Oswald's "Sole Guilt" - Refuted #1

[Ben Holmes]

Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...

David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
no need to offer a link to his site.) I'm going to deal with every
single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
"FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!

Not *ONE*.

So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!

In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.

Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
to each "point," one by one:


> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
> 1963.

The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
rifle. He stated that he didn't - and his wife originally asserted
that he didn't.

There's ZERO evidence that he did - that cannot be *reasonable*
refuted. There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.

The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed, despite
other prints being photographed, is not credible evidence of Oswald's
ownership. Indeed, it's *credible* evidence for a frameup. This
explains why Lt. Day didn't want to sign an affidavit on this issue.

The paperwork fails to support his ownership as well - the money order
just TERRIFIES believers - even to the point of the less honest
believers asserting that the Klein stamp was the only endorsement
needed. (!!?)

(David Von Pein is one of these less than honest people who make this
claim!)

If Oswald actually *had* owned a rifle, he surely would have had among
his possessions other items that would demonstrate this... such as
additional ammo and cleaning supplies. I have quite a few friends who
are gun owners, and you could remove every weapon from their house,
and there would *STILL* be plenty of evidence for gun ownership.

Believers actually put forth Marina "pointing" to where she "thought"
a rifle **HAD BEEN** as evidence for a rifle!! :)

This is the sort of sad sad "evidence" that believers must demean
themselves by posting as their evidence. When you don't have *real*
evidence, anything will do. (This explains Bugliosi's use of Oswald
"not reading a newspaper" as evidence that he murdered someone)

It's interesting to note that most of the paperwork that allegedly
tied Oswald to the rifle no longer exists in originals. This is quite
an important point, since handwriting analysis really doesn't work on
copies. So many features of writing that analyists use to make a
determination simply aren't there on copies, and it's simply not
possible to accurately determine that Oswald wrote anything
"incriminating" in this case - since the originals don't exist.

Nor is some of this "evidence" even logical... for example, the
envelope containing the money order was postmarked March 12th, 1963 -
yet the money order was allegedly deposited on March 13th, 1963. David
can't explain how a money order was shipped 700 miles to Chicago,
sorted there and routed to the delivery route carrier, opened and
resorted at Kleins, and deposited all in 24 hours. It simply beggars
belief...

Then we have the problem that the rifle could never have been
delivered to that post office box... since the 'Part 3' of the Post
Office Box application which states who else is allowed to accept mail
- DID NOT GIVE ANY OTHER NAME - according to the FBI (CE 2585, p.
4)... this was *before* the 'Part 3' disappeared from the evidence.
And just like the interior photo of JFK's chest that could have
supported the SBT (or proven it false), this 'Part 3' that PROVED
Oswald unable to pick up something addressed to "Alek Hidell"
disappeared - but not before we found out what it said.

Why did the Warren Commission bury this fact? Why did they blatantly
*LIE* about 'Part 3?'

***********************************
Speculation.--The post office box in Dallas to which Oswald had the
rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of A. Hidell.

Commission finding.--It is not known whether Oswald's application
listed the name A. Hidell as one entitled to receive mail at the box.
In accordance with U.S. Post Office regulations, the portion of the
application listing the names of persons other than the applicant
entitled to receive mail was discarded after the box was closed on May
14, 1963.
************************************

This is an outright lie - as the previously cited CE 2585 shows on
page four that the FBI *HAD* looked at this - and did *NOT* find any
other names listed. This was an embarrassment for the Warren
Commission - SO THEY SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.

Another problem David has is the fact that of only roughly 300 people
who fell under the secret CIA 'HTLingual' program, Lee Harvey Oswald
was one of them. This program intercepted and read mail... it's rather
inconceivable that they missed a RIFLE going to a post office box...
yet clearly either they missed it, or a rifle was never shipped to the
post office box.

Watch as David refuses to address these issues. (Indeed, watch as *NO*
believer does anything other than deny the facts I've posted!)

[Bud]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...

I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.

> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
> no need to offer a link to his site.)

OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.

> I'm going to deal with every
> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
>
> Not *ONE*.
>
> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!

But even DVP`s poor choice of words isn`t going to help Ben, lurkers, you watch and see.

> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.

Not really. Because after each of Ben`s so-called "refutations" the possibility of Oswald`s lone guilt will still remain untouched.

> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
> to each "point," one by one:
>
>
> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
> > 1963.
>
> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
> rifle.

Already with the empty claims, lurkers.

> He stated that he didn't -

He also said he hadn`t shot anyone. The man lied a lot in custody, lurkers.

> and his wife originally asserted
> that he didn't.

Yet she led police to where she thought her husband kept one, lurkers.

> There's ZERO evidence that he did - that cannot be *reasonable*
> refuted.

Little in this world carries less weight than what a conspiracy retard sees as "reasonable", lurkers.

> There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.

Yet prints of Oswald taken from the rifle exist in evidence, lurkers.

> The palm print, appearing late,

It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.

> and never being photographed,

Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.

>despite
> other prints being photographed, is not credible evidence of Oswald's
> ownership.

Never trust a conspiracy retard to determine what is credible, lurkers.

> Indeed, it's *credible* evidence for a frameup. This
> explains why Lt. Day didn't want to sign an affidavit on this issue.

As do other things. And Day testified under oath that he found the prints on the rifle, how is it worse to sign off on an affidavit.

> The paperwork fails to support his ownership as well - the money order
> just TERRIFIES believers -

The file locator number on the money order scares Ben so much he is afraid to comment on it, lurkers.It shows the money order passed through the system, and is devastating to the silly games these retards play.

> even to the point of the less honest
> believers asserting that the Klein stamp was the only endorsement
> needed. (!!?)

The payee endorses a money order, lurkers.

> (David Von Pein is one of these less than honest people who make this
> claim!)
>
> If Oswald actually *had* owned a rifle, he surely would have had among
> his possessions other items that would demonstrate this... such as
> additional ammo and cleaning supplies.

Shown to be false by the fact that he didn`t, lurkers.

> I have quite a few friends who
> are gun owners, and you could remove every weapon from their house,
> and there would *STILL* be plenty of evidence for gun ownership.

If they took their rifle to store it at another persons house there wouldn`t be, lurkers.

And this highlights the desperation of these retards, they contrive reasons to disregard what is in evidence and give weight to things that are not.

> Believers actually put forth Marina "pointing" to where she "thought"
> a rifle **HAD BEEN** as evidence for a rifle!! :)

She took police to where she thought her husband kept his rifle. It wasn`t there, because her husband had taken it to work and used it to kill Kennedy. These retards will be stumped by these simple things for all eternity because they insist on looking at the wrong things, and looking at those wrong things incorrectly.

> This is the sort of sad sad "evidence" that believers must demean
> themselves by posting as their evidence. When you don't have *real*
> evidence, anything will do. (This explains Bugliosi's use of Oswald
> "not reading a newspaper" as evidence that he murdered someone)

Ben is too much of a stump to ever grasp the point, which is the change in Oswald`s routine that day, lurkers.

> It's interesting to note that most of the paperwork that allegedly
> tied Oswald to the rifle no longer exists in originals. This is quite
> an important point, since handwriting analysis really doesn't work on
> copies. So many features of writing that analyists use to make a
> determination simply aren't there on copies, and it's simply not
> possible to accurately determine that Oswald wrote anything
> "incriminating" in this case - since the originals don't exist.

Isn`t that great, lurkers, now the retards can pretend it is all faked. They have no interest in the truth and are only playing silly games with the deaths of these men anyway.

> Nor is some of this "evidence" even logical... for example, the
> envelope containing the money order was postmarked March 12th, 1963 -
> yet the money order was allegedly deposited on March 13th, 1963. David
> can't explain how a money order was shipped 700 miles to Chicago,
> sorted there and routed to the delivery route carrier, opened and
> resorted at Kleins, and deposited all in 24 hours. It simply beggars
> belief...

That isn`t what happened, lurkers.

http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Wilmouth.jpg

> Then we have the problem that the rifle could never have been
> delivered to that post office box...

The photogragh of Oswald holding the rifle shows he did, lurkers.

> since the 'Part 3' of the Post
> Office Box application which states who else is allowed to accept mail
> - DID NOT GIVE ANY OTHER NAME - according to the FBI (CE 2585, p.
> 4)...

Ben is lying, lurkers, the FBI did not state they had part three of the Post Office Box application.

> this was *before* the 'Part 3' disappeared from the evidence.

First Ben would need to show it existed in evidence, lurkers.

But note the hypocrisy, lurkers. Something that Ben has never seen is given weight on the FBI`s say-so. If the FBI asserted something that couldn`t be produced that did harm to his silly ideas he would never accept it. Another way you can tell he is a game playing hobbyist.

> And just like the interior photo of JFK's chest that could have
> supported the SBT (or proven it false), this 'Part 3' that PROVED
> Oswald unable to pick up something addressed to "Alek Hidell"
> disappeared - but not before we found out what it said.
>
> Why did the Warren Commission bury this fact?

Loaded question, lurkers.

> Why did they blatantly
> *LIE* about 'Part 3?'

Another loaded question, lurkers.

> ***********************************
> Speculation.--The post office box in Dallas to which Oswald had the
> rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of A. Hidell.
>
> Commission finding.--It is not known whether Oswald's application
> listed the name A. Hidell as one entitled to receive mail at the box.
> In accordance with U.S. Post Office regulations, the portion of the
> application listing the names of persons other than the applicant
> entitled to receive mail was discarded after the box was closed on May
> 14, 1963.
> ************************************
>
> This is an outright lie - as the previously cited CE 2585 shows on
> page four that the FBI *HAD* looked at this -

Ben is *assuming* part three was on the application when the FBI examined it, lurkers.

>and did *NOT* find any
> other names listed. This was an embarrassment for the Warren
> Commission - SO THEY SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.
>
> Another problem David has is the fact that of only roughly 300 people
> who fell under the secret CIA 'HTLingual' program, Lee Harvey Oswald
> was one of them. This program intercepted and read mail... it's rather
> inconceivable that they missed a RIFLE going to a post office box...
> yet clearly either they missed it, or a rifle was never shipped to the
> post office box.

It is clear that it was shipped and Oswald received it, lurkers.

> Watch as David refuses to address these issues. (Indeed, watch as *NO*
> believer does anything other than deny the facts I've posted!)

