now, lurkers. He has been lying about polls for years. He loves to lie.

> So David goes with the 75% when it's convenient, then sides with the
> minority when *that* is convenient.

Apples and oranges argument, lurkers. People counting shots they heard versus the opinion of people not there with an unknown amount of knowledge about the case answering an imprecise question.

> And then discounts that facts can be judged by polling entirely when
> *that* is convenient.

Ben is showing his hypocrisy here, lurkers. Usually a great fan of what witnesses relate, now he takes the position they can`t be trusted to count the number of loud booming noises they heard.

> There's no real attempt to figure out what *REALLY* happened, merely a
> desperate attempt to validate what he *believes* happened.

Why does Ben say they are different, lurkers?

> Also, when you examine the list of reporters more closely, it looks
> like David was lying. For example: "When the sedan stopped, Smith
> said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for
> the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone,
> saying, “No one knows if there was any gunfire.” In the AP Dallas
> bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – “This is Jack Bell…” –
> before the line went dead."
>
> It would be interesting if David could actually *document* that these
> reporters said on 11/22 that they heard three shots. My guess is that
> he's using decades old statements... and merely repeating it over and
> over again because he's never been challenged to document it.

Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers.

> > Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
> > newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
> > their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan?
>
>
> No more than you believe that most American's are spitefully believing
> in a conspiracy... as the government *now* accepts.

Conspiracy retards always insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

>
> > An odd "coincidence" if there
> > had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday.
>
> Why?
>
> What makes you believe that the official intimidation of witnesses to
> go along with the official "three shot scenario" is a way of finding
> out what really happened?

Another statement where Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, lurkers. Bluff and bluster is all you get from this guy.

> Indeed, you can't even *admit* the tremendous evidence of official
> intimidation - because there's no innocent explanation of it.

Perhaps it didn`t occur, lurkers. How innocent an explanation is that?

> (Watch as dufus starts spouting "empty claim, empty claim" despite my
> detailed and oft posted post on that very topic.)

Empty claim, lurkers.

>
> > Don't conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
> > DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
> > shots?
>
> The "evil plotters" had no such requirement for a maximum of three
> shots, as David keeps asserting.

Then why does Ben have ideas about there being a concerted effort to influence the number of shots witnesses reported, lurkers?

>
> Asserting with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*.
>
> One reporter who was there heard one motorcycle backfiring, and two
> rifle shots... (But David simply ignores this... as it doesn't fit his
> theory.)

This is another way the retards play silly games, lurkers. If the initial impression of a witness is the the first loud noise was something other than a gunshot that first noise doesn`t count as a gunshot.

> Had the original evidence of two empty shells stood up - and another
> empty shell had not appeared later - today's story might well be that
> two shots were fired, and those who thought three had been fired got
> confused by the motorcycle backfiring.

> The Warren Commission would have called on at least three bike
> mechanics, who would testify that the motorcycles were backfiring, and
> the cause of that backfiring.
>
> And *YOU* would now be spouting the two shot theory of the case.

Ben hates DVP`s speculation about the evidence, lurkers. He prefers speculation based on imagined scenarios.

> The true problem was when the available evidence forced the Warren
> Commission to limit the shots to three - in order to avoid the
> **PROOF** of a conspiracy.

Bluff and bluster, lurkers. No substance.

> Had the Zapruder film never been released, there'd be no problem with
> asserting that the assassination lasted 5 minutes or longer (as some
> witnesses believed and said!)

Is Ben saying without the z-film we couldn`t tell what occurred, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:16:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Since lurkers have long ago notice that you rarely let 3 hours go by,
the point still remains.

But it's good to know that I can yank your chain, and suddenly you'll
"read" what you now respond to, even as you have "46" older posts that
you've not read nor answered.

Such logic can only be spouted from the mouth of a liar...

[David Von Pein]

That's correct. Several of the on-air reporters state they heard "3 shots" within minutes (or hours) of the assassination (as referenced in the 3 links provided below). Ben should listen to those reports sometime. Maybe then he can increase the number of liars on his Liars List. Eh, Ben?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/becoming-lone-assassin-believer.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-665.html

[Ben Holmes]

And others heard two or four... you're a proven liar, David.

You're TERRIFIED of answering my posts the way I answer yours, point
by point.

And that fact tells the tale.

[Bud]

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

> But it's good to know that I can yank your chain, and suddenly you'll
> "read" what you now respond to, even as you have "46" older posts that
> you've not read nor answered.
>
> Such logic can only be spouted from the mouth of a liar...

<snicker> Ben Holmes, stump detective. These have moved to the top, indicating recent activity. The others remain where they`ve been for over a week, indicating no new activity, so they can sit. New activity doesn`t necessarily mean that Ben is the cause of the new activity, it might be some other poster, but it most likely is Ben whining for attention.

[Bud]

Empty clam, lurkers.

> You're TERRIFIED of answering my posts the way I answer yours, point
> by point.

<snicker> Ben cuts and runs from every point I make, lurkers. And that fact tells the tale.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 17:07:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

How can it be? I've already referenced one of them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:59:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You're lying again, stump.

You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to actually refute what I stated with
citation or logical argument.

Why is that, dufus?

>> The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
>> PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
>> pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
>
> This is called moving the goalposts, lurkers. Ben changes the
> argument, then declares DVP`s assertion a lie by a standard he has
> created.

Congratulations! You've just agreed with my point, and shown your
previous statement to be a lie.

You clearly *DO* understand that David's argument was based much later
than the first two days...

>> David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
>> "compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers.
>
> What Ben is saying is that using the criteria DVP used his
> assertion is true.

And that the criteria is a false one... and based on a single poll.

As dufus just now figured out...

>> Even some of those standing on the steps of the entrance to the TSBD
>> pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the origin location of the shots.
>> Again, this is something David is well aware of.
>>
>> Why he feels the need to lie to support his faith is the real question
>> here.
>
> Yes, why did Ben feel the need to lie to support his faith, lurkers?

Nope. NO faith on my part.

Nothing I state about this case am I unable to cite the evidence
for...

The same isn't true for stump, who virtually NEVER finds the need to
cite. (or can...)

>> > In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
>> > EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
>> > (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
>>
>> Two more lies right in a row...
>>
>> First, the official coverup began quite early, with witnesses being
>> coerced into the "three shot" theory... and simply disregarded if they
>> reported something different.
>
> Two empty claims right in a row, lurkers. You`ll see neither supported.

It would be a pointless bit of citing.

You can't even admit of the official intimidation that went on in this
case, despite example after example.

And if you're too stupid to admit what is plainly visible, no need to
cite the witnesses who corroborate what I stated, is there?

>> David knows the term "flurry"... it's
>> documented in the record.
>
> These are the kind of things Ben likes to say, it looks like he is
> making an argument but he really isn`t saying anything, lurkers.

Go ahead stump, and deny the historic use of the term "flurry" for
what an earwitness heard.

But you'd only be showing your dishonesty.

>> He's desperate to try to conform everything
>> to the official theory,
>
> Ben is lying here, lurkers. What DVP is doing is claiming that a
> preponderance of evidence indicates certain things.

No, he isn't.

You don't hear *ANY* contradictory evidence from David.

It's not *possible* to discuss a "preponderance" unless you actually
cite the relevant evidence.

>>but he can't do it without lying.
>>
>> He knows as well the evidence for **TWO** shots being fired from the
>> TSBD - the photo of the official evidence showing just two empty
>> cartridges.
>>
>> Why does David hide these facts?
>

> Because they aren`t facts, lurkers. I'm a retard talking.

Anyone can Google "JFK two empty hulls" on an image search and see the
photo that stump just lied about.

Shame on you stump!

>> > I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
>> > virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
>> > riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
>> > immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
>> > television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
>> > Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
>> > the Depository.
>>
>> I don't find it interesting or amazing at all. Newsmen are not famous
>> for being knowledgeable on guns,
>
> How stupid is this argument, lurkers? Newsmen don`t know enough
> about guns to be able to count gunshots.

No, not at all. One of the common talkign points that believers whine
about is people mistaking echoes for shots.

And yes, the news media can be terrifyingly ignorant on guns... a
quick Youtube search can pull up news reporters talking about
automatic weapons, and other such nonsense.

While exceptions are certainly there, AS AN AVERAGE, the news media is
not very gun literate at all.

>> and the CIA had concerted efforts to
>> have friendly contacts in the mass media - everyone simply "went
>> along" with the story.
>
> How fantastic is this idea, lurkers?

You'd have to be stupid not to understand the historic truth.

stump is trying to deny the deep link between the traditional mass
media and the CIA.


> I'm still a retard


Not relevant.

>> I find it more interesting to pay attention to former servicemen who
>> had experience hearing shots fired.
>
> Lets see Ben`s breakdown along those lines, lurkers. He alludes it
> would support his ideas, but as usual he is shooting blanks.

Go ahead stump. Name witnesses who had a military background.

Let's examine what they saw and heard.

You won't, of course... you're TERRIFIED of eyewitnesses.

>> Nor did the "plotters" *need* just three shots... had the Zapruder
>> film never surfaced, and tests with the Mannlicher never been done,
>> no-one would be constrained to the artificial number of "three."
>

> As a retard, I never feels constrained by reality, lurkers.


stump can't even admit the most obvious of facts.

>> The Warren Commission was CONTROLLED BY EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T LIE
>> ABOUT.
>
> This assumes what Ben can`t show, lurkers.

stump plays dumb again...

>> > This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
>> > Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
>> > a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).
>>
>>
>> "Rush to Judgment" comes to mind...
>
> Again Ben pretends to make an argument, lurkers.

Made it... you ran.

>> But let's examine this claim a tad more closely... David is on record
>> as stating that 75% of the witnesses stated that there were PRECISELY
>> three shots.
>>
>> Disregarding the truth or falsity of that statement for a moment, it's
>> in good agreement with many polls placing 75% or thereabouts of the
>> population who accept a conspiracy in this case.
>
> Ben is going to lie about polls now, lurkers. He has been lying
> about polls for years. He loves to lie.

You're lying again, stump.

>> So David goes with the 75% when it's convenient, then sides with the
>> minority when *that* is convenient.
>
> Apples and oranges argument, lurkers. People counting shots they
> heard versus the opinion of people not there with an unknown amount of
> knowledge about the case answering an imprecise question.

Oh, this can easily be extended to other evidence, how many people, as
a percentage of *ALL* witnesses, who saw JFK's head wound, put it in
the back of the head?

stump won't answer, of course. It proves him wrong again...

>> And then discounts that facts can be judged by polling entirely when
>> *that* is convenient.
>
> Ben is showing his hypocrisy here, lurkers. Usually a great fan of
> what witnesses relate, now he takes the position they can`t be trusted
> to count the number of loud booming noises they heard.

You're busy molesting the neighborhood children again, dufus. Perhaps
I should change your name to chester...

>> There's no real attempt to figure out what *REALLY* happened, merely a
>> desperate attempt to validate what he *believes* happened.
>
> Why does Ben say they are different, lurkers?

The evidence, stupid. The evidence.

>> Also, when you examine the list of reporters more closely, it looks
>> like David was lying. For example: "When the sedan stopped, Smith
>> said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for
>> the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone,
>> saying, “No one knows if there was any gunfire.” In the AP Dallas
>> bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – “This is Jack Bell…” –
>> before the line went dead."
>>
>> It would be interesting if David could actually *document* that these
>> reporters said on 11/22 that they heard three shots. My guess is that
>> he's using decades old statements... and merely repeating it over and
>> over again because he's never been challenged to document it.
>
> Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers.

Another empty claim.

If all you have is slander and speculation to defend David, he's going
to be very disappointed with you dufus.

>> > Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
>> > newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
>> > their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan?
>>
>>
>> No more than you believe that most American's are spitefully believing
>> in a conspiracy... as the government *now* accepts.
>

> As a retard, I always insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.


Still not relevant.

>> > An odd "coincidence" if there
>> > had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> What makes you believe that the official intimidation of witnesses to
>> go along with the official "three shot scenario" is a way of finding
>> out what really happened?
>
> Another statement where Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, lurkers.
> Bluff and bluster is all you get from this guy.

Intimidation of the witnesses has long been a proven historical fact.

>> Indeed, you can't even *admit* the tremendous evidence of official
>> intimidation - because there's no innocent explanation of it.
>
> Perhaps it didn`t occur, lurkers. How innocent an explanation is that?

You're lying again, stump.

>> (Watch as dufus starts spouting "empty claim, empty claim" despite my
>> detailed and oft posted post on that very topic.)
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

Yank his chain, and stump whines.