And note that exactly as I predicted Ben did nothing to refute the idea that Oswald owned this rifle. He misdirected to all the wrong things when all the right things make it clear that Oswald did indeed own and use this rifle.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
> > David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>
> I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>
> > David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
> > following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
> > no need to offer a link to his site.)
>
> OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.

Here's my site that Holmes didn't want to provide a link to....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[Jason Burke]

On 12/5/2017 8:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>>> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>>
>> I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>>
>>> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
>>> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
>>> no need to offer a link to his site.)
>>
>> OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.
>
> Here's my site that Holmes didn't want to provide a link to....
>
> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>
>

Now ol' Holmie will accuse you of somehow getting dough from the CIA for
each click.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>
> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
> no need to offer a link to his site.) I'm going to deal with every
> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
>
> Not *ONE*.
>
> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!
>
> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.
>
> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
> to each "point," one by one:
>
>
> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
> > 1963.
>
> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
> rifle.

As I point out on my "Oswald Is Guilty" website (via the link provided below)....

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

....there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 in March of 1963. The evidence proves that fact beyond any and all REASONABLE doubt.

And the fairly recent (November 2015) discovery made by Lance Payette concerning the File Locator Number on the Postal Money Order that Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods to pay for the rifle that was ultimately used by Oswald to kill President Kennedy is a substantial piece of additional solid evidence which indicates that Oswald's money order was, indeed, processed and stamped by the Federal Reserve Bank AFTER the money order was cashed and handled by other banking institutions.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#The-File-Locator-Number-On-The-Hidell-Money-Order

So that File Locator Number on the money order is just one more thing that conspiracists like Ben Holmes have no choice but to believe was planted or manufactured by conspirators in their non-stop efforts to frame Mr. Oswald. Right, Ben?

[David Von Pein]

This discussion has once again provided me with an opportunity to archive at my website the desperate denials and misguided ramblings of a JFK conspiracy theorist (Ben Holmes), along with the sensible replies made by some rational people (Bud and myself) who can easily see that the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination proves his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

I've created a page on my site for this discussion (and Ben's future fanciful alleged "refutations" of my arguments in additional forum threads yet to come)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html

So my thanks go out to Ben Holmes for his willingness to once again place on full display his eagerness to disbelieve the legitimacy of virtually every last piece of "Oswald Did It" evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, so that Ben can continue to pretend that Lee Oswald was completely innocent of murdering anyone on November 22, 1963.

Such wholesale blanket denial by a conspiracist concerning the validity of all (or certainly most) of the evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit cases makes it much easier for someone like me to refute such nonsensical notions—and that's because they are imaginary and wholly unprovable notions to begin with.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Also see:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Also see:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:02:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>
> I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.

How silly!

You *KNOW* from past experience that I do what I say I'm going to do.

You're implying that I wouldn't. That's a lie.

>> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
>> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
>> no need to offer a link to his site.)
>
> OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.

Too stupid to read the entire post before responding to it, "Dud?"

>> I'm going to deal with every
>> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
>> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
>>
>> Not *ONE*.
>>
>> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
>> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!
>
> But even DVP`s poor choice of words isn`t going to help Ben, lurkers, you watch and see.

Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.

IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT -
he never even addressed that topic.

David too runs from this.

An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt
to defend it.

Neither "Dud" nor David are honest...

>> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
>> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.
>
> Not really. Because after each of Ben`s so-called "refutations"
> the possibility of Oswald`s lone guilt will still remain untouched.

How STUPID of you!

You merely presume that by offering evidence for Oswald's guilt, THAT
YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE GUILT OF OTHERS.

You're simply not honest enough to admit that David DIDN'T ADDRESS THE
ISSUE **AT ALL**.

So on the issue of how many people were involved, David has already
lost - he never even *tried.*

>> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
>> to each "point," one by one:
>>
>>
>> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
>> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
>> > 1963.
>>
>> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
>> rifle.
>
> Already with the empty claims, lurkers.

Can't read, eh "Dud?"

I specified it below.

>> He stated that he didn't -
>
> He also said he hadn`t shot anyone. The man lied a lot in custody,
> lurkers.

Begging the question... a typical logical fallacy that believers often
use.

>> and his wife originally asserted
>> that he didn't.
>
> Yet she led police to where she thought her husband kept one, lurkers.

Yep... only a believer can imagine that someone else's imagination is
evidence.

>> There's ZERO evidence that he did - that cannot be *reasonable*
>> refuted.
>
> Little in this world carries less weight than what a conspiracy
> retard sees as "reasonable", lurkers.

If put to a poll, it would be quite simple to prove you wrong.

>> There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.
>
> Yet prints of Oswald taken from the rifle exist in evidence, lurkers.

Again begging the question. As no photograph is in existence, and the
most credible witness never saw any evidence of a print, the
*CREDIBLE* evidence is that the "palm print" was never on the rifle.

This explains why both the FBI and Warren Commission doubted it.

>> The palm print, appearing late,
>
> It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.

Begging the question again...

>> and never being photographed,
>
> Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.

You're lying again, "Dud."

You cannot be stupid enough to think that I'm not referring to a
photograph of the ORIGINAL print on the rifle before lifting.

Yet you will not, AND CANNOT, produce any such photo.

Why do you think lies will convince anyone?

>> despite other prints being photographed, is not credible
>> evidence of Oswald's ownership.
>
> Never trust a conspiracy retard to determine what is credible,
> lurkers.

The fact that you couldn't refute what I'd stated, and used ad hominem
instead - shows that you understand the weakness of your case.

>> Indeed, it's *credible* evidence for a frameup. This
>> explains why Lt. Day didn't want to sign an affidavit on this issue.
>
> As do other things. And Day testified under oath that he found the
> prints on the rifle, how is it worse to sign off on an affidavit.

How long does it take to sign your name?

>> The paperwork fails to support his ownership as well - the money order
>> just TERRIFIES believers -
>
> The file locator number on the money order scares Ben so much he
> is afraid to comment on it, lurkers.It shows the money order passed
> through the system, and is devastating to the silly games these
> retards play.

Yet you can't show this. It would have been child's play for the
Warren Commission to produce similar money orders from the same period
of time... and show this alleged authenticity.

But they didn't... nor did they question relevant witnesses that would
have shown this.

And you have no explanation for this.

>> even to the point of the less honest
>> believers asserting that the Klein stamp was the only endorsement
>> needed. (!!?)
>
> The payee endorses a money order, lurkers.

So does the bank. As has been amply demonstrated in other forums.

>> (David Von Pein is one of these less than honest people who make this
>> claim!)
>>
>> If Oswald actually *had* owned a rifle, he surely would have had among
>> his possessions other items that would demonstrate this... such as
>> additional ammo and cleaning supplies.
>
> Shown to be false by the fact that he didn`t, lurkers.

Begging the question again.

By this EXACT SAME LOGIC, your house is a leper colony.

>> I have quite a few friends who
>> are gun owners, and you could remove every weapon from their house,
>> and there would *STILL* be plenty of evidence for gun ownership.
>
> If they took their rifle to store it at another persons house
> there wouldn`t be, lurkers.

So your now arguing that Oswald *borrowed* a rifle.

Sheer nonsense... just how stupid *are* you "Dud?"

> And this highlights the desperation of these retards, they
> contrive reasons to disregard what is in evidence and give weight to
> things that are not.

Says the moron who just argued that Oswald *borrowed* someone else's
rifle.

>> Believers actually put forth Marina "pointing" to where she "thought"
>> a rifle **HAD BEEN** as evidence for a rifle!! :)
>
> She took police to where she thought her husband kept his rifle.
> It wasn`t there, because her husband had taken it to work and used it
> to kill Kennedy. These retards will be stumped by these simple things
> for all eternity because they insist on looking at the wrong things,
> and looking at those wrong things incorrectly.

You merely repeat the same assertion.

I've already pointed out the stupidity of it.

>> This is the sort of sad sad "evidence" that believers must demean
>> themselves by posting as their evidence. When you don't have *real*
>> evidence, anything will do. (This explains Bugliosi's use of Oswald
>> "not reading a newspaper" as evidence that he murdered someone)
>
> Ben is too much of a stump to ever grasp the point, which is the
> change in Oswald`s routine that day, lurkers.

Once again, you refuse to address what I stated, and use ad hominem in
place of citation & logical debate.

This shows that you well understand the weakness of your case... for
only a true moron thinks that one witness who asserts he didn't see
someone reading a newspaper... is evidence for murder.

>> It's interesting to note that most of the paperwork that allegedly
>> tied Oswald to the rifle no longer exists in originals. This is quite
>> an important point, since handwriting analysis really doesn't work on
>> copies. So many features of writing that analyists use to make a
>> determination simply aren't there on copies, and it's simply not
>> possible to accurately determine that Oswald wrote anything
>> "incriminating" in this case - since the originals don't exist.
>
> Isn`t that great, lurkers, now the retards can pretend it is all
> faked. They have no interest in the truth and are only playing silly
> games with the deaths of these men anyway.

Once again, ad hominem in place of anything that would refute what I
stated.

You clearly CANNOT refute what I said... (otherwise, you would have)

You have no explanation for why the original paperwork disappeared.

And no credible explanation.

You lose!

>> Nor is some of this "evidence" even logical... for example, the
>> envelope containing the money order was postmarked March 12th, 1963 -
>> yet the money order was allegedly deposited on March 13th, 1963. David
>> can't explain how a money order was shipped 700 miles to Chicago,
>> sorted there and routed to the delivery route carrier, opened and
>> resorted at Kleins, and deposited all in 24 hours. It simply beggars
>> belief...
>
> That isn`t what happened, lurkers.
>
> http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Wilmouth.jpg

You cite, yet you failed to show how your citation refutes what I
stated.

>> Then we have the problem that the rifle could never have been
>> delivered to that post office box...
>
> The photogragh of Oswald holding the rifle shows he did, lurkers.

Begging the question again.

>> since the 'Part 3' of the Post
>> Office Box application which states who else is allowed to accept mail
>> - DID NOT GIVE ANY OTHER NAME - according to the FBI (CE 2585, p.
>> 4)...
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers, the FBI did not state they had part three
> of the Post Office Box application.

Anyone can read the citation... here it is:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf

Watch as "Dud" refuses to retract his obvious lie.

>> this was *before* the 'Part 3' disappeared from the evidence.
>
> First Ben would need to show it existed in evidence, lurkers.