>> > Don't conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
>> > DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
>> > shots?
>>
>> The "evil plotters" had no such requirement for a maximum of three
>> shots, as David keeps asserting.
>
> Then why does Ben have ideas about there being a concerted effort
> to influence the number of shots witnesses reported, lurkers?

Because eyewitnesses reported it.

You see, unlike believers, who simply read the bible known as the
Warren Commission Report, I actually rely on the evidence.

Not what someone *said* about the evidence.

>> Asserting with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*.
>>
>> One reporter who was there heard one motorcycle backfiring, and two
>> rifle shots... (But David simply ignores this... as it doesn't fit his
>> theory.)
>

> I'm a retard playing silly games, lurkers.


No-one cares.

>> Had the original evidence of two empty shells stood up - and another
>> empty shell had not appeared later - today's story might well be that
>> two shots were fired, and those who thought three had been fired got
>> confused by the motorcycle backfiring.
>
>> The Warren Commission would have called on at least three bike
>> mechanics, who would testify that the motorcycles were backfiring, and
>> the cause of that backfiring.
>>
>> And *YOU* would now be spouting the two shot theory of the case.
>

> Ben hates DVP`s speculation about the evidence...


How can I? He doesn't speculate on the evidence.

>> The true problem was when the available evidence forced the Warren
>> Commission to limit the shots to three - in order to avoid the
>> **PROOF** of a conspiracy.
>
> Bluff and bluster, lurkers. No substance.

Simply a fact.

Four shots *PROVED* a conspiracy. As the HSCA later got around to
accepting.

>> Had the Zapruder film never been released, there'd be no problem with
>> asserting that the assassination lasted 5 minutes or longer (as some
>> witnesses believed and said!)
>
> Is Ben saying without the z-film we couldn`t tell what occurred,
> lurkers?

Duh!

*WHAT A MORON!*

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 17:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

stump loves to lie, lurkers.

>> But it's good to know that I can yank your chain, and suddenly you'll
>> "read" what you now respond to, even as you have "46" older posts that
>> you've not read nor answered.
>>
>> Such logic can only be spouted from the mouth of a liar...
>
> <snicker> Ben Holmes, stump detective. These have moved to the
> top, indicating recent activity. The others remain where they`ve been
> for over a week, indicating no new activity, so they can sit. New
> activity doesn`t necessarily mean that Ben is the cause of the new
> activity, it might be some other poster, but it most likely is Ben
> whining for attention.

Chain yanked, stump starts crying again...

[Mark Ulrik]

QUOTE "Ben Holmes" ON

The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

QUOTE "Ben Holmes" OFF

Now start citing.

[Bud]

Ben didn`t reference any clams, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Ben will absolutely refuse to explain how the word "presume" applies to what DVP did, lurkers.

> Why is that, dufus?
>
>
> >> The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
> >> PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
> >> pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
> >
> > This is called moving the goalposts, lurkers. Ben changes the
> > argument, then declares DVP`s assertion a lie by a standard he has
> > created.
>
> Congratulations! You've just agreed with my point, and shown your
> previous statement to be a lie.
>
> You clearly *DO* understand that David's argument was based much later
> than the first two days...

There is no "first two days" component to DVP`s argument, lurkers. Ben invented that and pretended that was David`s argument, then called David a liar because he didn`t live up to the criteria of the argument Ben created. Classic strawman and typical Ben Holmes dishonesty.

>
>
> >> David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
> >> "compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers.
> >
> > What Ben is saying is that using the criteria DVP used his
> > assertion is true.
>
>
> And that the criteria is a false one... and based on a single poll.

Ben has to address the arguments DVP makes, lurkers, not rewrite them.

> As dufus just now figured out...

Ben has just figured out that DVP`s argument was correct using the criteria he was applying, lurkers.

>
> >> Even some of those standing on the steps of the entrance to the TSBD
> >> pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the origin location of the shots.
> >> Again, this is something David is well aware of.
> >>
> >> Why he feels the need to lie to support his faith is the real question
> >> here.
> >
> > Yes, why did Ben feel the need to lie to support his faith, lurkers?
>
> Nope. NO faith on my part.

All faith, lurkers. Nothing but. Unrelenting faith in the fantastic. Faith that anyone at any time will do the things that the ideas of the conspiracy retards require.

> Nothing I state about this case am I unable to cite the evidence
> for...

Lurkers, all this amounts to is a retard holding up something and saying "This allows me to believe stupid shit."

> The same isn't true for stump, who virtually NEVER finds the need to
> cite. (or can...)

I cite at least as much as Ben does, lurkers, if not more. And what is telling is that most of what I cite Ben cuts out and runs from.

> >> > In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
> >> > EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
> >> > (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
> >>
> >> Two more lies right in a row...
> >>
> >> First, the official coverup began quite early, with witnesses being
> >> coerced into the "three shot" theory... and simply disregarded if they
> >> reported something different.
> >
> > Two empty claims right in a row, lurkers. You`ll see neither supported.
>
> It would be a pointless bit of citing.

True, because what was presented wouldn`t really support the claims, lurkers. It would be "It looks that way to me" sorts of support.

> You can't even admit of the official intimidation that went on in this
> case, despite example after example.

Ben has failed to defend his ideas about the official intimidation he claims went on in this case, lurkers. He thinks his bluff and bluster wins the day for him.

> And if you're too stupid to admit what is plainly visible, no need to
> cite the witnesses who corroborate what I stated, is there?

Could Ben convict with what he is presenting, lurkers? They can`t convict Oswald with scads of solid evidence but can convict anyone else on empty claims of impropriety.

> >> David knows the term "flurry"... it's
> >> documented in the record.
> >
> > These are the kind of things Ben likes to say, it looks like he is
> > making an argument but he really isn`t saying anything, lurkers.
>
>
> Go ahead stump, and deny the historic use of the term "flurry" for
> what an earwitness heard.

He still isn`t making an argument, lurkers.

> But you'd only be showing your dishonesty.
>
>
> >> He's desperate to try to conform everything
> >> to the official theory,
> >
> > Ben is lying here, lurkers. What DVP is doing is claiming that a
> > preponderance of evidence indicates certain things.
>
>
> No, he isn't.
>
> You don't hear *ANY* contradictory evidence from David.

What an idiot this guy is, lurkers. Does Ben present arguments against his ideas?

> It's not *possible* to discuss a "preponderance" unless you actually
> cite the relevant evidence.

Lurkers, Ben has shown he is already aware of the preponderance when he said...

"David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
"compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers."

Here is a link to some breakdowns...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

>
> >>but he can't do it without lying.
> >>
> >> He knows as well the evidence for **TWO** shots being fired from the
> >> TSBD - the photo of the official evidence showing just two empty
> >> cartridges.
> >>
> >> Why does David hide these facts?
> >
> > Because they aren`t facts, lurkers. I'm a retard talking.
>
> Anyone can Google "JFK two empty hulls" on an image search and see the
> photo that stump just lied about.
>
> Shame on you stump!

Shame on the retards who feel the need to play these silly games, lurkers.

>
> >> > I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
> >> > virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
> >> > riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
> >> > immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
> >> > television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
> >> > Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
> >> > the Depository.
> >>
> >> I don't find it interesting or amazing at all. Newsmen are not famous
> >> for being knowledgeable on guns,
> >
> > How stupid is this argument, lurkers? Newsmen don`t know enough
> > about guns to be able to count gunshots.
>
>
> No, not at all. One of the common talkign points that believers whine
> about is people mistaking echoes for shots.

No, that isn`t the argument, lurkers. If it was the witnesses would not have come up with the correct number of shots. The argument is that people were confused about the direction the shots came from because of the echoes.

> And yes, the news media can be terrifyingly ignorant on guns... a
> quick Youtube search can pull up news reporters talking about
> automatic weapons, and other such nonsense.

How does that speak to the ability to count loud noises, lurkers?

> While exceptions are certainly there, AS AN AVERAGE, the news media is
> not very gun literate at all.

The media can`t count gunshots but office workers can, lurkers?

>
> >> and the CIA had concerted efforts to
> >> have friendly contacts in the mass media - everyone simply "went
> >> along" with the story.
> >
> > How fantastic is this idea, lurkers?
>
>
> You'd have to be stupid not to understand the historic truth.

Apparently "historical truth" looks a lot like retard figuring, lurkers.

> stump is trying to deny the deep link between the traditional mass
> media and the CIA.

Ben is trying to weasel out of supporting his fantastic idea that what the media presented about this event was influenced by the CIA, lurkers. This is how the retards like to operate, just say things as if they are fact that they can`t begin to support. But then anything they don`t like has to be supported to the Nth degree.

> > I'm still a retard
>
>
> Not relevant.

It is relevant to determining that Ben is a scumbag for changing my words, lurkers.

> >> I find it more interesting to pay attention to former servicemen who
> >> had experience hearing shots fired.
> >
> > Lets see Ben`s breakdown along those lines, lurkers. He alludes it
> > would support his ideas, but as usual he is shooting blanks.
>
>
> Go ahead stump. Name witnesses who had a military background.

What ideas do I have that require this information, lurkers?

> Let's examine what they saw and heard.
>
> You won't, of course... you're TERRIFIED of eyewitnesses.

I weigh all the available information correctly, lurkers. If everyone could do this there would be no conspiracy retards.

> >> Nor did the "plotters" *need* just three shots... had the Zapruder
> >> film never surfaced, and tests with the Mannlicher never been done,
> >> no-one would be constrained to the artificial number of "three."
> >
> > As a retard, I never feels constrained by reality, lurkers.
>
>
> stump can't even admit the most obvious of facts.

I can admit that Ben is a scumbag for changing my words, lurkers.

>
>
> >> The Warren Commission was CONTROLLED BY EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T LIE
> >> ABOUT.
> >
> > This assumes what Ben can`t show, lurkers.
>
>
> stump plays dumb again...

Ben tried to pass bluff and bluster off as fact again, lurkers.

>
>
> >> > This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
> >> > Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
> >> > a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).
> >>
> >>
> >> "Rush to Judgment" comes to mind...
> >
> > Again Ben pretends to make an argument, lurkers.
>
>
> Made it... you ran.

Ben made no argument to run from, lurkers. He vaguely alluded to a book.

> >> But let's examine this claim a tad more closely... David is on record
> >> as stating that 75% of the witnesses stated that there were PRECISELY
> >> three shots.
> >>
> >> Disregarding the truth or falsity of that statement for a moment, it's
> >> in good agreement with many polls placing 75% or thereabouts of the
> >> population who accept a conspiracy in this case.
> >
> > Ben is going to lie about polls now, lurkers. He has been lying
> > about polls for years. He loves to lie.
>
>
> You're lying again, stump.

Ben continues to lie about polls, lurkers. he has been doing this for years. He is incapable of saying anything truthful or honest about them, everything he says about them is a distortion of the truth.

> >> So David goes with the 75% when it's convenient, then sides with the
> >> minority when *that* is convenient.
> >
> > Apples and oranges argument, lurkers. People counting shots they
> > heard versus the opinion of people not there with an unknown amount of
> > knowledge about the case answering an imprecise question.
>
>
> Oh, this can easily be extended to other evidence, how many people, as
> a percentage of *ALL* witnesses, who saw JFK's head wound, put it in
> the back of the head?

Retards always look at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers. Bullets go way too fast to be able to see them go in and out.

> stump won't answer, of course. It proves him wrong again...
>
>
> >> And then discounts that facts can be judged by polling entirely when
> >> *that* is convenient.
> >
> > Ben is showing his hypocrisy here, lurkers. Usually a great fan of
> > what witnesses relate, now he takes the position they can`t be trusted
> > to count the number of loud booming noises they heard.
>
>
> You're busy molesting the neighborhood children again, dufus. Perhaps
> I should change your name to chester...

Ben is pretending I am misrepresents him, yet all through this post he has been trying to question the ability of the witness to count the numbers of shots. He is a hypocrite who molests children and then tries to project that trait onto others.

> >> There's no real attempt to figure out what *REALLY* happened, merely a
> >> desperate attempt to validate what he *believes* happened.
> >
> > Why does Ben say they are different, lurkers?
>
>
> The evidence, stupid. The evidence.

Ben has shown himself to be too stupid to evaluate the evidence properly, lurkers.

> >> Also, when you examine the list of reporters more closely, it looks
> >> like David was lying. For example: "When the sedan stopped, Smith
> >> said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for
> >> the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone,
> >> saying, “No one knows if there was any gunfire.” In the AP Dallas
> >> bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – “This is Jack Bell…” –
> >> before the line went dead."
> >>
> >> It would be interesting if David could actually *document* that these
> >> reporters said on 11/22 that they heard three shots. My guess is that
> >> he's using decades old statements... and merely repeating it over and
> >> over again because he's never been challenged to document it.
> >
> > Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers.
>
> Another empty claim.

Which DVP supported, lurkers. He confirmed what I said and linked to some on air broadcasts.

> If all you have is slander and speculation to defend David, he's going
> to be very disappointed with you dufus.

Ben the stump does realize that DVP has already supported what I said.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uwffKDTbwMA/o5Xvb4_gCAAJ

> >> > Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
> >> > newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
> >> > their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan?
> >>
> >>
> >> No more than you believe that most American's are spitefully believing
> >> in a conspiracy... as the government *now* accepts.
> >
> > As a retard, I always insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

Above Ben admits my contention, lurkers.

>
> Still not relevant.
>
>
>
> >> > An odd "coincidence" if there
> >> > had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> What makes you believe that the official intimidation of witnesses to
> >> go along with the official "three shot scenario" is a way of finding
> >> out what really happened?
> >
> > Another statement where Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, lurkers.
> > Bluff and bluster is all you get from this guy.
>
>
> Intimidation of the witnesses has long been a proven historical fact.

Ben thinks if he repeats a lie long enough it becomes the truth, lurkers.

> >> Indeed, you can't even *admit* the tremendous evidence of official
> >> intimidation - because there's no innocent explanation of it.
> >
> > Perhaps it didn`t occur, lurkers. How innocent an explanation is that?
>
>
> You're lying again, stump.

Just because Ben *says* that official intimidation is a historical fact doesn`t mean it is, lurkers. keep in mind that he loves to lie.

> >> (Watch as dufus starts spouting "empty claim, empty claim" despite my
> >> detailed and oft posted post on that very topic.)
> >
> > Empty claim, lurkers.
>
>
> Yank his chain, and stump whines.
>
>
>
> >> > Don't conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
> >> > DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
> >> > shots?
> >>
> >> The "evil plotters" had no such requirement for a maximum of three
> >> shots, as David keeps asserting.
> >
> > Then why does Ben have ideas about there being a concerted effort
> > to influence the number of shots witnesses reported, lurkers?
>
>
> Because eyewitnesses reported it.

Empty claim, lurkers.

> You see, unlike believers, who simply read the bible known as the
> Warren Commission Report, I actually rely on the evidence.

Ben is lying, lurkers.

> Not what someone *said* about the evidence.
>
>
> >> Asserting with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*.
> >>
> >> One reporter who was there heard one motorcycle backfiring, and two
> >> rifle shots... (But David simply ignores this... as it doesn't fit his
> >> theory.)
> >
> > I'm a retard playing silly games, lurkers.
>
>
> No-one cares.
>
>
>
> >> Had the original evidence of two empty shells stood up - and another
> >> empty shell had not appeared later - today's story might well be that
> >> two shots were fired, and those who thought three had been fired got
> >> confused by the motorcycle backfiring.
> >
> >> The Warren Commission would have called on at least three bike
> >> mechanics, who would testify that the motorcycles were backfiring, and
> >> the cause of that backfiring.
> >>
> >> And *YOU* would now be spouting the two shot theory of the case.
> >
> > Ben hates DVP`s speculation about the evidence...
>
>
> How can I? He doesn't speculate on the evidence.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

> >> The true problem was when the available evidence forced the Warren
> >> Commission to limit the shots to three - in order to avoid the
> >> **PROOF** of a conspiracy.
> >
> > Bluff and bluster, lurkers. No substance.
>
>
> Simply a fact.

Followed by more bluff and bluster, lurkers.

> Four shots *PROVED* a conspiracy.

Were four shots proven, lurkers?

> As the HSCA later got around to
> accepting.

Not based on the number of shots the witnesses were largely reporting, lurkers. Based on some faulty science.

>
> >> Had the Zapruder film never been released, there'd be no problem with
> >> asserting that the assassination lasted 5 minutes or longer (as some
> >> witnesses believed and said!)
> >
> > Is Ben saying without the z-film we couldn`t tell what occurred,
> > lurkers?
>
> Duh!

See Ben run, lurkers. He is putting out the notion that eyewitness accounts would make everything contestable, even how long the event took (as some witnesses had the event take 5 minutes). Now he realizes that this notion goes against the confidence he usually expresses in witnesses.

Lurkers can consider what a mess it would be if we had no film and only witness accounts to reconstruct the event.

> *WHAT A MORON!*

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 01:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

Certainly.

Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
them pointed to the TSBD.

State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.

I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
if you could, **YOU** would cite them.

Instead, you simply want me to waste a lot of time "proving" to you
what you already know to be true.

So go ahead, prove me wrong... CITE!

[Bud]

But then he doesn`t, lurkers. Thats all you need to know about Ben`s honesty.

> Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
> State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
> witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
> them pointed to the TSBD.
>
> State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.

Why is Ben setting conditions, lurkers? Didn`t he say he could cite in support of his assertions? But as soon as you call on him to do this he goes into a retard dance. Every time.

> I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
> if you could, **YOU** would cite them.

Right to shifting the burden, lurkers. The guy never supports a single thing he says. Bluff and bluster is all he has to offer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 02:30:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Nope. No seafood was ever mentioned.

It would take a moron, however, to think I didn't previously IN THIS
VERY POST speak about a Dealey Plaza reporter.

So why are you lying, stump?

Or are you simply illiterate?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

If you try to publicly deny that I can cite the witnesses, then you're
simply a liar.

>> Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
>> State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
>> witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
>> them pointed to the TSBD.
>>
>> State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.
>
> Why is Ben setting conditions, lurkers?

Because I'm not your lap dog.

No need for me to cite FOR WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW TO BE A FACT.

You understand this quite well, and since you've REFUSED to publicly
state that I'm lying, it's clear that you *KNOW* that you'd get
publicly slammed with the citations should you *DARE* to lie about
this.

Mark also refuses to lie about this topic.

> Didn`t he say he could cite in support of his assertions?

That's EXACTLY what I said. And if you truly think that I can't, then
all you have to do is publicly assert that the majority of witnesses
documented in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.

But you know better, and won't *DARE* be caught in a lie so blatant.

> But as soon as you call on him to do this

DO IT COWARD... DO IT!!!

Publicly state unequivocally that the majority of witnesses documented
in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.

And I'll prove you a liar.


> I'm just a retard who likes to dance.


No-one cares.

>> I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
>> if you could, **YOU** would cite them.
>
> Right to shifting the burden, lurkers.

IT'S YOUR BURDEN MORON.

No need for me to waste time proving what you already know.

> The guy never supports a single thing he says. Bluff and bluster is
> all he has to offer.

You're lying again, stump.

>> Instead, you simply want me to waste a lot of time "proving" to you
>> what you already know to be true.
>>
>> So go ahead, prove me wrong... CITE!

Dead silence.

And stump is *STILL* denying it!

What a maroon!!!

And dufus couldn't refute this fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 03:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Certainly I will. There's two sets of facts here.

1. The EARLIEST DOCUMENTED witnesses - which a majority pointed to the
Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.

2. The "final" results that numerous authors have compiled from
various sources.

David **MUST** have used the later, since it CONTRADICTS the
earliest... so yes, he *DID* presume that one was more accurate than
the other... that one set of polling was correct, and the other was
not.

David *PRESUMED* - then didn't inform his readers about his
presuppositions... he *OMITTED* the information that people needed in
order to accept or disbelieve what he stated.

And you simply lie about it.

Why is that, dufus?

>> Why is that, dufus?
>>
>>
>> >> The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
>> >> PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
>> >> pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
>> >
>> > This is called moving the goalposts, lurkers. Ben changes the
>> > argument, then declares DVP`s assertion a lie by a standard he has
>> > created.
>>
>> Congratulations! You've just agreed with my point, and shown your
>> previous statement to be a lie.
>>
>> You clearly *DO* understand that David's argument was based much later
>> than the first two days...
>
> There is no "first two days" component to DVP`s argument, lurkers.

Of course not!

Using the EARLIEST documented evidence would contradict his faith. So
not only did he not use it, HE OMITTED ALL MENTION OF IT.

And, as believers constantly state, omission is simply lying.

> Ben invented that and pretended that was David`s argument, then
> called David a liar because he didn`t live up to the criteria of the
> argument Ben created. Classic strawman and typical Ben Holmes
> dishonesty.

It's simply a fact that David didn't use the earliest evidence. David
*LIED* by omission - this is straight out of the believer's handbook.

You can't argue that Mark Lane lied by omission, then exempt yourself
from the the same sort of omission.

>> >> David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
>> >> "compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers.
>> >
>> > What Ben is saying is that using the criteria DVP used his
>> > assertion is true.
>>
>>
>> And that the criteria is a false one... and based on a single poll.
>
> Ben has to address the arguments DVP makes, lurkers, not rewrite
> them.

I just did.

I pointed out that he lied by omission - and didn't address the
EARLIEST documented evidence for the location of the shots.

>> As dufus just now figured out...
>
> Ben has just figured out that DVP`s argument was correct using the
> criteria he was applying, lurkers.

No, he LIED by refusing to state the evidence ACCURATELY. Had he
referred to the earliest evidence, and made an argument for why it's
not as accurate as what *HE* used, he could be right, he could be
wrong, but he wouldn't have been a *LIAR*.

>> >> Even some of those standing on the steps of the entrance to the TSBD
>> >> pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the origin location of the shots.
>> >> Again, this is something David is well aware of.
>> >>
>> >> Why he feels the need to lie to support his faith is the real question
>> >> here.
>> >
>> > Yes, why did Ben feel the need to lie to support his faith, lurkers?
>>
>> Nope. NO faith on my part.
>
> All faith, lurkers. Nothing but. Unrelenting faith in the
> fantastic. Faith that anyone at any time will do the things that the
> ideas of the conspiracy retards require.

I label David a liar... I explain, USING THE EVIDENCE, exactly why.

You assert that I "lied" - yet refuse to state what the lie is, or
document the evidence that I'm contradicting.

Why is that, stump?

>> Nothing I state about this case am I unable to cite the evidence
>> for...
>

> Lurkers, I'm just a retard holding up something and saying "This allows me to believe stupid shit."


Yep.

>> The same isn't true for stump, who virtually NEVER finds the need to
>> cite. (or can...)
>
> I cite at least as much as Ben does, lurkers, if not more. And
> what is telling is that most of what I cite Ben cuts out and runs
> from.

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> > In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
>> >> > EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
>> >> > (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
>> >>
>> >> Two more lies right in a row...
>> >>
>> >> First, the official coverup began quite early, with witnesses being
>> >> coerced into the "three shot" theory... and simply disregarded if they
>> >> reported something different.
>> >
>> > Two empty claims right in a row, lurkers. You`ll see neither supported.
>>
>> It would be a pointless bit of citing.
>
> True, because what was presented wouldn`t really support the
> claims, lurkers. It would be "It looks that way to me" sorts of
> support.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+two+shells&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMsKeJ3LfaAhXpxlQKHYnQAoQQ_AUICygC&biw=1440&bih=807#imgrc=fTAz5vRVj_Y0dM:

Even *YOU* can count to two, right?

>> You can't even admit of the official intimidation that went on in this
>> case, despite example after example.
>
> Ben has failed to defend his ideas about the official intimidation
> he claims went on in this case, lurkers. He thinks his bluff and
> bluster wins the day for him.

You're lying again, stump.

I've cited sworn testimony, I've cited a newspaper article, and I've
quoted eyewitnesses.

>> And if you're too stupid to admit what is plainly visible, no need to
>> cite the witnesses who corroborate what I stated, is there?
>
> Could Ben convict with what he is presenting, lurkers? They can`t
> convict Oswald with scads of solid evidence

List it. Let's examine what you think is "solid evidence."

But, of course, you won't.

>> >> David knows the term "flurry"... it's
>> >> documented in the record.
>> >
>> > These are the kind of things Ben likes to say, it looks like he is
>> > making an argument but he really isn`t saying anything, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Go ahead stump, and deny the historic use of the term "flurry" for
>> what an earwitness heard.
>
> He still isn`t making an argument, lurkers.

Yep... couldn't do it.

You *KNEW* that I'd simply slam you with the evidence that proved you
a liar if you dared to do so.