Cited above.

> But note the hypocrisy, lurkers. Something that Ben has never seen
> is given weight on the FBI`s say-so. If the FBI asserted something
> that couldn`t be produced that did harm to his silly ideas he would
> never accept it. Another way you can tell he is a game playing
> hobbyist.

No "hypocrisy" at all in pointing out evidence THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY
MUST either accept, or explain why you deny it.

This is a common complaint, and a false one at that... used often by
believers... whining when critics point to the official evidence in
this case that doesn't support the official story.

>> And just like the interior photo of JFK's chest that could have
>> supported the SBT (or proven it false), this 'Part 3' that PROVED
>> Oswald unable to pick up something addressed to "Alek Hidell"
>> disappeared - but not before we found out what it said.
>>
>> Why did the Warren Commission bury this fact?
>
> Loaded question, lurkers.

You mean, of course, that it's a question you can't answer.

The Warren Commission *HAD* these reports from the FBI, and provably
failed to give that information.

>> Why did they blatantly
>> *LIE* about 'Part 3?'
>
> Another loaded question, lurkers.

Same answer as above...

>> ***********************************
>> Speculation.--The post office box in Dallas to which Oswald had the
>> rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of A. Hidell.
>>
>> Commission finding.--It is not known whether Oswald's application
>> listed the name A. Hidell as one entitled to receive mail at the box.
>> In accordance with U.S. Post Office regulations, the portion of the
>> application listing the names of persons other than the applicant
>> entitled to receive mail was discarded after the box was closed on May
>> 14, 1963.
>> ************************************
>>
>> This is an outright lie - as the previously cited CE 2585 shows on
>> page four that the FBI *HAD* looked at this -
>
> Ben is *assuming* part three was on the application when the FBI
> examined it, lurkers.

No "assumption" needed other than that the FBI could read. If Part
three were missing at that time, what the FBI said was a lie.

Simple as that.

"Dud" is clearly asserting that the FBI lied.

>>and did *NOT* find any
>> other names listed. This was an embarrassment for the Warren
>> Commission - SO THEY SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.
>>
>> Another problem David has is the fact that of only roughly 300 people
>> who fell under the secret CIA 'HTLingual' program, Lee Harvey Oswald
>> was one of them. This program intercepted and read mail... it's rather
>> inconceivable that they missed a RIFLE going to a post office box...
>> yet clearly either they missed it, or a rifle was never shipped to the
>> post office box.
>
> It is clear that it was shipped and Oswald received it, lurkers.

Begging the question again... simply refusing to address the issue I
raised.

Denial simply isn't good enough "Dud," you're going to have to do
better.

>> Watch as David refuses to address these issues. (Indeed, watch as *NO*
>> believer does anything other than deny the facts I've posted!)
>
> And note that exactly as I predicted Ben did nothing to refute the
> idea that Oswald owned this rifle. He misdirected to all the wrong
> things when all the right things make it clear that Oswald did indeed
> own and use this rifle.

Your opinion doesn't refute the facts I've listed and cited for.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:41:31 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>> > David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>>
>> I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>>
>> > David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
>> > following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
>> > no need to offer a link to his site.)
>>
>> OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.
>
>Here's my site that Holmes didn't want to provide a link to....
>

> http?//Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com


You can link all you want... what you *WON'T* do is engage in debate.

Which, of course; simply shows that you know you've lost.

[Ben Holmes]

This is a common tactic among believers... they simply link to a
website, thinking that this proves their case.

They can't post their refutations here... because they simply are
incapable of doing so.

They know I can refute what they try to claim...

So by posting a link, they make it look like they've offered a
refutation, when in fact they can't.

[Ben Holmes]

David does it again... posting a link instead of refuting what I
stated.

David is TERRIFIED of being caught saying something that I can easily
show to be a lie.

Such as his claim that these 20 items show Oswald's "SOLE GUILT" when
he's not addressed the topic.

Tell us David, why are you such a coward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:28:03 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>>
>> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
>> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
>> no need to offer a link to his site.) I'm going to deal with every
>> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
>> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
>>
>> Not *ONE*.
>>
>> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
>> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!
>>
>> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
>> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.
>>
>> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
>> to each "point," one by one:
>>
>>
>> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
>> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
>> > 1963.
>>
>> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
>> rifle.
>
>As I point out on my "Oswald Is Guilty" website (via the link provided below)....
>

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

>
>....there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that Lee Harvey
> Oswald purchased and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
> #C2766 in March of 1963. The evidence proves that fact beyond any and
> all REASONABLE doubt.

As I state RIGHT HERE AND NOW (no link needed!) there is absolutely no
doubt that Oswald was framed with a rifle he never ordered or owned.

My mere assertion is all you need... (since that's all *DAVID*
offered!)

> And the fairly recent (November 2015) discovery made by Lance
> Payette concerning the File Locator Number on the Postal Money Order
> that Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods to pay for the rifle that
> was ultimately used by Oswald to kill President Kennedy is a
> substantial piece of additional solid evidence which indicates that
> Oswald's money order was, indeed, processed and stamped by the Federal
> Reserve Bank AFTER the money order was cashed and handled by other
> banking institutions.
>

>http?//jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#The-File-Locator-Number-On-The-Hidell-Money-Order

>
> So that File Locator Number on the money order is just one more
> thing that conspiracists like Ben Holmes have no choice but to believe
> was planted or manufactured by conspirators in their non-stop efforts
> to frame Mr. Oswald. Right, Ben?

Nope. You've lost this battle, yet you're still desperately claiming
to have won.

There are no bank endorsements, and there MUST HAVE BEEN, had this
been a legitimate M.O.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:32:24 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> This discussion has once again provided me with an opportunity to
> archive at my website the desperate denials and misguided ramblings of
> a JFK conspiracy theorist (Ben Holmes), along with the sensible
> replies made by some rational people (Bud and myself) who can easily
> see that the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK
> assassination proves his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
>
> I've created a page on my site for this discussion (and Ben's future
> fanciful alleged "refutations" of my arguments in additional forum
> threads yet to come)....
>

>http?//jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html

>
> So my thanks go out to Ben Holmes for his willingness to once again
> place on full display his eagerness to disbelieve the legitimacy of
> virtually every last piece of "Oswald Did It" evidence in the JFK and
> J.D. Tippit murder cases, so that Ben can continue to pretend that Lee
> Oswald was completely innocent of murdering anyone on November 22,
> 1963.
>
> Such wholesale blanket denial by a conspiracist concerning the
> validity of all (or certainly most) of the evidence in the Kennedy and
> Tippit cases makes it much easier for someone like me to refute such
> nonsensical notions—and that's because they are imaginary and wholly
> unprovable notions to begin with.

Amusingly, you won't answer here. You *WILL* respond in your website,
where your lies won't be pointed out, nor your silly logic be
demonstrated.

Such AMAZING cowardice, David. I predicted that you'd not answer the
points I raise, and sure enough, I was right.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.

IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.

David too runs from this.

An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.

Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.

Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied) for me to place the words "Sole Guilt" in the title of my blog page. And that's because the vast wealth of evidence (minus the imaginary theories invented by conspiracy theorists, of course) fully supports the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the "Sole" assassin in Dallas.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

There are no bank endorsements, and there MUST HAVE BEEN, had this been a legitimate M.O.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

An empty claim which you have not proven to be true. Nor has anyone else on the planet. But keep pretending that you have proven it.

More on "The Money Order" (lots more)....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:58:57 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
>
> IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT
> - he never even addressed that topic.
>
>David too runs from this.
>
>An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
>
>Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented
> in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single
> individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that
> were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence
> in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.

No, you're lying again David. This would be like me listing all the
victims of Clyde Barrow, detailing the forensic evidence, never once
mentioning Bonnie Parker, and then claiming to have proven the "SOLE
GUILT" of Clyde.

You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even *HINTS* at the "SOLE GUILT" of
anyone.

> Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words"
> (as Bud implied) for me to place the words "Sole Guilt" in the title
> of my blog page. And that's because the vast wealth of evidence (minus
> the imaginary theories invented by conspiracy theorists, of course)
> fully supports the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the
> "Sole" assassin in Dallas.

Not **ONE SINGLE STATEMENT** was directed toward proving that only
*one* person committed the murder. YOU DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE TOPIC.

Yet you claimed to have done so.

An honest man would include this response on his website. And explain
how ANYTHING in those 20 items even *STARTS* to address anyone's "SOLE
GUILT."

But you won't.

You're a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:19:12 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>There are no bank endorsements, and there MUST HAVE BEEN, had this been a legitimate M.O.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> An empty claim which you have not proven to be true. Nor has anyone
> else on the planet. But keep pretending that you have proven it.
>
>More on "The Money Order" (lots more)....

>http?//jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

This isn't my issue to prove. It's *YOURS*.

It's simply not my burden. All you have to do is produe a money order
from 1963 that has been cashed.

Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to elicit any testimony on
this issue.

But you won't. You don't *DARE* do so...

Watch as you refuse to post this to your website.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

No, you're lying again David. This would be like me listing all the victims of Clyde Barrow, detailing the forensic evidence, never once mentioning Bonnie Parker, and then claiming to have proven the "SOLE GUILT" of Clyde.

You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even *HINTS* at the "SOLE GUILT" of anyone. Not **ONE SINGLE STATEMENT** was directed toward proving that only *one* person committed the murder. YOU DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE TOPIC. Yet you claimed to have done so.

An honest man would include this response on his website. And explain how ANYTHING in those 20 items even *STARTS* to address anyone's "SOLE GUILT."

But you won't.

You're a coward.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Since ALL TWENTY items lead inexorably to the guilt of ONE single person—Lee Oswald—what conclusion should a reasonable person come to? Should I conclude, based on all this evidence that points only to Oswald, that someone ELSE must have been involved with Oswald? Please tell me why I—or anyone—would feel compelled to do that? (Especially when confronted with the large number of things that are screaming "THIS WAS ONLY LEE OSWALD!")

Can Ben Holmes really be so dense as to not understand the simple point I just made? (It appears that he is.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

This isn't my issue to prove [re: the money order]. It's *YOURS*.

It's simply not my burden.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you've got it backwards (as usual), Ben. YOU are the one (among many other conspiracy crackpots on this Earth) who is making the EXTRAORDINARY claim that Oswald's money order is a fake and a fraud. So it is YOU who needs to go about the task of PROVING that your extraordinary claim of fakery is true. Have you done that? I say you haven't. Not even close.