>> But you'd only be showing your dishonesty.
>>
>>
>> >> He's desperate to try to conform everything
>> >> to the official theory,
>> >
>> > Ben is lying here, lurkers. What DVP is doing is claiming that a
>> > preponderance of evidence indicates certain things.
>>
>> No, he isn't.
>>
>> You don't hear *ANY* contradictory evidence from David.
>
> What an idiot this guy is, lurkers. Does Ben present arguments
> against his ideas?

You can't cite a "preponderance" if *NONE* of what you cite doesn't
support your faith.


What you can't do is define "preponderance." Because it would
*INSTANTLY* show you wrong.

>> It's not *possible* to discuss a "preponderance" unless you actually
>> cite the relevant evidence.
>
> Lurkers, Ben has shown he is already aware of the preponderance
> when he said...

Tut tut tut, now.

Changing the goalposts again...

> "David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
>"compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers."
>
> Here is a link to some breakdowns...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

Does this contradict the earliest documented evidence?

It's a yes or no question ... but you're too TERRIFIED to answer it.

>> >>but he can't do it without lying.
>> >>
>> >> He knows as well the evidence for **TWO** shots being fired from the
>> >> TSBD - the photo of the official evidence showing just two empty
>> >> cartridges.
>> >>
>> >> Why does David hide these facts?
>> >
>> > Because they aren`t facts, lurkers. I'm a retard talking.
>>
>> Anyone can Google "JFK two empty hulls" on an image search and see the
>> photo that stump just lied about.
>>
>> Shame on you stump!
>

> I'm just a retard who feel the need to play these silly games, lurkers.

Yep.

And *ran* from my cite, too!

>> >> > I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
>> >> > virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
>> >> > riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
>> >> > immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
>> >> > television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
>> >> > Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
>> >> > the Depository.
>> >>
>> >> I don't find it interesting or amazing at all. Newsmen are not famous
>> >> for being knowledgeable on guns,
>> >
>> > How stupid is this argument, lurkers? Newsmen don`t know enough
>> > about guns to be able to count gunshots.
>>
>>
>> No, not at all. One of the common talkign points that believers whine
>> about is people mistaking echoes for shots.
>
> No, that isn`t the argument, lurkers.

And yet, this is an absolute fact.

>> And yes, the news media can be terrifyingly ignorant on guns... a
>> quick Youtube search can pull up news reporters talking about
>> automatic weapons, and other such nonsense.
>
> How does that speak to the ability to count loud noises, lurkers?

Anyone notice that stump was unwilling to be honest enough to
acknowledge that the news media in general is terrifyingly ignorant on
guns?

>> While exceptions are certainly there, AS AN AVERAGE, the news media is
>> not very gun literate at all.
>
> The media can`t count gunshots but office workers can, lurkers?

No moron... *EXPERIENCED* people, such as police officers, and former
military... those who knew what gunshots sound like, and have had
experience with gunshots.

How could you be so stupid as to think to compare news reporters with
"officer workers?"

>> >> and the CIA had concerted efforts to
>> >> have friendly contacts in the mass media - everyone simply "went
>> >> along" with the story.
>> >
>> > How fantastic is this idea, lurkers?
>>
>> You'd have to be stupid not to understand the historic truth.
>

> I'm too retarded to understand historical truth, lurkers.


Yep... and too dishonest to simply acknowledge a fairly well known
fact.

>> stump is trying to deny the deep link between the traditional mass
>> media and the CIA.
>

> Ben is trying to weasel out of supporting his fantastic idea ...


You mean... the truth?

Why would I want to "weasel out" of supporting the truth?

Here's just *one* of literally hundreds or thousands of cites I could
use:

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

There are two goals of any intelligence agency - to find out things,
and to make others believe *false* things.

Can't do the second without a deep association with the mass media.

>> > I'm still a retard
>>
>> Not relevant.
>

> It is relevant.

Nope.

No-one cares.

>> >> I find it more interesting to pay attention to former servicemen who
>> >> had experience hearing shots fired.
>> >
>> > Lets see Ben`s breakdown along those lines, lurkers. He alludes it
>> > would support his ideas, but as usual he is shooting blanks.
>>
>> Go ahead stump. Name witnesses who had a military background.
>
> What ideas do I have that require this information, lurkers?

The idea that I wasn't telling the absolute truth.

Run coward... RUN!!

>> Let's examine what they saw and heard.
>>
>> You won't, of course... you're TERRIFIED of eyewitnesses.
>
> I weigh all the available information correctly, lurkers. If
> everyone could do this there would be no conspiracy retards.

Then explain why you're in contradiction to both the WC and HSCA.

But you can't.

>> >> Nor did the "plotters" *need* just three shots... had the Zapruder
>> >> film never surfaced, and tests with the Mannlicher never been done,
>> >> no-one would be constrained to the artificial number of "three."
>> >
>> > As a retard, I never feels constrained by reality, lurkers.
>>
>> stump can't even admit the most obvious of facts.
>

> I can admit that I'm a scumbag, lurkers.


No-one cares.

>> >> The Warren Commission was CONTROLLED BY EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T LIE
>> >> ABOUT.
>> >
>> > This assumes what Ben can`t show, lurkers.
>>
>> stump plays dumb again...
>
> Ben tried to pass bluff and bluster off as fact again, lurkers.

Then simply show how the Warren Commission could have buried the
Zapruder film.

But you won't... nor can you.

>> >> > This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
>> >> > Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
>> >> > a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).
>> >>
>> >> "Rush to Judgment" comes to mind...
>> >
>> > Again Ben pretends to make an argument, lurkers.
>>
>> Made it... you ran.
>

> Ben made no argument I could understand.

Yep.

>> >> But let's examine this claim a tad more closely... David is on record
>> >> as stating that 75% of the witnesses stated that there were PRECISELY
>> >> three shots.
>> >>
>> >> Disregarding the truth or falsity of that statement for a moment, it's
>> >> in good agreement with many polls placing 75% or thereabouts of the
>> >> population who accept a conspiracy in this case.
>> >
>> > Ben is going to lie about polls now, lurkers. He has been lying
>> > about polls for years. He loves to lie.
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.
>
> Ben continues to lie about polls, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> So David goes with the 75% when it's convenient, then sides with the
>> >> minority when *that* is convenient.
>> >
>> > Apples and oranges argument, lurkers. People counting shots they
>> > heard versus the opinion of people not there with an unknown amount of
>> > knowledge about the case answering an imprecise question.
>>
>> Oh, this can easily be extended to other evidence, how many people, as
>> a percentage of *ALL* witnesses, who saw JFK's head wound, put it in
>> the back of the head?
>

> I'm a retard that always look at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

Yep.

> Bullets go way too fast to be able to see them go in and out.

If you can't address the FACT that I mentioned about the head wound,
then simply change the topic to the bullet... WHAT A MORON!

Too terrified to answer the question.

>> stump won't answer, of course. It proves him wrong again...

Another prediction fulfilled 100%.

I'm on a streak!

>> >> And then discounts that facts can be judged by polling entirely when
>> >> *that* is convenient.
>> >
>> > Ben is showing his hypocrisy here, lurkers. Usually a great fan of
>> > what witnesses relate, now he takes the position they can`t be trusted
>> > to count the number of loud booming noises they heard.
>>
>> You're busy molesting the neighborhood children again, dufus. Perhaps
>> I should change your name to chester...
>
> Ben is pretending I am misrepresents him,

Yet you're unable to quote me saying what you claim.

Why is that, Chester?

>> >> There's no real attempt to figure out what *REALLY* happened, merely a
>> >> desperate attempt to validate what he *believes* happened.
>> >
>> > Why does Ben say they are different, lurkers?
>>
>> The evidence, stupid. The evidence.
>

> I've shown myself to be too stupid to evaluate the evidence
> properly, lurkers.


Yep.

>> >> Also, when you examine the list of reporters more closely, it looks
>> >> like David was lying. For example: "When the sedan stopped, Smith
>> >> said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for
>> >> the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone,
>> >> saying, “No one knows if there was any gunfire.” In the AP Dallas
>> >> bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – “This is Jack Bell…” –
>> >> before the line went dead."
>> >>
>> >> It would be interesting if David could actually *document* that these
>> >> reporters said on 11/22 that they heard three shots. My guess is that
>> >> he's using decades old statements... and merely repeating it over and
>> >> over again because he's never been challenged to document it.
>> >
>> > Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers.
>>
>> Another empty claim.
>
> Which DVP supported, lurkers. He confirmed what I said and linked
> to some on air broadcasts.

No, he didn't.

He ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to answer these refutations...

>> If all you have is slander and speculation to defend David, he's going
>> to be very disappointed with you dufus.
>
> Ben the stump does realize that DVP has already supported what I said.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uwffKDTbwMA/o5Xvb4_gCAAJ

Nope.

What he said was: "I also find it extremely interesting (and quite

telling) that virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen

and reporters riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza..."

Then tries to document this with *SEVERAL* examples from his
website???

Sorry stump.

That's a fail.

>> >> > Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
>> >> > newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
>> >> > their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No more than you believe that most American's are spitefully believing
>> >> in a conspiracy... as the government *now* accepts.
>> >
>> > As a retard, I always insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.
>

> Above I admit my contention, lurkers.

Still not relevant.



>> Still not relevant.
>>
>> >> > An odd "coincidence" if there
>> >> > had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >>
>> >> What makes you believe that the official intimidation of witnesses to
>> >> go along with the official "three shot scenario" is a way of finding
>> >> out what really happened?
>> >
>> > Another statement where Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, lurkers.
>> > Bluff and bluster is all you get from this guy.
>>
>>
>> Intimidation of the witnesses has long been a proven historical fact.
>
> Ben thinks if he repeats a lie long enough it becomes the truth, lurkers.

stump thinks if he denies the truth long enough it will go away.

>> >> Indeed, you can't even *admit* the tremendous evidence of official
>> >> intimidation - because there's no innocent explanation of it.
>> >
>> > Perhaps it didn`t occur, lurkers. How innocent an explanation is that?
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.
>
> Just because Ben *says* that official intimidation is a historical
> fact doesn`t mean it is, lurkers.

However, the evidence I cite *DOES* prove official intimidation.

> keep in mind that he loves to lie.

Then all you have to do is cite the evidence that I'm in conflict
with.

But you won't.

You can't.

>> >> (Watch as dufus starts spouting "empty claim, empty claim" despite my
>> >> detailed and oft posted post on that very topic.)
>> >
>> > Empty claim, lurkers.
>>
>> Yank his chain, and stump whines.

Another prediction perfectly fulfilled.

>> >> > Don't conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
>> >> > DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
>> >> > shots?
>> >>
>> >> The "evil plotters" had no such requirement for a maximum of three
>> >> shots, as David keeps asserting.
>> >
>> > Then why does Ben have ideas about there being a concerted effort
>> > to influence the number of shots witnesses reported, lurkers?
>>
>> Because eyewitnesses reported it.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

Go ahead, stump... DENY THAT WHAT I STATED IS THE TRUTH.

>> You see, unlike believers, who simply read the bible known as the
>> Warren Commission Report, I actually rely on the evidence.
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

>> Not what someone *said* about the evidence.
>>
>>
>> >> Asserting with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*.
>> >>
>> >> One reporter who was there heard one motorcycle backfiring, and two
>> >> rifle shots... (But David simply ignores this... as it doesn't fit his
>> >> theory.)
>> >
>> > I'm a retard playing silly games, lurkers.
>>
>> No-one cares.
>>
>> >> Had the original evidence of two empty shells stood up - and another
>> >> empty shell had not appeared later - today's story might well be that
>> >> two shots were fired, and those who thought three had been fired got
>> >> confused by the motorcycle backfiring.
>> >
>> >> The Warren Commission would have called on at least three bike
>> >> mechanics, who would testify that the motorcycles were backfiring, and
>> >> the cause of that backfiring.
>> >>
>> >> And *YOU* would now be spouting the two shot theory of the case.
>> >
>> > Ben hates DVP`s speculation about the evidence...
>>
>> How can I? He doesn't speculate on the evidence.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

Produce the *evidence* that he speculated on...

>> >> The true problem was when the available evidence forced the Warren
>> >> Commission to limit the shots to three - in order to avoid the
>> >> **PROOF** of a conspiracy.
>> >
>> > Bluff and bluster, lurkers. No substance.
>>
>> Simply a fact.
>
> Followed by more bluff and bluster, lurkers.

Yet you can't show how there could be four shots, yet only Oswald
shooting.

You failed again!

>> Four shots *PROVED* a conspiracy.
>
> Were four shots proven, lurkers?

Yep... done so by the last government investigation.

>> As the HSCA later got around to
>> accepting.
>
> Not based on the number of shots the witnesses were largely
> reporting, lurkers. Based on some faulty science.

Empty claim.

>> >> Had the Zapruder film never been released, there'd be no problem with
>> >> asserting that the assassination lasted 5 minutes or longer (as some
>> >> witnesses believed and said!)
>> >
>> > Is Ben saying without the z-film we couldn`t tell what occurred,
>> > lurkers?
>>
>> Duh!
>
> See Ben run, lurkers.

Prove that there weren't shots being fired for a minute or more.

You *cannot* use the Zapruder film, or anything related to that film.


>> *WHAT A MORON!*

[Bud]

It has nothing to do with me that Ben is an intellectual coward who refuses to support the things he says, lurkers.

> >> Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
> >> State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
> >> witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
> >> them pointed to the TSBD.
> >>
> >> State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.
> >
> > Why is Ben setting conditions, lurkers?
>
> Because I'm not your lap dog.

If Ben can`t be bothered to support the claims he makes perhaps he should stop making these meaningless declarations, lurkers.

> No need for me to cite FOR WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW TO BE A FACT.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. I haven`t the slightest idea whether what he claimed is fact or fiction.

> You understand this quite well, and since you've REFUSED to publicly
> state that I'm lying, it's clear that you *KNOW* that you'd get
> publicly slammed with the citations should you *DARE* to lie about
> this.

Lurkers, a good rule of thumb is that if Ben refuses to support the things he says it is a safe bet to assume he is lying.

> Mark also refuses to lie about this topic.
>
> > Didn`t he say he could cite in support of his assertions?
>
> That's EXACTLY what I said.

He made the empty claim that he could, lurkers. When it came to supporting that claim he did what he always does. He ran.

> And if you truly think that I can't, then
> all you have to do is publicly assert that the majority of witnesses
> documented in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.

It is always the same, lurkers, Ben says something, Ben refuses to support what he says, Ben tries to make it about other people. Will he ever be a man and take ownership of the things he says?

> But you know better, and won't *DARE* be caught in a lie so blatant.
>
>
> > But as soon as you call on him to do this
>
> DO IT COWARD... DO IT!!!

I did call on him to support his claim, as did Mark. He refuses. I can`t make a coward into a stand-up person.

> Publicly state unequivocally that the majority of witnesses documented
> in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.

Either Ben will be a man and support his claim or he will be a coward and not support his claim, lurkers. Neither option has anything to do with me. The smart money is on the second option, though.

> And I'll prove you a liar.
>
>
> > I'm just a retard who likes to dance.
>
>
> No-one cares.
>
>
>
> >> I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
> >> if you could, **YOU** would cite them.
> >
> > Right to shifting the burden, lurkers.
>
> IT'S YOUR BURDEN MORON.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He said this...

"The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll."

How could it be *my* burden to support Ben`s claim?

> No need for me to waste time proving what you already know.

Ben can never be bothered to support the things he says, lurkers. Thats why everything he says should be ignored.

>
> > The guy never supports a single thing he says. Bluff and bluster is
> > all he has to offer.
>
> You're lying again, stump.

My mistake, lurkers. Bluff. bluster, lies, and assorted fallacious arguments are all he has to offer.

> >> Instead, you simply want me to waste a lot of time "proving" to you
> >> what you already know to be true.
> >>
> >> So go ahead, prove me wrong... CITE!

Ben never supports what he says, lurkers. In support of that claim I offer the next response Ben makes.

If this is the kind of idiot Ben wants to be, who am I to stop him, lurkers. It merely shows they have no shame and no interest in the truth.

These idiots like to look at all the information incorrectly, lurkers. Who am I to try to straighten out their thinking? Just keep in mind that this is a choice, and nobody can force you to think like these idiots do.

[Bud]

Ben is lying already, lurkers. There is one body of information being considered, earwitnesses. That can be broken down in to myriad sub categories. Alphabetically. By age. Chronologically. Racially. By profession. Earwitness who served in the military. Ben could make an argument about the knoll earwitnesses and I could start squawking "liar,liar" because he didn`t take into account zodiac signs.

> 1. The EARLIEST DOCUMENTED witnesses - which a majority pointed to the
> Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
>
> 2. The "final" results that numerous authors have compiled from
> various sources.
>
> David **MUST** have used the later, since it CONTRADICTS the
> earliest... so yes, he *DID* presume that one was more accurate than
> the other... that one set of polling was correct, and the other was
> not.

Ben claims that just because he made this distinction, DVP must also have made this distinction. He is an idiot.

> David *PRESUMED* - then didn't inform his readers about his
> presuppositions... he *OMITTED* the information that people needed in
> order to accept or disbelieve what he stated.

Ben creates a distinction, creates a presumption based on that distinction and then does battle with this strawman creation of his, lurkers. I repeat, what an idiot.

> And you simply lie about it.

DVP wrote this, lurkers...

"10.) The majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from behind the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository Building."

Ben *changed* the parameters of what was said, then declared what was said a lie based on the parameters he *invented*. The guy is a fucking idiot, lurkers.

> Why is that, dufus?
>
>
> >> Why is that, dufus?
> >>
> >>
> >> >> The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
> >> >> PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
> >> >> pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
> >> >
> >> > This is called moving the goalposts, lurkers. Ben changes the
> >> > argument, then declares DVP`s assertion a lie by a standard he has
> >> > created.
> >>
> >> Congratulations! You've just agreed with my point, and shown your
> >> previous statement to be a lie.
> >>
> >> You clearly *DO* understand that David's argument was based much later
> >> than the first two days...
> >
> > There is no "first two days" component to DVP`s argument, lurkers.
>
> Of course not!

Thats why it is a strawman, lurkers.

> Using the EARLIEST documented evidence would contradict his faith. So
> not only did he not use it, HE OMITTED ALL MENTION OF IT.

Now lurkers, using Ben`s retarded methodology (Ben will change this, being a scumbag, but I`m going to continue using the words I want to use and you lurkers will continue to read them as I wrote them) I can change any argument he makes into something different and then declare the argument I create a lie by Ben.

> And, as believers constantly state, omission is simply lying.

DVP didn`t omit the information since the early reports are included in the whole tally, lurkers.

> > Ben invented that and pretended that was David`s argument, then
> > called David a liar because he didn`t live up to the criteria of the
> > argument Ben created. Classic strawman and typical Ben Holmes
> > dishonesty.
>
> It's simply a fact that David didn't use the earliest evidence. David
> *LIED* by omission - this is straight out of the believer's handbook.

Where does Ben get the idea that the earliest reports weren`t included in the whole tally of earwitnesses, lurkers?

> You can't argue that Mark Lane lied by omission, then exempt yourself
> from the the same sort of omission.

Let Ben name an earwitness that wasn`t included in the group DVP referred to, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
> >> >> "compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers.
> >> >
> >> > What Ben is saying is that using the criteria DVP used his
> >> > assertion is true.
> >>
> >>
> >> And that the criteria is a false one... and based on a single poll.
> >
> > Ben has to address the arguments DVP makes, lurkers, not rewrite
> > them.
>
>
> I just did.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

> I pointed out that he lied by omission - and didn't address the
> EARLIEST documented evidence for the location of the shots.

That wasn`t DVP`s argument, lurkers. It is a strwaman.

> >> As dufus just now figured out...
> >
> > Ben has just figured out that DVP`s argument was correct using the
> > criteria he was applying, lurkers.
>
> No, he LIED by refusing to state the evidence ACCURATELY.

Ben is showing no inaccuracy in what DVP *actually* wrote, lurkers.

> Had he
> referred to the earliest evidence, and made an argument for why it's
> not as accurate as what *HE* used, he could be right, he could be
> wrong, but he wouldn't have been a *LIAR*.

Ben needs to put this strawman to bed and address what DVP actually wrote, lurkers.

>
> >> >> Even some of those standing on the steps of the entrance to the TSBD
> >> >> pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the origin location of the shots.
> >> >> Again, this is something David is well aware of.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why he feels the need to lie to support his faith is the real question
> >> >> here.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, why did Ben feel the need to lie to support his faith, lurkers?
> >>
> >> Nope. NO faith on my part.
> >
> > All faith, lurkers. Nothing but. Unrelenting faith in the
> > fantastic. Faith that anyone at any time will do the things that the
> > ideas of the conspiracy retards require.
>
> I label David a liar... I explain, USING THE EVIDENCE, exactly why.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. Ben took what DVP wrote, changed it from what DVP intended it to be into something Ben *thought* it should be, changed the parameters and conditions of the argument and then labeled it a lie. Only a person desperate to score points would argue this dishonestly.

> You assert that I "lied" - yet refuse to state what the lie is, or
> document the evidence that I'm contradicting.

I point out where Ben lies right where he lies, lurkers.

> Why is that, stump?
>
>
> >> Nothing I state about this case am I unable to cite the evidence
> >> for...
> >
> > Lurkers, I'm just a retard holding up something and saying "This allows me to believe stupid shit."
>
>
> Yep.

You lurkers read what I wrote before this scumbag changed my words, didn`t you?

>
>
> >> The same isn't true for stump, who virtually NEVER finds the need to
> >> cite. (or can...)
> >
> > I cite at least as much as Ben does, lurkers, if not more. And
> > what is telling is that most of what I cite Ben cuts out and runs
> > from.
>
> You're lying again, stump.

I might dig up some examples for you lurkers later.

> >> >> > In addition, an even larger percentage of witnesses said they heard
> >> >> > EXACTLY three shots fired. No more, no less. And three spent shells
> >> >> > (co-incidentally?) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
> >> >>
> >> >> Two more lies right in a row...
> >> >>
> >> >> First, the official coverup began quite early, with witnesses being
> >> >> coerced into the "three shot" theory... and simply disregarded if they
> >> >> reported something different.
> >> >
> >> > Two empty claims right in a row, lurkers. You`ll see neither supported.
> >>
> >> It would be a pointless bit of citing.
> >
> > True, because what was presented wouldn`t really support the
> > claims, lurkers. It would be "It looks that way to me" sorts of
> > support.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk+two+shells&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMsKeJ3LfaAhXpxlQKHYnQAoQQ_AUICygC&biw=1440&bih=807#imgrc=fTAz5vRVj_Y0dM:
>
> Even *YOU* can count to two, right?

How does that photo speak to how many shells were found in the SN, lurkers?

> >> You can't even admit of the official intimidation that went on in this
> >> case, despite example after example.
> >
> > Ben has failed to defend his ideas about the official intimidation
> > he claims went on in this case, lurkers. He thinks his bluff and
> > bluster wins the day for him.
>
> You're lying again, stump.
>
> I've cited sworn testimony, I've cited a newspaper article, and I've
> quoted eyewitnesses.

Doesn`t mean that any of it supported his premise, lurkers. He is claiming a pattern, where is the pattern? The idea has lots of flaws, and Ben runs when these flaws are explored.

> >> And if you're too stupid to admit what is plainly visible, no need to
> >> cite the witnesses who corroborate what I stated, is there?
> >
> > Could Ben convict with what he is presenting, lurkers? They can`t
> > convict Oswald with scads of solid evidence
>
> List it. Let's examine what you think is "solid evidence."

Ben is trying to misdirect away from the point I made about his double standard, lurkers.

> But, of course, you won't.
>
>
>
> >> >> David knows the term "flurry"... it's
> >> >> documented in the record.
> >> >
> >> > These are the kind of things Ben likes to say, it looks like he is
> >> > making an argument but he really isn`t saying anything, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Go ahead stump, and deny the historic use of the term "flurry" for
> >> what an earwitness heard.
> >
> > He still isn`t making an argument, lurkers.
>
> Yep... couldn't do it.

Ben has to actually make an argument before I have to address the argument, lurkers. None of that cart before the horse stuff.

> You *KNEW* that I'd simply slam you with the evidence that proved you
> a liar if you dared to do so.

Ben seems to be really impressed that a witnessed used the word "flurry" in a sentence, lurkers. He just doesn`t seem able to use that information in an idea and present that idea for consideration.

>
> >> But you'd only be showing your dishonesty.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> He's desperate to try to conform everything
> >> >> to the official theory,
> >> >
> >> > Ben is lying here, lurkers. What DVP is doing is claiming that a
> >> > preponderance of evidence indicates certain things.
> >>
> >> No, he isn't.
> >>
> >> You don't hear *ANY* contradictory evidence from David.
> >
> > What an idiot this guy is, lurkers. Does Ben present arguments
> > against his ideas?
>
> You can't cite a "preponderance" if *NONE* of what you cite doesn't
> support your faith.