Here's what I asked the conspiracists at The Education Forum in early 2016:

"How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? I also have little doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly framing Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP; January 9, 2016

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22609-challenge-for-thomas-graves/?tab=comments#comment-322950


BEN HOLMES SAID:

All you have to do is produce a money order from 1963 that has been cashed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, conversely, why don't YOU come up with a money order that's been cashed, in order to prove YOUR extraordinary claim about the M.O. being a fraud? Why is it up to ONLY the LNers of the world to "produce a money order from 1963 [other than CE788] that has been cashed"?

I have, indeed, attempted to locate a cashed 1963 U.S. Postal Money Order, and so have some other people, but with no success. But it was actually the discovery online by Tim Nickerson of an UNCASHED money order [see link below] which eventually prompted Lance Payette to dig up the document that explains what the number means that is stamped in the upper-left corner of Oswald's money order.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#Uncashed-Money-Order

But I would, indeed, love to be able to locate a cashed Postal Money Order from circa '63—because that discovery would very likely support the idea that the M.O. Lee Oswald mailed to Klein's was a perfectly legitimate document that was handled the same way thousands of other Postal Money Orders were handled in the year 1963.

Rabid CTers like Ben, of course, will never accept the "legitimate" truth about Oswald's money order, however. That's become obvious by the way the "Rabid CT" crowd has totally rejected the legitimacy of the File Locator Number on LHO's money order. No matter how many things (like the FLN) that might come to light in the future, the Conspiracy Brigade will continue to pretend that everything about the money order is fraudulent. Isn't that right, Ben?

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to elicit any testimony on this issue.

But you won't. You don't *DARE* do so...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Ben. The fact is, of course, that the Warren Commission knew without a speck of doubt that Oswald's money order was NOT a fake document—based on all the various things that PROVE that the CE788 money order was in the possession of Lee Oswald and was handled and processed by Klein's in Chicago.

So the Commission didn't NEED to jump through the additional hoops that CTers like Holmes think the WC should have jumped through in order to prove the validity of the money order. They weren't conspiracy kooks (like Ben). They could tell the M.O. was legit based on a variety of things, including Oswald's writing on the document and the Klein's stamp—PROVING that Klein's was IN PHYSICAL POSSESSION of the money order at some point in time. Those two things were certainly enough to prove its validity to the Warren Commission. But a conspiracy theorist ALWAYS requires more—right, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:00:47 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>No, you're lying again David. This would be like me listing all the victims of Clyde Barrow, detailing the forensic evidence, never once mentioning Bonnie Parker, and then claiming to have proven the "SOLE GUILT" of Clyde.
>
>You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even *HINTS* at the "SOLE GUILT" of anyone. Not **ONE SINGLE STATEMENT** was directed toward proving that only *one* person committed the murder. YOU DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE TOPIC. Yet you claimed to have done so.
>
>An honest man would include this response on his website. And explain how ANYTHING in those 20 items even *STARTS* to address anyone's "SOLE GUILT."
>
>But you won't.
>
>You're a coward.

I find it amusing that David seems incapable of simply replying to a
post. He clearly wants to remove all context and unanswered material.

(Watch as this never finds it's way to his website!)

>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Since ALL TWENTY items lead inexorably to the guilt of ONE single
> person—Lee Oswald—what conclusion should a reasonable person come to?

And if I list 20 historical facts about Clyde Barrow, you'd presume
that Bonnie was completely innocent?

This is the sort of STUPID logic that you somehow just can't seem to
understand.

You made a claim THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN *TRIED* TO SUPPORT!!!

You *STILL* refuse to support it.

I challenge you to name JUST ONE of the 20 items that shows the guilt
OF **ONLY** ONE SINGLE ASSASSIN ...

Now before you hasten to mischaracterize my challenge - the item you
name must ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY OTHER ASSASSINS.

Or at least lend *support* to that idea... after all, THAT WAS WHAT
YOU CLAIMED!

> Should I conclude, based on all this evidence that points only to
> Oswald, that someone ELSE must have been involved with Oswald?

You clearly believer that Bonnie Parker was innocent.

WHAT A MORON YOU ARE!!!

> Please
> tell me why I—or anyone—would feel compelled to do that?

Morons need never be compelled to be stupid... they simply are.

> (Especially
> when confronted with the large number of things that are screaming
> "THIS WAS ONLY LEE OSWALD!")

YOU'RE LYING AGAIN, DAVID... you're pretending that you've already
given the evidence that I'm proving you never posted.

YOU'VE NOT POSTED EVEN **ONE** SINGLE ITEM OF THOSE 20 THAT ELIMINATES
OTHER ASSASSINS.

Nor will you.

> Can Ben Holmes really be so dense as to not understand the simple
> point I just made? (It appears that he is.)

And you obviously believe that Bonnie was innocent. HOW STUPID OF YOU!

I see that you're already misleading people on your website by not
quoting me completely.

It's truly amusing that you seem completely incapable of merely
responding to my post, POINT BY POINT.

You're a coward, David.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:08:55 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>This isn't my issue to prove [re: the money order]. It's *YOURS*.
>
>It's simply not my burden.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I think you've got it backwards (as usual), Ben. YOU are the one
> (among many other conspiracy crackpots on this Earth) who is making
> the EXTRAORDINARY claim that Oswald's money order is a fake and a
> fraud. So it is YOU who needs to go about the task of PROVING that
> your extraordinary claim of fakery is true. Have you done that? I say
> you haven't. Not even close.

ARE YOU STUPID, DAVID???

You're pretending that you never made the ORIGINAL CLAIM that the
money order is the way that Oswald paid for the rifle.

IT'S YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE.

It always has been ... it always will be.

The fact that you keep running from this issue shows that *YOU*
understand how weak your case is. Why do you keep refusing to address
the points I raise?

>Here's what I asked the conspiracists at The Education Forum in early 2016:
>
> "How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money
> order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order
> is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? I also have little
> doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped
> on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of
> conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with
> those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list
> of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly
> framing Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP; January 9, 2016
>
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22609-challenge-for-thomas-graves/?tab=comments#comment-322950

Still the coward, eh David?

Still pretending that it's not *YOUR* burden.

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>All you have to do is produce a money order from 1963 that has been cashed.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, conversely, why don't YOU come up with a money order that's
> been cashed, in order to prove YOUR extraordinary claim about the M.O.
> being a fraud? Why is it up to ONLY the LNers of the world to "produce
> a money order from 1963 [other than CE788] that has been cashed"?

Not my problem ... not my burden to prove you wrong.

I merely point out the errors and misrepresentations... it's up to
*YOU* to make your case.

> I have, indeed, attempted to locate a cashed 1963 U.S. Postal Money
> Order, and so have some other people, but with no success. But it was
> actually the discovery online by Tim Nickerson of an UNCASHED money
> order [see link below] which eventually prompted Lance Payette to dig
> up the document that explains what the number means that is stamped in
> the upper-left corner of Oswald's money order.

So you've failed.

Keep trying. It *IS* your responsibility.

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#Uncashed-Money-Order
>
> But I would, indeed, love to be able to locate a cashed Postal Money

> Order from circa '63傭ecause that discovery would very likely support

> the idea that the M.O. Lee Oswald mailed to Klein's was a perfectly
> legitimate document that was handled the same way thousands of other
> Postal Money Orders were handled in the year 1963.

No, it wouldn't. The very *idea* that a bank has no way to demonstrate
that it's paid funds on a paper instrument is just amusingly funny.

> Rabid CTers like Ben, of course, will never accept the "legitimate"
> truth about Oswald's money order, however. That's become obvious by
> the way the "Rabid CT" crowd has totally rejected the legitimacy of
> the File Locator Number on LHO's money order. No matter how many
> things (like the FLN) that might come to light in the future, the
> Conspiracy Brigade will continue to pretend that everything about the
> money order is fraudulent. Isn't that right, Ben?

Ad hominem simply shows that you understand how weak your case is...
if you had EVIDENCE, you'd use it.

But you don't.

Then you whine when I point it out.

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to elicit any testimony on this issue.
>
>But you won't. You don't *DARE* do so...
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're funny, Ben. The fact is, of course, that the Warren
> Commission knew without a speck of doubt that Oswald's money order was

> NOT a fake document傭ased on all the various things that PROVE that

> the CE788 money order was in the possession of Lee Oswald and was
> handled and processed by Klein's in Chicago.
>
> So the Commission didn't NEED to jump through the additional hoops
> that CTers like Holmes think the WC should have jumped through in
> order to prove the validity of the money order. They weren't
> conspiracy kooks (like Ben). They could tell the M.O. was legit based
> on a variety of things, including Oswald's writing on the document and

> the Klein's stamp猶ROVING that Klein's was IN PHYSICAL POSSESSION of

> the money order at some point in time. Those two things were certainly
> enough to prove its validity to the Warren Commission. But a

> conspiracy theorist ALWAYS requires more羊ight, Ben?

Like the coward you are, YOU DIDN'T EVEN **TRY** TO ADDRESS MY
QUESTION!

Here it is again: Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to

elicit any testimony on this issue.

I predicted that you wouldn't answer, and as usual, my prediction was
spot on.

WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE, DAVID!!!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:02:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
> >> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
> >
> > I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>
>
> How silly!
>
> You *KNOW* from past experience that I do what I say I'm going to do.

Ben`s track record isn`t as good as he seems to think, lurkers.

> You're implying that I wouldn't.

Ben is lying, lurkers. If I wanted to take the position I would have. I fully expected him to eventually post this series.

> That's a lie.
>
>
>
> >> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
> >> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
> >> no need to offer a link to his site.)
> >
> > OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.
>
>
> Too stupid to read the entire post before responding to it, "Dud?"

Ben is too dishonest to provide you lurkers with the link to the site, lurkers.

> >> I'm going to deal with every
> >> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
> >> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
> >>
> >> Not *ONE*.
> >>
> >> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
> >> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!
> >
> > But even DVP`s poor choice of words isn`t going to help Ben, lurkers, you watch and see.
>
> Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.

> IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT -
> he never even addressed that topic.

I went over this before, lurkers. It is impossible to rule out conspiracy in any murder. Yet the authorities routinely close cases, satisfied that they got their man.