Double negative, lurkers.

And Ben doesn`t get to make the call on what is or isn`t supportive of an argument. I do.

> What you can't do is define "preponderance." Because it would
> *INSTANTLY* show you wrong.

About what, lurkers?

>
> >> It's not *possible* to discuss a "preponderance" unless you actually
> >> cite the relevant evidence.
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben has shown he is already aware of the preponderance
> > when he said...
>
>
> Tut tut tut, now.
>
> Changing the goalposts again...

Ben is, of course, lying, lurkers. Ben has not been addressing DVP *actual* argument at all, rather he demands that his constructed strawman be considered the actual argument.

> > "David is well aware of this fact, and bases his lie on much later
> >"compilings" of witnesses by fellow believers."
> >
> > Here is a link to some breakdowns...
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
>
> Does this contradict the earliest documented evidence?

It includes it, lurkers.

> It's a yes or no question ... but you're too TERRIFIED to answer it.

Ben constructs a loaded question then demands a yes or no answer, lurkers. Could this guy be any more dishonest?

>
>
> >> >>but he can't do it without lying.
> >> >>
> >> >> He knows as well the evidence for **TWO** shots being fired from the
> >> >> TSBD - the photo of the official evidence showing just two empty
> >> >> cartridges.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why does David hide these facts?
> >> >
> >> > Because they aren`t facts, lurkers. I'm a retard talking.
> >>
> >> Anyone can Google "JFK two empty hulls" on an image search and see the
> >> photo that stump just lied about.
> >>
> >> Shame on you stump!
> >
> > I'm just a retard who feel the need to play these silly games, lurkers.

Ben is a scumbag, lurkers.

> Yep.

He agrees.

> And *ran* from my cite, too!

What cite, lurkers. A photo of a couple shells on a desk? What is that supposed to establish?

>
>
> >> >> > I also find it extremely interesting (and quite telling) that
> >> >> > virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen and reporters
> >> >> > riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to
> >> >> > immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets (radio,
> >> >> > television, and newswire services), heard EXACTLY THREE SHOTS FIRED.
> >> >> > Precisely the number that the "plotters" NEED to have Oswald firing in
> >> >> > the Depository.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't find it interesting or amazing at all. Newsmen are not famous
> >> >> for being knowledgeable on guns,
> >> >
> >> > How stupid is this argument, lurkers? Newsmen don`t know enough
> >> > about guns to be able to count gunshots.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, not at all. One of the common talkign points that believers whine
> >> about is people mistaking echoes for shots.
> >
> > No, that isn`t the argument, lurkers.
>
>
> And yet, this is an absolute fact.

Keep in mind that Ben loves to lie, lurkers. If we thought that witnesses mistook echoes for shots we wouldn`t expect them to come up with the correct number of shots (3).

> >> And yes, the news media can be terrifyingly ignorant on guns... a
> >> quick Youtube search can pull up news reporters talking about
> >> automatic weapons, and other such nonsense.
> >
> > How does that speak to the ability to count loud noises, lurkers?
>
>
> Anyone notice that stump was unwilling to be honest enough to
> acknowledge that the news media in general is terrifyingly ignorant on
> guns?

Has nothing to do with the ability to count loud noises, lurkers. That is what we are exploring, the number of loud noises these witnesses reported.

> >> While exceptions are certainly there, AS AN AVERAGE, the news media is
> >> not very gun literate at all.
> >
> > The media can`t count gunshots but office workers can, lurkers?
>
> No moron... *EXPERIENCED* people, such as police officers, and former
> military... those who knew what gunshots sound like, and have had
> experience with gunshots.

Let Ben try to make the case that one group of people is better at counting loud noises than some other group of people, lurkers.

> How could you be so stupid as to think to compare news reporters with
> "officer workers?"

Ben is willing to accept people from all walks of life when it comes to indicating the shots came from the knoll, lurkers. Now it takes expertise.

>
> >> >> and the CIA had concerted efforts to
> >> >> have friendly contacts in the mass media - everyone simply "went
> >> >> along" with the story.
> >> >
> >> > How fantastic is this idea, lurkers?
> >>
> >> You'd have to be stupid not to understand the historic truth.
> >
> > I'm too retarded to understand historical truth, lurkers.
>
>
> Yep... and too dishonest to simply acknowledge a fairly well known
> fact.

That the CIA contacted the media and told them to report the numbers they said is an idea that is both fantastic and retarded, lurkers.

>
>
> >> stump is trying to deny the deep link between the traditional mass
> >> media and the CIA.
> >
> > Ben is trying to weasel out of supporting his fantastic idea ...
>
>
> You mean... the truth?
>
> Why would I want to "weasel out" of supporting the truth?
>
> Here's just *one* of literally hundreds or thousands of cites I could
> use:
>
> http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Which does nothing to support Ben`s claim that the CIA contacted the media to influence their reporting of the assassination, lurkers.

> There are two goals of any intelligence agency - to find out things,
> and to make others believe *false* things.
>
> Can't do the second without a deep association with the mass media.

None of this has anything to do with what was being discussed, lurkers. The media is on the air immediately, telling what they find out, interviewing witnesses on air, ect. Somehow Ben envisions the CIA influencing the information that was being put on air. Of course he can`t show such a thing in any real way.

>
> >> > I'm still a retard
> >>
> >> Not relevant.
> >
> > It is relevant.
>
> Nope.
>
> No-one cares.
>
>
> >> >> I find it more interesting to pay attention to former servicemen who
> >> >> had experience hearing shots fired.
> >> >
> >> > Lets see Ben`s breakdown along those lines, lurkers. He alludes it
> >> > would support his ideas, but as usual he is shooting blanks.
> >>
> >> Go ahead stump. Name witnesses who had a military background.
> >
> > What ideas do I have that require this information, lurkers?
>
>
> The idea that I wasn't telling the absolute truth.

He wasn`t saying anything at all, lurkers. I tried to get him to say what the relevance was but he demurred.

> Run coward... RUN!!
>
>
>
> >> Let's examine what they saw and heard.
> >>
> >> You won't, of course... you're TERRIFIED of eyewitnesses.
> >
> > I weigh all the available information correctly, lurkers. If
> > everyone could do this there would be no conspiracy retards.
>
> Then explain why you're in contradiction to both the WC and HSCA.
>
> But you can't.

Of course I can, it is easy. The HSCA was going to conclude the exact same thing the WC did, but some late information that was represented to them as scientifically reliable was presented to them. This information indicated a shot from the knoll, and believing this was reliable they worked this information into their report. It turned out to be questionable to say the least, and nobody from either side believes there was a shooter on the knoll who hit nothing that this evidence was said to indicate. Idiots still try to salvage the word "conspiracy" out of this because they are merely playing silly games.

> >> >> Nor did the "plotters" *need* just three shots... had the Zapruder
> >> >> film never surfaced, and tests with the Mannlicher never been done,
> >> >> no-one would be constrained to the artificial number of "three."
> >> >
> >> > As a retard, I never feels constrained by reality, lurkers.
> >>
> >> stump can't even admit the most obvious of facts.
> >
> > I can admit that I'm a scumbag, lurkers.
>
>
> No-one cares.
>
>
>
> >> >> The Warren Commission was CONTROLLED BY EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T LIE
> >> >> ABOUT.
> >> >
> >> > This assumes what Ben can`t show, lurkers.
> >>
> >> stump plays dumb again...
> >
> > Ben tried to pass bluff and bluster off as fact again, lurkers.
>
> Then simply show how the Warren Commission could have buried the
> Zapruder film.

More circular arguing, lurkers.

> But you won't... nor can you.
>
>
>
> >> >> > This would include Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jay
> >> >> > Watson, and Jerry Haynes (among still others who reported "3 Shots" to
> >> >> > a TV and radio audience before 1:00 PM on November 22nd).
> >> >>
> >> >> "Rush to Judgment" comes to mind...
> >> >
> >> > Again Ben pretends to make an argument, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Made it... you ran.
> >
> > Ben made no argument I could understand.
>
> Yep.

Ben thinks naming the title of a book is making an argument, lurkers. He is retarded that way.

>
> >> >> But let's examine this claim a tad more closely... David is on record
> >> >> as stating that 75% of the witnesses stated that there were PRECISELY
> >> >> three shots.
> >> >>
> >> >> Disregarding the truth or falsity of that statement for a moment, it's
> >> >> in good agreement with many polls placing 75% or thereabouts of the
> >> >> population who accept a conspiracy in this case.
> >> >
> >> > Ben is going to lie about polls now, lurkers. He has been lying
> >> > about polls for years. He loves to lie.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, stump.
> >
> > Ben continues to lie about polls, lurkers.
>
> You're lying again, stump.

Everything Ben has ever said about polls is a lie, lurkers. The guy has no interest in the truth.

>
> >> >> So David goes with the 75% when it's convenient, then sides with the
> >> >> minority when *that* is convenient.
> >> >
> >> > Apples and oranges argument, lurkers. People counting shots they
> >> > heard versus the opinion of people not there with an unknown amount of
> >> > knowledge about the case answering an imprecise question.
> >>
> >> Oh, this can easily be extended to other evidence, how many people, as
> >> a percentage of *ALL* witnesses, who saw JFK's head wound, put it in
> >> the back of the head?
> >
> > I'm a retard that always look at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.
>
> Yep.

Yes he is, lurkers.

>
> > Bullets go way too fast to be able to see them go in and out.
>
> If you can't address the FACT that I mentioned about the head wound,
> then simply change the topic to the bullet... WHAT A MORON!
>
> Too terrified to answer the question.

The answer is that Kennedy *did* have a wound in the back of his head so it isn`t surprising that people said there was one there, lurkers.

>
> >> stump won't answer, of course. It proves him wrong again...
>
> Another prediction fulfilled 100%.
>
> I'm on a streak!
>
>
> >> >> And then discounts that facts can be judged by polling entirely when
> >> >> *that* is convenient.
> >> >
> >> > Ben is showing his hypocrisy here, lurkers. Usually a great fan of
> >> > what witnesses relate, now he takes the position they can`t be trusted
> >> > to count the number of loud booming noises they heard.
> >>
> >> You're busy molesting the neighborhood children again, dufus. Perhaps
> >> I should change your name to chester...
> >
> > Ben is pretending I am misrepresents him,
>
> Yet you're unable to quote me saying what you claim.

I was pointing out Ben`s hypocrisy, lurkers. usually a big fan of the veracity of witnesses he turns skeptical when it comes to information that goes against his silly ideas, like the number of shows witnesses reported. Ben just doesn`t like when his hypocrisy is pointed out.

> Why is that, Chester?
>
>
> >> >> There's no real attempt to figure out what *REALLY* happened, merely a
> >> >> desperate attempt to validate what he *believes* happened.
> >> >
> >> > Why does Ben say they are different, lurkers?
> >>
> >> The evidence, stupid. The evidence.
> >
> > I've shown myself to be too stupid to evaluate the evidence
> > properly, lurkers.
>
>
> Yep.

Ben is now making my points for me, lurkers.

>
> >> >> Also, when you examine the list of reporters more closely, it looks
> >> >> like David was lying. For example: "When the sedan stopped, Smith
> >> >> said he flung the phone at Bell and jumped out. As Smith headed for
> >> >> the emergency entrance, he said he heard Bell on the radio-telephone,
> >> >> saying, “No one knows if there was any gunfire.” In the AP Dallas
> >> >> bureau, staffers remember only a cryptic call – “This is Jack Bell…” –
> >> >> before the line went dead."
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be interesting if David could actually *document* that these
> >> >> reporters said on 11/22 that they heard three shots. My guess is that
> >> >> he's using decades old statements... and merely repeating it over and
> >> >> over again because he's never been challenged to document it.
> >> >
> >> > Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Another empty claim.
> >
> > Which DVP supported, lurkers. He confirmed what I said and linked
> > to some on air broadcasts.
>
> No, he didn't.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

> He ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to answer these refutations...

Now the goalposts changed, lurkers. I said this...

"Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers."

Ben called it an empty claim, so I linked to DVP attesting to exactly what iI said, that he got it from what was said on air.

>
> >> If all you have is slander and speculation to defend David, he's going
> >> to be very disappointed with you dufus.
> >
> > Ben the stump does realize that DVP has already supported what I said.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uwffKDTbwMA/o5Xvb4_gCAAJ
>
> Nope.