> David too runs from this.
>
> An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt
> to defend it.

I decided to call it a poor choice of words, lurkers. Ben can pout over that assessment.

> Neither "Dud" nor David are honest...
>
>
> >> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
> >> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.
> >
> > Not really. Because after each of Ben`s so-called "refutations"
> > the possibility of Oswald`s lone guilt will still remain untouched.
>
> How STUPID of you!
>
> You merely presume that by offering evidence for Oswald's guilt, THAT
> YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE GUILT OF OTHERS.
>
> You're simply not honest enough to admit that David DIDN'T ADDRESS THE
> ISSUE **AT ALL**.
>
> So on the issue of how many people were involved, David has already
> lost - he never even *tried.*

Yet the possibility that Oswald acted alone remains, and cannot be refuted by Ben, lurkers.

> >> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
> >> to each "point," one by one:
> >>
> >>
> >> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
> >> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
> >> > 1963.
> >>
> >> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
> >> rifle.
> >
> > Already with the empty claims, lurkers.
>
>
> Can't read, eh "Dud?"
>
> I specified it below.

Did you see Ben establish the credibility of the things he listed, lurkers? Me neither.

> >> He stated that he didn't -
> >
> > He also said he hadn`t shot anyone. The man lied a lot in custody,
> > lurkers.
>
>
> Begging the question... a typical logical fallacy that believers often
> use.

Not a fallacy at all, lurkers, it was the finding of two extensive investigations. It isn`t a fallacy to call the sun hot after it has been determined to be hot.

> >> and his wife originally asserted
> >> that he didn't.
> >
> > Yet she led police to where she thought her husband kept one, lurkers.
>
>
> Yep... only a believer can imagine that someone else's imagination is
> evidence.

Ben finally admits that the witnesses who *thought* shots were fired from the knoll were not providing evidence, lurkers.

And of course if Oswald removed the rifle for use it would no longer be there. I`m sure it only slipped his mind not to wake her and tell her he was taking it.

> >> There's ZERO evidence that he did - that cannot be *reasonable*
> >> refuted.
> >
> > Little in this world carries less weight than what a conspiracy
> > retard sees as "reasonable", lurkers.
>
>
> If put to a poll, it would be quite simple to prove you wrong.

Empty claim, lurkers. In fact the extents that the conspiracy retards go to pretend that Oswald was innocent excludes them from being considered reasonable.

> >> There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.
> >
> > Yet prints of Oswald taken from the rifle exist in evidence, lurkers.
>
> Again begging the question.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=316&tab=page

Ben is begging the question when he says no prints were found, lurkers.

> As no photograph is in existence, and the
> most credible witness never saw any evidence of a print, the
> *CREDIBLE* evidence is that the "palm print" was never on the rifle.

Irrelevant what Ben finds credible, lurkers.

Lt. Day would be the most credible witness. He said under oath that he lifted the print from the rifle.

> This explains why both the FBI and Warren Commission doubted it.

Ben won`t support his, lurkers, you watch and see.

>
> >> The palm print, appearing late,
> >
> > It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.
>
>
> Begging the question again...

It is the most common way that fingerprints appear on objects, lurkers.

Ben was begging the question when he claimed it "appeared late" (whatever that means to a retard).

>
> >> and never being photographed,
> >
> > Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.
>
> You're lying again, "Dud."
>
> You cannot be stupid enough to think that I'm not referring to a
> photograph of the ORIGINAL print on the rifle before lifting.

Ben cannot be stupid enough to think that things cannot exist unless they are photographed, lurkers.

What we are being treated to is the usual contrived excuses conspiracy retards have devised to avoid giving weight to the evidence that indicates Oswald`s guilt. The same silly game playing over the deaths of these men that the retards have been engaged in for decades.

> Yet you will not, AND CANNOT, produce any such photo.
>
> Why do you think lies will convince anyone?
>
>
> >> despite other prints being photographed, is not credible
> >> evidence of Oswald's ownership.
> >
> > Never trust a conspiracy retard to determine what is credible,
> > lurkers.
>
>
> The fact that you couldn't refute what I'd stated, and used ad hominem
> instead - shows that you understand the weakness of your case.

I don`t have to refute what Ben said because he didn`t say anything, lurkers. He made an empty claim about what was credible. This is why I say it is the evidence that is the problem, it is the conspiracy retards. They actually think that if they consider something credible, their assessment should be given weight.

>
> >> Indeed, it's *credible* evidence for a frameup. This
> >> explains why Lt. Day didn't want to sign an affidavit on this issue.
> >
> > As do other things. And Day testified under oath that he found the
> > prints on the rifle, how is it worse to sign off on an affidavit.
>
>
> How long does it take to sign your name?

This does nothing to establish how this document came to be unsigned, lurkers. It is an empty claim to say this document was unsigned because Day did not want to attest to the information it contained. Ben is building the usual house of cards of empty claims.

> >> The paperwork fails to support his ownership as well - the money order
> >> just TERRIFIES believers -
> >
> > The file locator number on the money order scares Ben so much he
> > is afraid to comment on it, lurkers.It shows the money order passed
> > through the system, and is devastating to the silly games these
> > retards play.
>
>
> Yet you can't show this. It would have been child's play for the
> Warren Commission to produce similar money orders from the same period
> of time... and show this alleged authenticity.

"Prove everything to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid shit" says the conspiracy retard. And they really, really like to believe stupid shit.

The money order`s authenticity was establish by the supportive documentation, lurkers. That these retards think it was all faked does reflect on the WC, it shows the extent the retards are willing to go is all.

> But they didn't... nor did they question relevant witnesses that would
> have shown this.

Conspiracy retards have been bitching about what the WC should or shouldn`t have done for decades, lurkers, doesn`t mean much.

> And you have no explanation for this.

Shifting the burden, lurkers.

>
> >> even to the point of the less honest
> >> believers asserting that the Klein stamp was the only endorsement
> >> needed. (!!?)
> >
> > The payee endorses a money order, lurkers.
>
>
> So does the bank.

Let Ben show that a money order requires more than one endorsement, lurkers.

> As has been amply demonstrated in other forums.
>
>
> >> (David Von Pein is one of these less than honest people who make this
> >> claim!)
> >>
> >> If Oswald actually *had* owned a rifle, he surely would have had among
> >> his possessions other items that would demonstrate this... such as
> >> additional ammo and cleaning supplies.
> >
> > Shown to be false by the fact that he didn`t, lurkers.
>
> Begging the question again.

It isn`t begging the questions after things are determined by two major investigations, lurkers. Ben thinks it needs the acceptance of conspiracy retards.

Since it has been shown that Oswald killed Kennedy everything is *exactly* as it should be when Oswald kills Kennedy, and the things Ben`s friends do have no bearing.

> By this EXACT SAME LOGIC, your house is a leper colony.
>
>
> >> I have quite a few friends who
> >> are gun owners, and you could remove every weapon from their house,
> >> and there would *STILL* be plenty of evidence for gun ownership.
> >
> > If they took their rifle to store it at another persons house
> > there wouldn`t be, lurkers.
>
> So your now arguing that Oswald *borrowed* a rifle.

I`m saying what I clearly said, lurkers. Oswald stored his rifle at another person`s house, so it was nonsensical for Ben to bring up what people he knows do with the weapons they keep in their own homes. Ben even admits that if they took the weapons out the other stuff would remain.

> Sheer nonsense... just how stupid *are* you "Dud?"

> > And this highlights the desperation of these retards, they
> > contrive reasons to disregard what is in evidence and give weight to
> > things that are not.
>
>
> Says the moron who just argued that Oswald *borrowed* someone else's
> rifle.

Ben prefers to fight strawmen rather than address the points I actually make, lurkers.

>
> >> Believers actually put forth Marina "pointing" to where she "thought"
> >> a rifle **HAD BEEN** as evidence for a rifle!! :)
> >
> > She took police to where she thought her husband kept his rifle.
> > It wasn`t there, because her husband had taken it to work and used it
> > to kill Kennedy. These retards will be stumped by these simple things
> > for all eternity because they insist on looking at the wrong things,
> > and looking at those wrong things incorrectly.
>
>
> You merely repeat the same assertion.

It remains true, lurkers.

> I've already pointed out the stupidity of it.

<snicker> In response I hadn`t read until now, lurkers?

> >> This is the sort of sad sad "evidence" that believers must demean
> >> themselves by posting as their evidence. When you don't have *real*
> >> evidence, anything will do. (This explains Bugliosi's use of Oswald
> >> "not reading a newspaper" as evidence that he murdered someone)
> >
> > Ben is too much of a stump to ever grasp the point, which is the
> > change in Oswald`s routine that day, lurkers.
>
>
> Once again, you refuse to address what I stated, and use ad hominem in
> place of citation & logical debate.

I explained the point Bugliosi was making to Ben once more, lurkers. He still doesn`t grasp it. He is a stump who lacks the necessities for actual investigation.

> This shows that you well understand the weakness of your case... for
> only a true moron thinks that one witness who asserts he didn't see
> someone reading a newspaper... is evidence for murder.

Has Ben refuted the idea that Oswald`s lack of newspaper reading was significant, lurkers?

>
>
> >> It's interesting to note that most of the paperwork that allegedly
> >> tied Oswald to the rifle no longer exists in originals. This is quite
> >> an important point, since handwriting analysis really doesn't work on
> >> copies. So many features of writing that analyists use to make a
> >> determination simply aren't there on copies, and it's simply not
> >> possible to accurately determine that Oswald wrote anything
> >> "incriminating" in this case - since the originals don't exist.
> >
> > Isn`t that great, lurkers, now the retards can pretend it is all
> > faked. They have no interest in the truth and are only playing silly
> > games with the deaths of these men anyway.
>
> Once again, ad hominem in place of anything that would refute what I
> stated.
>
> You clearly CANNOT refute what I said... (otherwise, you would have)
>
> You have no explanation for why the original paperwork disappeared.

I don`t even know if it did, lurkers.

> And no credible explanation.

Let Ben establish an explanation, lurkers. You know how good he is at that.

> You lose!
>
>
> >> Nor is some of this "evidence" even logical... for example, the
> >> envelope containing the money order was postmarked March 12th, 1963 -
> >> yet the money order was allegedly deposited on March 13th, 1963. David
> >> can't explain how a money order was shipped 700 miles to Chicago,
> >> sorted there and routed to the delivery route carrier, opened and
> >> resorted at Kleins, and deposited all in 24 hours. It simply beggars
> >> belief...
> >
> > That isn`t what happened, lurkers.
> >
> > http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Wilmouth.jpg
>
>
> You cite, yet you failed to show how your citation refutes what I
> stated.

The document speaks directly to the issue, lurkers.

> >> Then we have the problem that the rifle could never have been
> >> delivered to that post office box...
> >
> > The photogragh of Oswald holding the rifle shows he did, lurkers.
>
>
> Begging the question again.

No, it is begging the question that the photo is faked, lurkers. They aren`t equal propositions. The criteria id not proving everything in evidence to the satisfaction of conspiracy retards, although that is the standard they wish to use.

> >> since the 'Part 3' of the Post
> >> Office Box application which states who else is allowed to accept mail
> >> - DID NOT GIVE ANY OTHER NAME - according to the FBI (CE 2585, p.
> >> 4)...
> >
> > Ben is lying, lurkers, the FBI did not state they had part three
> > of the Post Office Box application.
>
> Anyone can read the citation... here it is:
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
>
> Watch as "Dud" refuses to retract his obvious lie.

I looked it right up, lurkers. That is how I knew it said nothing about "Part 3".

> >> this was *before* the 'Part 3' disappeared from the evidence.
> >
> > First Ben would need to show it existed in evidence, lurkers.
>
>
> Cited above.

Doesn`t establish its existence, lurkers.

>
> > But note the hypocrisy, lurkers. Something that Ben has never seen
> > is given weight on the FBI`s say-so. If the FBI asserted something
> > that couldn`t be produced that did harm to his silly ideas he would
> > never accept it. Another way you can tell he is a game playing
> > hobbyist.
>
>
> No "hypocrisy" at all in pointing out evidence THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY
> MUST either accept, or explain why you deny it.

Ben misdirects back to me when his hypocrisy is shown, lurkers. If it was something that went against his ideas and the FBI indicated it existed would he accept it?

> This is a common complaint, and a false one at that... used often by
> believers... whining when critics point to the official evidence in
> this case that doesn't support the official story.

Ben doesn`t accept much of the evidence the FBI did produce but has no problem accepting something they didn`t and fails to see how this is hypocritical, lurkers.

> >> And just like the interior photo of JFK's chest that could have
> >> supported the SBT (or proven it false), this 'Part 3' that PROVED
> >> Oswald unable to pick up something addressed to "Alek Hidell"
> >> disappeared - but not before we found out what it said.
> >>
> >> Why did the Warren Commission bury this fact?
> >
> > Loaded question, lurkers.
>
>
> You mean, of course, that it's a question you can't answer.

I meant what I said, lurkers.

> The Warren Commission *HAD* these reports from the FBI, and provably
> failed to give that information.

Has Ben established "buried", lurkers? Has he produced a memo from one of the members about the suppression of this material? No, he made an empty claim, based on assumptions he is willing to make, and used that empty claim to formulate a loaded question.

> >> Why did they blatantly
> >> *LIE* about 'Part 3?'
> >
> > Another loaded question, lurkers.
>
>
> Same answer as above...

Same answer, lurkers. Ben want to ask questions where his assumptions are assigned the status of fact.

> >> ***********************************
> >> Speculation.--The post office box in Dallas to which Oswald had the
> >> rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of A. Hidell.
> >>
> >> Commission finding.--It is not known whether Oswald's application
> >> listed the name A. Hidell as one entitled to receive mail at the box.
> >> In accordance with U.S. Post Office regulations, the portion of the
> >> application listing the names of persons other than the applicant
> >> entitled to receive mail was discarded after the box was closed on May
> >> 14, 1963.
> >> ************************************
> >>
> >> This is an outright lie - as the previously cited CE 2585 shows on
> >> page four that the FBI *HAD* looked at this -
> >
> > Ben is *assuming* part three was on the application when the FBI
> > examined it, lurkers.
>
> No "assumption" needed other than that the FBI could read. If Part
> three were missing at that time, what the FBI said was a lie.

The FBI didn`t state Part 3 was there at the time, lurkers.

> Simple as that.
>
> "Dud" is clearly asserting that the FBI lied.

Wrong, lurkers.

Ben needs to show that only part one and part two being included with the postal application cannot co-exist with what is written in that report. He won`t be able to because he will not be able to rule out all varieties of error. He will rage, and bluster, but what you won`t see him be able to do is establish "A" that part 3 existed when the FBI investigated, and "B" that it was destroyed. I wrote this to save a lot of give and take, and I expect to have to cut and paste it a lot in the future.

> >>and did *NOT* find any
> >> other names listed. This was an embarrassment for the Warren
> >> Commission - SO THEY SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.
> >>
> >> Another problem David has is the fact that of only roughly 300 people
> >> who fell under the secret CIA 'HTLingual' program, Lee Harvey Oswald
> >> was one of them. This program intercepted and read mail... it's rather
> >> inconceivable that they missed a RIFLE going to a post office box...
> >> yet clearly either they missed it, or a rifle was never shipped to the
> >> post office box.
> >
> > It is clear that it was shipped and Oswald received it, lurkers.
>
> Begging the question again... simply refusing to address the issue I
> raised.
>
> Denial simply isn't good enough "Dud," you're going to have to do
> better.
>
>
>
> >> Watch as David refuses to address these issues. (Indeed, watch as *NO*
> >> believer does anything other than deny the facts I've posted!)
> >
> > And note that exactly as I predicted Ben did nothing to refute the
> > idea that Oswald owned this rifle. He misdirected to all the wrong
> > things when all the right things make it clear that Oswald did indeed
> > own and use this rifle.
>
> Your opinion doesn't refute the facts I've listed and cited for.

Ben insists we focus on all the wrong things conspiracy retards focus on. Wouldn`t that just make us stumps like them, lurkers?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
>
> IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
>
> David too runs from this.
>
> An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
>
> Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
>
> Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)

<snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:03:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:08:55 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> >This isn't my issue to prove [re: the money order]. It's *YOURS*.
> >
> >It's simply not my burden.
> >
> >
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > I think you've got it backwards (as usual), Ben. YOU are the one
> > (among many other conspiracy crackpots on this Earth) who is making
> > the EXTRAORDINARY claim that Oswald's money order is a fake and a
> > fraud. So it is YOU who needs to go about the task of PROVING that
> > your extraordinary claim of fakery is true. Have you done that? I say
> > you haven't. Not even close.
>
> ARE YOU STUPID, DAVID???
>
> You're pretending that you never made the ORIGINAL CLAIM that the
> money order is the way that Oswald paid for the rifle.
>
> IT'S YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE.
>

It's been proven. Oswald's writing is on the thing, for Pete sake. And Klein's stamped it. And the FRB stamped it. You want to believe ALL of that is fake. Fine. Believe in stupid shit. OK by me.

> It always has been ... it always will be.
>
> The fact that you keep running from this issue shows that *YOU*
> understand how weak your case is. Why do you keep refusing to address
> the points I raise?
>

YOU raised an extraordinary claim--that the money order is fake. It's up to YOU to "prove" that, don't ya think, Mr. Stump?

>
> >Here's what I asked the conspiracists at The Education Forum in early 2016:
> >
> > "How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money
> > order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order
> > is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? I also have little
> > doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped
> > on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of
> > conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with
> > those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list
> > of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly
> > framing Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP; January 9, 2016
> >
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22609-challenge-for-thomas-graves/?tab=comments#comment-322950
>
>
> Still the coward, eh David?
>

Still the stump, aren't you?

> Still pretending that it's not *YOUR* burden.
>

It's not me who's claiming extraordinary & outrageous things re: the money order. It's YOU performing that silly. act. Now PROVE it. Don't expect me to prove something that only exists in your head.

>
>
> >BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> >All you have to do is produce a money order from 1963 that has been cashed.
> >
> >
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Well, conversely, why don't YOU come up with a money order that's
> > been cashed, in order to prove YOUR extraordinary claim about the M.O.
> > being a fraud? Why is it up to ONLY the LNers of the world to "produce
> > a money order from 1963 [other than CE788] that has been cashed"?
>
> Not my problem ... not my burden to prove you wrong.
>
> I merely point out the errors and misrepresentations... it's up to
> *YOU* to make your case.
>

The M.O. has been "proven" to be legitimate, IMO. If you disagree, PROVE *YOUR* case. You won't, of course. Because you can't. And never will.

>
>
> > I have, indeed, attempted to locate a cashed 1963 U.S. Postal Money
> > Order, and so have some other people, but with no success. But it was
> > actually the discovery online by Tim Nickerson of an UNCASHED money
> > order [see link below] which eventually prompted Lance Payette to dig
> > up the document that explains what the number means that is stamped in
> > the upper-left corner of Oswald's money order.
>
>
> So you've failed.
>

And you haven't?

Your imaginary successes are amusing.

> Keep trying. It *IS* your responsibility.
>
>
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#Uncashed-Money-Order
> >
> > But I would, indeed, love to be able to locate a cashed Postal Money
> > Order from circa '63傭ecause that discovery would very likely support
> > the idea that the M.O. Lee Oswald mailed to Klein's was a perfectly
> > legitimate document that was handled the same way thousands of other
> > Postal Money Orders were handled in the year 1963.
>
>
> No, it wouldn't. The very *idea* that a bank has no way to demonstrate
> that it's paid funds on a paper instrument is just amusingly funny.
>
>
>
> > Rabid CTers like Ben, of course, will never accept the "legitimate"
> > truth about Oswald's money order, however. That's become obvious by
> > the way the "Rabid CT" crowd has totally rejected the legitimacy of
> > the File Locator Number on LHO's money order. No matter how many
> > things (like the FLN) that might come to light in the future, the
> > Conspiracy Brigade will continue to pretend that everything about the
> > money order is fraudulent. Isn't that right, Ben?
>
> Ad hominem simply shows that you understand how weak your case is...
> if you had EVIDENCE, you'd use it.
>
> But you don't.
>

Yeah, ALL of those 20 things I talked about at my site are just things I made up, right Ben?

I already answered it. There was NO NEED for the WC to dive deep into the question of the lack of bank stamps on the money order. They already knew the M.O. was legit. They had handwriting experts verify it was OSWALD'S WRITING on it. (You'll pretend the experts were worthless, of course. Right, Benny?)