Ben lies, lurkers. I said this...

"Likely DVP is using what they said on the air, lurkers."

Ben called it an empty claim. What I linked to supported what I claimed, that DVP got the information from on air telecasts.

> What he said was: "I also find it extremely interesting (and quite
> telling) that virtually EVERY SINGLE ONE (if not 100%) of the newsmen
> and reporters riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza..."
>
> Then tries to document this with *SEVERAL* examples from his
> website???

Ben hates that people actually support what they say with cites, lurkers.

> Sorry stump.
>
> That's a fail.
>
>
>
> >> >> > Do conspiracy theorists think that all of these various reporters and
> >> >> > newsmen were just being nice to the evil plotters by cooperating with
> >> >> > their "Three-Shots-Needed" plot/plan?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No more than you believe that most American's are spitefully believing
> >> >> in a conspiracy... as the government *now* accepts.
> >> >
> >> > As a retard, I always insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.
> >
> > Above I admit my contention, lurkers.
>
>
> Still not relevant.
>
>
>
> >> Still not relevant.
> >>
> >> >> > An odd "coincidence" if there
> >> >> > had really been 4 to 10 shots fired in Dealey Plaza that Friday.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >>
> >> >> What makes you believe that the official intimidation of witnesses to
> >> >> go along with the official "three shot scenario" is a way of finding
> >> >> out what really happened?
> >> >
> >> > Another statement where Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, lurkers.
> >> > Bluff and bluster is all you get from this guy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Intimidation of the witnesses has long been a proven historical fact.
> >
> > Ben thinks if he repeats a lie long enough it becomes the truth, lurkers.
>
>
> stump thinks if he denies the truth long enough it will go away.

That is what the retards hope will happen with Oswald obvious guilt, lurkers.

> >> >> Indeed, you can't even *admit* the tremendous evidence of official
> >> >> intimidation - because there's no innocent explanation of it.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps it didn`t occur, lurkers. How innocent an explanation is that?
> >>
> >>
> >> You're lying again, stump.
> >
> > Just because Ben *says* that official intimidation is a historical
> > fact doesn`t mean it is, lurkers.
>
>
> However, the evidence I cite *DOES* prove official intimidation.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

>
>

> > keep in mind that he loves to lie.
>
> Then all you have to do is cite the evidence that I'm in conflict
> with.
>
> But you won't.
>
> You can't.
>
>
> >> >> (Watch as dufus starts spouting "empty claim, empty claim" despite my
> >> >> detailed and oft posted post on that very topic.)
> >> >
> >> > Empty claim, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Yank his chain, and stump whines.
>
>
> Another prediction perfectly fulfilled.

Empty claim, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> > Don't conspiracists think ANY of the reporters just might have heard a
> >> >> > DIFFERENT number (other than "3") if the plot involved so many more
> >> >> > shots?
> >> >>
> >> >> The "evil plotters" had no such requirement for a maximum of three
> >> >> shots, as David keeps asserting.
> >> >
> >> > Then why does Ben have ideas about there being a concerted effort
> >> > to influence the number of shots witnesses reported, lurkers?
> >>
> >> Because eyewitnesses reported it.
> >
> > Empty claim, lurkers.
>
>
> Go ahead, stump... DENY THAT WHAT I STATED IS THE TRUTH.

Ben never supports his claims, lurkers. Thats why you should never believe a word he says.

>
>
> >> You see, unlike believers, who simply read the bible known as the
> >> Warren Commission Report, I actually rely on the evidence.
> >
> > Ben is lying, lurkers.
>
> You're lying again, stump.

Ben is lying when he says he relies on the evidence, lurkers. A great deal of his effort is put into explaining way the evidence. He usually opts for some fantastic explanation, forged, planted, coerced, ect.

>
> >> Not what someone *said* about the evidence.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Asserting with *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*.
> >> >>
> >> >> One reporter who was there heard one motorcycle backfiring, and two
> >> >> rifle shots... (But David simply ignores this... as it doesn't fit his
> >> >> theory.)
> >> >
> >> > I'm a retard playing silly games, lurkers.
> >>
> >> No-one cares.
> >>
> >> >> Had the original evidence of two empty shells stood up - and another
> >> >> empty shell had not appeared later - today's story might well be that
> >> >> two shots were fired, and those who thought three had been fired got
> >> >> confused by the motorcycle backfiring.
> >> >
> >> >> The Warren Commission would have called on at least three bike
> >> >> mechanics, who would testify that the motorcycles were backfiring, and
> >> >> the cause of that backfiring.
> >> >>
> >> >> And *YOU* would now be spouting the two shot theory of the case.
> >> >
> >> > Ben hates DVP`s speculation about the evidence...
> >>
> >> How can I? He doesn't speculate on the evidence.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
>
>
> Produce the *evidence* that he speculated on...

Already did, lurkers. The breakdown of the earwitnesses from McAdam`s website.

>
> >> >> The true problem was when the available evidence forced the Warren
> >> >> Commission to limit the shots to three - in order to avoid the
> >> >> **PROOF** of a conspiracy.
> >> >
> >> > Bluff and bluster, lurkers. No substance.
> >>
> >> Simply a fact.
> >
> > Followed by more bluff and bluster, lurkers.
>
> Yet you can't show how there could be four shots, yet only Oswald
> shooting.
>
> You failed again!
>
>
> >> Four shots *PROVED* a conspiracy.
> >
> > Were four shots proven, lurkers?
>
>
> Yep... done so by the last government investigation.

Then Ben thinks there was a fourth shot from the knoll that hit nothing and Oswald was responsible for all the wounds suffered by the occupants of the limo, lurkers. If the HSCA had the ability to prove one thing it had the ability top prove it all.

Unless Ben is merely dishonestly cherry picking.

>
>
> >> As the HSCA later got around to
> >> accepting.
> >
> > Not based on the number of shots the witnesses were largely
> > reporting, lurkers. Based on some faulty science.
>
>
> Empty claim.

Ben can believe that Oswald took all the shots that injured or killed people in the limo but had a confederate on the knoll who took a shot that hit nothing if he likes, lurkers, its a free country.

>
>
> >> >> Had the Zapruder film never been released, there'd be no problem with
> >> >> asserting that the assassination lasted 5 minutes or longer (as some
> >> >> witnesses believed and said!)
> >> >
> >> > Is Ben saying without the z-film we couldn`t tell what occurred,
> >> > lurkers?
> >>
> >> Duh!
> >
> > See Ben run, lurkers.
>
>
> Prove that there weren't shots being fired for a minute or more.

How can I teach Ben how to reason, lurkers. He enjoys being an idiot.

> You *cannot* use the Zapruder film, or anything related to that film.

Take a look at all of the films, lurkers, see if you see any sign of a long drawn out shooting. Take a look at the Couch film. How many witnesses would have spotted a shooter if the shooting went on longer than the few seconds it did.

But Ben does have a valid point, it would be very difficult to put together this event just using what the witnesses said occurred.

>
> >> *WHAT A MORON!*

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Clearly, you know that I *CAN* cite the witnesses - because you
repeatedly refuse to publicly deny that I can.

I don't do things for free.

>> >> Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
>> >> State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
>> >> witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
>> >> them pointed to the TSBD.
>> >>
>> >> State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.
>> >
>> > Why is Ben setting conditions, lurkers?
>>
>> Because I'm not your lap dog.
>
> If Ben can`t be bothered to support the claims he makes perhaps he
> should stop making these meaningless declarations, lurkers.

dufus is *STILL* unwilling to publicly deny that what I stated is
true.

That fact tells you all you need to know.

>> No need for me to cite FOR WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW TO BE A FACT.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers. I haven`t the slightest idea whether
> what he claimed is fact or fiction.

Of *course* you do.

You just don't want to be slapped with the evidence if you dare to
deny it publicly.

>> You understand this quite well, and since you've REFUSED to publicly
>> state that I'm lying, it's clear that you *KNOW* that you'd get
>> publicly slammed with the citations should you *DARE* to lie about
>> this.
>
> Lurkers, a good rule of thumb is that if Ben refuses to support
> the things he says it is a safe bet to assume he is lying.

Actually, it's a very good bet to be absolutely true when stump
refuses to deny it.

>> Mark also refuses to lie about this topic.
>>
>> > Didn`t he say he could cite in support of his assertions?
>>
>> That's EXACTLY what I said.
>
> He made the empty claim that he could, lurkers. When it came to
> supporting that claim he did what he always does. He ran.

When challenged to publicly DENY the facts I mentioned, stump ran.

>> And if you truly think that I can't, then
>> all you have to do is publicly assert that the majority of witnesses
>> documented in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.
>
> It is always the same, lurkers, Ben says something, Ben refuses to
> support what he says, Ben tries to make it about other people. Will he
> ever be a man and take ownership of the things he says?

Sorry stump, I don't work for you.

>> But you know better, and won't *DARE* be caught in a lie so blatant.
>>
>>
>> > But as soon as you call on him to do this
>>
>> DO IT COWARD... DO IT!!!
>
> I did call on him to support his claim, as did Mark. He refuses. I
> can`t make a coward into a stand-up person.

Yep... yellow coward, aren't you stump?

Demanding the citations to the evidence that you *KNOW* exists...

And are too cowardly to be caught lying by claiming that they don't.

>> Publicly state unequivocally that the majority of witnesses documented
>> in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.
>
> Either Ben will be a man and support his claim or he will be a
> coward and not support his claim, lurkers. Neither option has anything
> to do with me. The smart money is on the second option, though.

Either stump will be a man and publicly deny my statement or he will
be a coward and refuse to publicly do so, lurkers. Neither option has

anything to do with me. The smart money is on the second option,
though.



>> And I'll prove you a liar.
>>
>>
>> > I'm just a retard who likes to dance.
>>
>>
>> No-one cares.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
>> >> if you could, **YOU** would cite them.
>> >
>> > Right to shifting the burden, lurkers.
>>
>> IT'S YOUR BURDEN MORON.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He said this...
>
> "The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
>PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
>pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll."

Yep... still absolutely true.

Now, support your claim that this is a lie.

> How could it be *my* burden to support Ben`s claim?

It's *YOUR* burden to support your claim that this is a lie.

You won't.

You'll run.

>> No need for me to waste time proving what you already know.
>
> Ben can never be bothered to support the things he says, lurkers.
> Thats why everything he says should be ignored.

dufus can never be honest enough to publicly state that what I say is
simply not true.

He knows otherwise... and this is the easiest proof of it.

>> > The guy never supports a single thing he says. Bluff and bluster is
>> > all he has to offer.
>>
>> You're lying again, stump.
>
> My mistake, lurkers.

No, you simply thought you'd not be caught.

>> >> Instead, you simply want me to waste a lot of time "proving" to you
>> >> what you already know to be true.
>> >>
>> >> So go ahead, prove me wrong... CITE!
>
> Ben never supports what he says, lurkers. In support of that claim
> I offer the next response Ben makes.

Empty and unsupported claim.

Still no cite.

Amusingly, you *STILL* can't publicly admit that I've just proven you
a liar.

How many empty shells are there on the table in the photo?

And dufus *STILL* couldn't refute this fact.

This is all you need to know about stump's honesty - he can't publicly
admit that four shots **PROVE** a conspiracy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

As usual, dufus makes a claim, then fails to support it.

>> 1. The EARLIEST DOCUMENTED witnesses - which a majority pointed to the
>> Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
>>
>> 2. The "final" results that numerous authors have compiled from
>> various sources.
>>
>> David **MUST** have used the later, since it CONTRADICTS the
>> earliest... so yes, he *DID* presume that one was more accurate than
>> the other... that one set of polling was correct, and the other was
>> not.

dufus has decided that obscenity can take the place of evidence and
logical argument. So I've snipped the rest of the post...

He'll have to play with himself...

[Bud]

Ben, being an intellectual coward, removed what I wrote. he does this all the time now, he knows he has no chance against me in an exchange of ideas, so he removes what I write. This is how I know I totally own this coward, lurkers, he has to tamper with what I write because he has no answer to it.

This is what Ben removed...

"Ben is lying already, lurkers. There is one body of information being considered, earwitnesses. That can be broken down in to myriad sub categories. Alphabetically. By age. Chronologically. Racially. By profession. Earwitness who served in the military. Ben could make an argument about the knoll earwitnesses and I could start squawking "liar,liar" because he didn`t take into account zodiac signs."