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
> >
> > IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
> >
> > David too runs from this.
> >
> > An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
> >
> > Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
> >
> > Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)
>
> <snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.
>

<snicker> After looking at all the evidence, there IS no other reasonable conclusion than to conclude Oswald's "Sole Guilt". You know that, Bud. Why fight it?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
> > >
> > > IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
> > >
> > > David too runs from this.
> > >
> > > An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
> > >
> > > Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
> > >
> > > Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)
> >
> > <snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.
> >
>
> <snicker> After looking at all the evidence, there IS no other reasonable conclusion than to conclude Oswald's "Sole Guilt". You know that, Bud. Why fight it?

I`m not, it semantics thing. Perhaps Oswald`s *individual* guilt would be a better choice of words, as each thing implicates that particular individual and no one else.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 7:17:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
> > > >
> > > > IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
> > > >
> > > > David too runs from this.
> > > >
> > > > An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
> > > >
> > > > Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)
> > >
> > > <snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.
> > >
> >
> > <snicker> After looking at all the evidence, there IS no other reasonable conclusion than to conclude Oswald's "Sole Guilt". You know that, Bud. Why fight it?
>
> I`m not, it semantics thing. Perhaps Oswald`s *individual* guilt would be a better choice of words, as each thing implicates that particular individual and no one else.
>

Key words there being: "And no one else". Which is very true. IOW---everything points to Oswald's "Sole" guilt. :-)

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:46:04 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:03:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:08:55 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >BEN HOLMES SAID:
>> >
>> >This isn't my issue to prove [re: the money order]. It's *YOURS*.
>> >
>> >It's simply not my burden.
>> >
>> >
>> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >
>> > I think you've got it backwards (as usual), Ben. YOU are the one
>> > (among many other conspiracy crackpots on this Earth) who is making
>> > the EXTRAORDINARY claim that Oswald's money order is a fake and a
>> > fraud. So it is YOU who needs to go about the task of PROVING that
>> > your extraordinary claim of fakery is true. Have you done that? I say
>> > you haven't. Not even close.
>>
>> ARE YOU STUPID, DAVID???
>>
>> You're pretending that you never made the ORIGINAL CLAIM that the
>> money order is the way that Oswald paid for the rifle.
>>
>> IT'S YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE.
>>
>
> It's been proven. Oswald's writing is on the thing, for Pete sake.
> And Klein's stamped it. And the FRB stamped it. You want to believe
> ALL of that is fake. Fine. Believe in stupid shit. OK by me.

Tut tut tut, David.

You've not addressed the issues raised, then you whine that you've
"proven" something.

Interestingly, you've still not responded to the ORIGINAL POST, and
answered each of my points.

>> It always has been ... it always will be.
>>
>> The fact that you keep running from this issue shows that *YOU*
>> understand how weak your case is. Why do you keep refusing to address
>> the points I raise?
>>
>
> YOU raised an extraordinary claim--that the money order is fake.
> It's up to YOU to "prove" that, don't ya think, Mr. Stump?

It's *NOT* an "extraordinary" claim. No-one who has an ordinary
checking account is familiar with (or has at least seen) bank
endorsements.

Unicorns exist.

I've made the statement.

By *YOUR* logic, *YOU* must refute the statement. (Unlike your
assertion however, mine is; interestingly enough... true.)

>> >Here's what I asked the conspiracists at The Education Forum in early 2016:
>> >
>> > "How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money
>> > order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order
>> > is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? I also have little
>> > doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped
>> > on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of
>> > conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with
>> > those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list
>> > of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly
>> > framing Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP; January 9, 2016
>> >
>> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22609-challenge-for-thomas-graves/?tab=comments#comment-322950
>>
>>
>> Still the coward, eh David?
>>
>
>Still the stump, aren't you?

Still the PROVABLE coward, eh David?

>> Still pretending that it's not *YOUR* burden.
>>
>
> It's not me who's claiming extraordinary & outrageous things re: the
> money order. It's YOU performing that silly. act. Now PROVE it. Don't
> expect me to prove something that only exists in your head.

What is "extraordinary" about a money order that was forged?

Rather *STUPID* of you to believe that there's no forgeries...

>> >BEN HOLMES SAID:
>> >
>> >All you have to do is produce a money order from 1963 that has been cashed.
>> >
>> >
>> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >
>> > Well, conversely, why don't YOU come up with a money order that's
>> > been cashed, in order to prove YOUR extraordinary claim about the M.O.
>> > being a fraud? Why is it up to ONLY the LNers of the world to "produce
>> > a money order from 1963 [other than CE788] that has been cashed"?
>>
>> Not my problem ... not my burden to prove you wrong.
>>
>> I merely point out the errors and misrepresentations... it's up to
>> *YOU* to make your case.
>>
>
> The M.O. has been "proven" to be legitimate, IMO. If you disagree,
> PROVE *YOUR* case. You won't, of course. Because you can't. And never
> will.

Unicorns have been "proven" to be real. If you disagree, PROVE *YOUR*

case. You won't, of course. Because you can't. And never will.



>> > I have, indeed, attempted to locate a cashed 1963 U.S. Postal Money
>> > Order, and so have some other people, but with no success. But it was
>> > actually the discovery online by Tim Nickerson of an UNCASHED money
>> > order [see link below] which eventually prompted Lance Payette to dig
>> > up the document that explains what the number means that is stamped in
>> > the upper-left corner of Oswald's money order.
>>
>>
>> So you've failed.
>>
>
>And you haven't?
>
>Your imaginary successes are amusing.

You *STILL* refuse to prove your case. And you've STILL refused to
name even *ONE* of the 20 items that support the idea that there was
only one shooter.

Why the cowardice, David?

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER???

>> Keep trying. It *IS* your responsibility.
>>
>>

>> >http?//jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#Uncashed-Money-Order

>> >
>> > But I would, indeed, love to be able to locate a cashed Postal Money

>> > Order from circa '63?ecause that discovery would very likely support

>> > the idea that the M.O. Lee Oswald mailed to Klein's was a perfectly
>> > legitimate document that was handled the same way thousands of other
>> > Postal Money Orders were handled in the year 1963.
>>
>>
>> No, it wouldn't. The very *idea* that a bank has no way to demonstrate
>> that it's paid funds on a paper instrument is just amusingly funny.

Dead silence...

What a *STUPID* coward you are, David!!!

>> > Rabid CTers like Ben, of course, will never accept the "legitimate"
>> > truth about Oswald's money order, however. That's become obvious by
>> > the way the "Rabid CT" crowd has totally rejected the legitimacy of
>> > the File Locator Number on LHO's money order. No matter how many
>> > things (like the FLN) that might come to light in the future, the
>> > Conspiracy Brigade will continue to pretend that everything about the
>> > money order is fraudulent. Isn't that right, Ben?
>>
>> Ad hominem simply shows that you understand how weak your case is...
>> if you had EVIDENCE, you'd use it.
>>
>> But you don't.
>>
>
> Yeah, ALL of those 20 things I talked about at my site are just
> things I made up, right Ben?

Tut tut tut, David. Strawmen are *YOURS* to fight.

What you'll NEVER do are things that I point out that you'll never
do... such as quoting the item you listed out of those 20 that support
the "fact" that there was only **ONE** shooter.

Why the cowardice, David?

>> Then you whine when I point it out.
>>
>>
>> >BEN HOLMES SAID:
>> >
>> >Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to elicit any testimony on this issue.
>> >
>> >But you won't. You don't *DARE* do so...
>> >
>> >
>> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >
>> > You're funny, Ben. The fact is, of course, that the Warren
>> > Commission knew without a speck of doubt that Oswald's money order was

>> > NOT a fake document?ased on all the various things that PROVE that

>> > the CE788 money order was in the possession of Lee Oswald and was
>> > handled and processed by Klein's in Chicago.
>> >
>> > So the Commission didn't NEED to jump through the additional hoops
>> > that CTers like Holmes think the WC should have jumped through in
>> > order to prove the validity of the money order. They weren't
>> > conspiracy kooks (like Ben). They could tell the M.O. was legit based
>> > on a variety of things, including Oswald's writing on the document and

>> > the Klein's stamp?ROVING that Klein's was IN PHYSICAL POSSESSION of

>> > the money order at some point in time. Those two things were certainly
>> > enough to prove its validity to the Warren Commission. But a

>> > conspiracy theorist ALWAYS requires more?ight, Ben?

>>
>> Like the coward you are, YOU DIDN'T EVEN **TRY** TO ADDRESS MY
>> QUESTION!
>>
>> Here it is again: Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to
>> elicit any testimony on this issue.
>>
>> I predicted that you wouldn't answer, and as usual, my prediction was
>> spot on.
>>
>> WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE, DAVID!!!
>
> I already answered it.

No stupid, you ran from it... you DENIED it.

> There was NO NEED for the WC to dive deep into the question of the
> lack of bank stamps on the money order. They already knew the M.O. was
> legit. They had handwriting experts verify it was OSWALD'S WRITING on
> it. (You'll pretend the experts were worthless, of course. Right,
> Benny?)

I'll sign a check in front of a video camera paying you $1,000 from my
account.

Check your account to see if you've got the money... I guarantee that
my banking account can cover the check.

Like a moron, you'd *BELIEVE* this...

[David Von Pein]

The *20 THINGS COMBINED* do the job nicely to indicate (and pretty much PROVE, IMO) a "Sole" assassin. But you're too much of a stump to consider things "IN TOTAL". You prefer to isolate (like all CTers do).

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:59:29 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

It's a logical error to attribute to the whole a greater accuracy and
power than the individual parts possess.

You *STILL* refuse to name even *ONE* of these 20 items that supports
your claim that Oswald's "sole guilt" - and you know you've lost.

Hence your refusal to address the points I've raised both in the
original post, and even right here in this post.

>> Why the cowardice, David?
>>
>> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER???

The answer is clear... you lost.

And I still have 19 more refutations already written and ready to be
posted.

Anyone notice how silent David is now?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:55:04 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
>> >
>> > Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
>> >
>> > IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
>> >
>> > David too runs from this.
>> >
>> > An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
>> >
>> > Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
>> >
>> >
>> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >
>> > An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
>> >
>> > Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)
>>
>> <snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.
>>
>
><snicker> After looking at all the evidence, there IS no other reasonable conclusion than to conclude Oswald's "Sole Guilt". You know that, Bud. Why fight it?