> >> 1. The EARLIEST DOCUMENTED witnesses - which a majority pointed to the
> >> Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.
> >>
> >> 2. The "final" results that numerous authors have compiled from
> >> various sources.
> >>
> >> David **MUST** have used the later, since it CONTRADICTS the
> >> earliest... so yes, he *DID* presume that one was more accurate than
> >> the other... that one set of polling was correct, and the other was
> >> not.
>
> dufus has decided that obscenity can take the place of evidence and
> logical argument. So I've snipped the rest of the post...
>
> He'll have to play with himself...

Runners run, thats what they do, lurkers.

[Bud]

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> I don't do things for free.
>
>
> >> >> Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
> >> >> State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
> >> >> witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
> >> >> them pointed to the TSBD.
> >> >>
> >> >> State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.
> >> >
> >> > Why is Ben setting conditions, lurkers?
> >>
> >> Because I'm not your lap dog.
> >
> > If Ben can`t be bothered to support the claims he makes perhaps he
> > should stop making these meaningless declarations, lurkers.
>
>
> dufus is *STILL* unwilling to publicly deny that what I stated is
> true.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> That fact tells you all you need to know.
>
>
> >> No need for me to cite FOR WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW TO BE A FACT.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. I haven`t the slightest idea whether
> > what he claimed is fact or fiction.
>
> Of *course* you do.
>
> You just don't want to be slapped with the evidence if you dare to
> deny it publicly.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> >> You understand this quite well, and since you've REFUSED to publicly
> >> state that I'm lying, it's clear that you *KNOW* that you'd get
> >> publicly slammed with the citations should you *DARE* to lie about
> >> this.
> >
> > Lurkers, a good rule of thumb is that if Ben refuses to support
> > the things he says it is a safe bet to assume he is lying.
>
>
> Actually, it's a very good bet to be absolutely true when stump
> refuses to deny it.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> >> Mark also refuses to lie about this topic.
> >>
> >> > Didn`t he say he could cite in support of his assertions?
> >>
> >> That's EXACTLY what I said.
> >
> > He made the empty claim that he could, lurkers. When it came to
> > supporting that claim he did what he always does. He ran.
>
>
> When challenged to publicly DENY the facts I mentioned, stump ran.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

>
> >> And if you truly think that I can't, then
> >> all you have to do is publicly assert that the majority of witnesses
> >> documented in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.
> >
> > It is always the same, lurkers, Ben says something, Ben refuses to
> > support what he says, Ben tries to make it about other people. Will he
> > ever be a man and take ownership of the things he says?
>
>
> Sorry stump, I don't work for you.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> >> But you know better, and won't *DARE* be caught in a lie so blatant.
> >>
> >>
> >> > But as soon as you call on him to do this
> >>
> >> DO IT COWARD... DO IT!!!
> >
> > I did call on him to support his claim, as did Mark. He refuses. I
> > can`t make a coward into a stand-up person.
>
>
> Yep... yellow coward, aren't you stump?
>
> Demanding the citations to the evidence that you *KNOW* exists...

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> And are too cowardly to be caught lying by claiming that they don't.
>
>
>
> >> Publicly state unequivocally that the majority of witnesses documented
> >> in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.
> >
> > Either Ben will be a man and support his claim or he will be a
> > coward and not support his claim, lurkers. Neither option has anything
> > to do with me. The smart money is on the second option, though.
>
>
> Either stump will be a man and publicly deny my statement or he will
> be a coward and refuse to publicly do so, lurkers. Neither option has
> anything to do with me. The smart money is on the second option,
> though.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

>
> >> And I'll prove you a liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'm just a retard who likes to dance.
> >>
> >>
> >> No-one cares.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
> >> >> if you could, **YOU** would cite them.
> >> >
> >> > Right to shifting the burden, lurkers.
> >>
> >> IT'S YOUR BURDEN MORON.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He said this...
> >
> > "The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
> >PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
> >pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll."
>
> Yep... still absolutely true.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

> Now, support your claim that this is a lie.
>
>
> > How could it be *my* burden to support Ben`s claim?
>
>
> It's *YOUR* burden to support your claim that this is a lie.

Let Ben quote me saying this is a lie, lurkers.

> You won't.
>
> You'll run.
>
>
> >> No need for me to waste time proving what you already know.
> >
> > Ben can never be bothered to support the things he says, lurkers.
> > Thats why everything he says should be ignored.
>
> dufus can never be honest enough to publicly state that what I say is
> simply not true.

Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers? He always tries to make it about me.

> He knows otherwise... and this is the easiest proof of it.
>
>
> >> > The guy never supports a single thing he says. Bluff and bluster is
> >> > all he has to offer.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, stump.
> >
> > My mistake, lurkers.
>
>
> No, you simply thought you'd not be caught.

This is what the scumbag removed, lurkers...

"My mistake, lurkers. Bluff. bluster, lies, and assorted fallacious arguments are all he has to offer."

>
> >> >> Instead, you simply want me to waste a lot of time "proving" to you
> >> >> what you already know to be true.
> >> >>
> >> >> So go ahead, prove me wrong... CITE!
> >
> > Ben never supports what he says, lurkers. In support of that claim
> > I offer the next response Ben makes.
>
>
> Empty and unsupported claim.

Ben supported ib by not supporting any of the previous claims he made in this thread, lurkers.

Ben proved himself an idiot for offering this, lurkers.

> How many empty shells are there on the table in the photo?

Was there a table in the Sniper`s Nest, lurkers?

I`ve correctly supplied the context in which to judge Ben`s claims, lurkers. He has twisted information up in a knot and demands that I untie it. I merely point out that he was an idiot for tying it up in a knot in the first place.

> This is all you need to know about stump's honesty - he can't publicly
> admit that four shots **PROVE** a conspiracy.

I *can* choose to look at information correctly, lurkers. And I do.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Because you already accept it as fact.

Nor do I "refuse" to support what I say... I stand *READY* to support
what I say.

There's a difference.

As you recently learned when you were stupid enough to outright claim
that I could *NOT* cite for my statement... You're **STILL** lying
over that issue.

>> I don't do things for free.
>>
>>
>> >> >> Just as soon as you *PUBLICLY STATE* that what I said is not true.
>> >> >> State *PUBLICLY* and in words that cannot be misconstrued that the
>> >> >> witnesses who were documented in the first two days - a majority of
>> >> >> them pointed to the TSBD.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> State it PUBLICLY - and then I'll be happy to prove **YOU** a liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why is Ben setting conditions, lurkers?
>> >>
>> >> Because I'm not your lap dog.
>> >
>> > If Ben can`t be bothered to support the claims he makes perhaps he
>> > should stop making these meaningless declarations, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> dufus is *STILL* unwilling to publicly deny that what I stated is
>> true.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

Why is dufus *STILL* unwilling to publicly deny that I can cite?


Clearly, you too much a coward to stand behind your beliefs.

>> That fact tells you all you need to know.
>>
>>
>> >> No need for me to cite FOR WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW TO BE A FACT.
>> >
>> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. I haven`t the slightest idea whether
>> > what he claimed is fact or fiction.
>>
>> Of *course* you do.
>>
>> You just don't want to be slapped with the evidence if you dare to
>> deny it publicly.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> You understand this quite well, and since you've REFUSED to publicly
>> >> state that I'm lying, it's clear that you *KNOW* that you'd get
>> >> publicly slammed with the citations should you *DARE* to lie about
>> >> this.
>> >
>> > Lurkers, a good rule of thumb is that if Ben refuses to support
>> > the things he says it is a safe bet to assume he is lying.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it's a very good bet to be absolutely true when stump
>> refuses to deny it.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> Mark also refuses to lie about this topic.
>> >>
>> >> > Didn`t he say he could cite in support of his assertions?
>> >>
>> >> That's EXACTLY what I said.
>> >
>> > He made the empty claim that he could, lurkers. When it came to
>> > supporting that claim he did what he always does. He ran.
>>
>>
>> When challenged to publicly DENY the facts I mentioned, stump ran.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> And if you truly think that I can't, then
>> >> all you have to do is publicly assert that the majority of witnesses
>> >> documented in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.
>> >
>> > It is always the same, lurkers, Ben says something, Ben refuses to
>> > support what he says, Ben tries to make it about other people. Will he
>> > ever be a man and take ownership of the things he says?
>>
>>
>> Sorry stump, I don't work for you.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> But you know better, and won't *DARE* be caught in a lie so blatant.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > But as soon as you call on him to do this
>> >>
>> >> DO IT COWARD... DO IT!!!
>> >
>> > I did call on him to support his claim, as did Mark. He refuses. I
>> > can`t make a coward into a stand-up person.
>>
>>
>> Yep... yellow coward, aren't you stump?
>>
>> Demanding the citations to the evidence that you *KNOW* exists...
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> And are too cowardly to be caught lying by claiming that they don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Publicly state unequivocally that the majority of witnesses documented
>> >> in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.
>> >
>> > Either Ben will be a man and support his claim or he will be a
>> > coward and not support his claim, lurkers. Neither option has anything
>> > to do with me. The smart money is on the second option, though.
>>
>>
>> Either stump will be a man and publicly deny my statement or he will
>> be a coward and refuse to publicly do so, lurkers. Neither option has
>> anything to do with me. The smart money is on the second option,
>> though.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> >> And I'll prove you a liar.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I'm just a retard who likes to dance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No-one cares.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> I've made a statement that *YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH AS A LIE* - because
>> >> >> if you could, **YOU** would cite them.
>> >> >
>> >> > Right to shifting the burden, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> IT'S YOUR BURDEN MORON.
>> >
>> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He said this...
>> >
>> > "The *EARLIEST* polling would have been those who were DOCUMENTED IN
>> >PRINT in the first two days - and the majority of *THOSE* witnesses
>> >pointed in the direction of the Grassy Knoll."
>>
>> Yep... still absolutely true.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers?

You're lying again, stump.

>> Now, support your claim that this is a lie.
>>
>>
>> > How could it be *my* burden to support Ben`s claim?
>>
>>
>> It's *YOUR* burden to support your claim that this is a lie.
>
> Let Ben quote me saying this is a lie, lurkers.

Good of you to publicly deny that it's a lie.

>> You won't.
>>
>> You'll run.
>>
>>
>> >> No need for me to waste time proving what you already know.
>> >
>> > Ben can never be bothered to support the things he says, lurkers.
>> > Thats why everything he says should be ignored.
>>
>> dufus can never be honest enough to publicly state that what I say is
>> simply not true.
>
> Why does Ben refuse to support the things he says, lurkers? He
> always tries to make it about me.

You're lying again, stump.

>> He knows otherwise... and this is the easiest proof of it.
>>
>>
>> >> > The guy never supports a single thing he says. Bluff and bluster is
>> >> > all he has to offer.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, stump.
>> >
>> > My mistake, lurkers.
>>
>> No, you simply thought you'd not be caught.
>
> This is what the scumbag removed, lurkers...
>
> "My mistake, lurkers. Bluff. bluster, lies, and assorted fallacious

> arguments are all I have to offer."


True.

>> >> >> Instead, you simply want me to waste a lot of time "proving" to you
>> >> >> what you already know to be true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So go ahead, prove me wrong... CITE!
>> >
>> > Ben never supports what he says, lurkers. In support of that claim
>> > I offer the next response Ben makes.
>>
>> Empty and unsupported claim.
>
> Ben supported ib by not supporting any of the previous claims he
> made in this thread, lurkers.

You already did.

Stump is now claiming that anyone who offers evidence is an "idiot."

>> How many empty shells are there on the table in the photo?
>
> Was there a table in the Sniper`s Nest, lurkers?

Dufus evades the question...

I've just *PROVEN* that what I said about evidence for two shells is
true.

And you can't refute it.

You got caught lying again!!!

You're lying again, stump.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> "Ben is lying already, lurkers. There is one body of information
> being considered, earwitnesses. That can be broken down in to myriad
> sub categories. Alphabetically. By age. Chronologically. Racially. By
> profession. Earwitness who served in the military. Ben could make an
> argument about the knoll earwitnesses and I could start squawking
> "liar,liar" because he didn`t take into account zodiac signs."

A court judge listening to you wanting to consider witnesses only
alphabetically would laugh.

Ditto with all your other nonsense.

But a court judge being asked to take judicial notice of witnesses
*DOCUMENTED IN PRINT* that first weekend, in comparison with select
witnesses testifying months later, wouldn't laugh at all... he'd
simply take judicial note of it.

Because it's ENTIRELY legitimate.

And dufus can't cite for his claim.