You're lying again, David.

The facts concerning the Grassy Knoll ... BY ITSELF ... establishes
you a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:25:02 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 7:17:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
>> > > >
>> > > > Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
>> > > >
>> > > > IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
>> > > >
>> > > > David too runs from this.
>> > > >
>> > > > An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> > > >
>> > > > An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)
>> > >
>> > > <snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.
>> > >
>> >
>> > <snicker> After looking at all the evidence, there IS no other reasonable conclusion than to conclude Oswald's "Sole Guilt". You know that, Bud. Why fight it?
>>
>> I`m not, it semantics thing. Perhaps Oswald`s *individual* guilt would be a better choice of words, as each thing implicates that particular individual and no one else.
>>
>
>Key words there being: "And no one else". Which is very true. IOW---everything points to Oswald's "Sole" guilt. :-)

If this were true, you'd be able to name just *ONE* of these 20 items
that do what you just claimed...

Yet you continue to refuse.

Why is that, David?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:18:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:02:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>> >> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>> >
>> > I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>>
>>
>> How silly!
>>
>> You *KNOW* from past experience that I do what I say I'm going to do.
>
> Ben`s track record isn`t as good as he seems to think, lurkers.

You're lying again, "Dud."

>> You're implying that I wouldn't.
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers. If I wanted to take the position I would
> have. I fully expected him to eventually post this series.

Ah! The truth comes out.

There's a *reason* that "Dud" "fully expected" me to do what I stated
I was going to do... a reason "Dud" is lying about.

>> That's a lie.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
>> >> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
>> >> no need to offer a link to his site.)
>> >
>> > OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.
>>
>>
>> Too stupid to read the entire post before responding to it, "Dud?"
>
> Ben is too dishonest to provide you lurkers with the link to the site, lurkers.


Too stupid to read the entire post before responding to it, "Dud?"

Changing the topic when you've been caught doing something stupid
isn't going to fool careful readers.

>> >> I'm going to deal with every
>> >> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
>> >> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
>> >>
>> >> Not *ONE*.
>> >>
>> >> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
>> >> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!
>> >
>> > But even DVP`s poor choice of words isn`t going to help Ben, lurkers, you watch and see.
>>
>> Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
>
>> IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT -
>> he never even addressed that topic.
>
> I went over this before, lurkers. It is impossible to rule out
> conspiracy in any murder. Yet the authorities routinely close cases,
> satisfied that they got their man.


IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT -
he never even addressed that topic.

Something that you accept, and agree with me on.

So why fight it, "Dud?"

>> David too runs from this.
>>
>> An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt
>> to defend it.
>
> I decided to call it a poor choice of words, lurkers. Ben can pout over that assessment.

The decisions of a moron will rarely be intelligent... and then only
by sheer statistical possibility...

An *honest* man would recognize my legitimate criticism, and would
either retract what they said, or attempt to defend it.

David has done neither. David, like yourself - isn't honest.

>> Neither "Dud" nor David are honest...
>>
>>
>> >> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
>> >> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.
>> >
>> > Not really. Because after each of Ben`s so-called "refutations"
>> > the possibility of Oswald`s lone guilt will still remain untouched.
>>
>> How STUPID of you!
>>
>> You merely presume that by offering evidence for Oswald's guilt, THAT
>> YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE GUILT OF OTHERS.
>>
>> You're simply not honest enough to admit that David DIDN'T ADDRESS THE
>> ISSUE **AT ALL**.
>>
>> So on the issue of how many people were involved, David has already
>> lost - he never even *tried.*
>
> Yet the possibility that Oswald acted alone remains, and cannot
> be refuted by Ben, lurkers.

Nope... don't need to. Just as I have no intention of proving that
there was no missing elephant in the Paine residence.

David lost... he *provably* lied in what he was attempting to "prove."

>> >> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
>> >> to each "point," one by one:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
>> >> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
>> >> > 1963.
>> >>
>> >> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
>> >> rifle.
>> >
>> > Already with the empty claims, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Can't read, eh "Dud?"
>>
>> I specified it below.
>
> Did you see Ben establish the credibility of the things he listed,
> lurkers? Me neither.

Another logical fallacy... the shifting of the goalposts...

>> >> He stated that he didn't -
>> >
>> > He also said he hadn`t shot anyone. The man lied a lot in custody,
>> > lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Begging the question... a typical logical fallacy that believers often
>> use.
>
> Not a fallacy at all, lurkers, it was the finding of two extensive
> investigations. It isn`t a fallacy to call the sun hot after it has
> been determined to be hot.

It is suspect when the investigators all work for an air conditioning
company.

>> >> and his wife originally asserted
>> >> that he didn't.
>> >
>> > Yet she led police to where she thought her husband kept one, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Yep... only a believer can imagine that someone else's imagination is
>> evidence.
>
> Ben finally admits that the witnesses who *thought* shots were
> fired from the knoll were not providing evidence, lurkers.

Molesting the neighborhood children again, eh "Dud?"

What do the local parents do when they catch you?

> And of course if Oswald removed the rifle for use it would no
> longer be there. I`m sure it only slipped his mind not to wake her and
> tell her he was taking it.

The elephant was no longer there either.

>> >> There's ZERO evidence that he did - that cannot be *reasonable*
>> >> refuted.
>> >
>> > Little in this world carries less weight than what a conspiracy
>> > retard sees as "reasonable", lurkers.
>>
>>
>> If put to a poll, it would be quite simple to prove you wrong.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers. In fact the extents that the conspiracy
> retards go to pretend that Oswald was innocent excludes them from
> being considered reasonable.

As *YOUR'S* is the minority opinion, you've *already* lost. And have
for over 50 years...

>> >> There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.
>> >
>> > Yet prints of Oswald taken from the rifle exist in evidence, lurkers.
>>
>> Again begging the question.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=316&tab=page
>
> Ben is begging the question when he says no prints were found, lurkers.

Nope. I'm pointing out HISTORICAL FACTS.

You're the one who believes Lt. Day... you're the one who lied and
stated that the palm print had been photographed before being lifted.

You're a liar.

>> As no photograph is in existence, and the
>> most credible witness never saw any evidence of a print, the
>> *CREDIBLE* evidence is that the "palm print" was never on the rifle.
>
> Irrelevant what Ben finds credible, lurkers.

Most honest people would agree that the FBI is more credible than a
police officer who refuses to sign an affidavit.

Courts demonstrate this quite often... placing FBI testimony as more
credible than local police.

> Lt. Day would be the most credible witness. He said under oath
> that he lifted the print from the rifle.

Why is he more credible?

Explain your claim.

(But you won't.)

>> This explains why both the FBI and Warren Commission doubted it.
>
> Ben won`t support his, lurkers, you watch and see.

"J. Lee Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist
there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to
whether or not the palm print impression that has been obtained from
the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent print impression
removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some
other source."

More references can be given, but anyone wanting to discover the truth
can use that above quote to find more info.

Watch as "Dud" refuses to retract what is now a lie.

>> >> The palm print, appearing late,
>> >
>> > It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Begging the question again...
>
> It is the most common way that fingerprints appear on objects, lurkers.
>
> Ben was begging the question when he claimed it "appeared late"
> (whatever that means to a retard).

Still begging the question.

>> >> and never being photographed,
>> >
>> > Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.
>>
>> You're lying again, "Dud."
>>
>> You cannot be stupid enough to think that I'm not referring to a
>> photograph of the ORIGINAL print on the rifle before lifting.
>
> Ben cannot be stupid enough to think that things cannot exist
> unless they are photographed, lurkers.

This is the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

"Dud" knows *PRECISELY* what I stated and meant.

The rest of the post has been snipped unread and unanswered... because
when "Dud" gets this stupid, it's simply not worth my time.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:58:59 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
> > >
> > > IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.
> > >
> > > David too runs from this.
> > >
> > > An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.
> > >
> > > Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > An *honest* man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer--Oswald.
> > >
> > > Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied)
> >
> > <snicker> I didn`t "imply" anything, I said it. It is a small point not worth making a beef about. Saying "this evidence implicates this person" doesn`t really establish that person`s "sole guilt", although it might indicate that person`s guilt "solely" (as opposed to jointly), it doesn`t make that person the only person responsible for the crime.
> >
>
> <snicker> After looking at all the evidence, there IS no other reasonable conclusion than to conclude Oswald's "Sole Guilt". You know that, Bud. Why fight it?

Let me clarify something here, the "<snicker>" was not used for the purpose of derision (although I use it that way a lot), it was meant that I found your attempt to be diplomatic, and say I "implied", rather than "said" to be humorous. I saw that as an attempt to protect my feelings and that struck me as funny.

[Bud]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:20:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:18:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:02:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
> >> >> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
> >> >
> >> > I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
> >>
> >>
> >> How silly!
> >>
> >> You *KNOW* from past experience that I do what I say I'm going to do.
> >
> > Ben`s track record isn`t as good as he seems to think, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Dud."

I`ll let you lurkers decide, Ben said this this over 10 months ago...

"I'll give you a week to find the names, and if you still can't find 'em, I'll simply point out your ignorance, and give you the cite you pretend I don't have."

He hasn`t provided that cite yet. His track record isn`t as good as he thinks it is.

> >> You're implying that I wouldn't.
> >
> > Ben is lying, lurkers. If I wanted to take the position I would
> > have. I fully expected him to eventually post this series.
>
>
> Ah! The truth comes out.

Where did I say he wouldn`t, lurkers? I`m not responsible for this retard`s overactive imagination.

> There's a *reason* that "Dud" "fully expected" me to do what I stated
> I was going to do... a reason "Dud" is lying about.

Ben is fighting a strawman here, lurkers. He figured I meant something I didn`t and now see a change in position that exists only in his retarded brain.

> >> That's a lie.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the
> >> >> following points... (interested readers can find his website easily,
> >> >> no need to offer a link to his site.)
> >> >
> >> > OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.
> >>
> >>
> >> Too stupid to read the entire post before responding to it, "Dud?"
> >
> > Ben is too dishonest to provide you lurkers with the link to the site, lurkers.
>
>
> Too stupid to read the entire post before responding to it, "Dud?"

Did Ben post the link, lurkers?

> Changing the topic when you've been caught doing something stupid
> isn't going to fool careful readers.

I make the points I want to make, lurkers.

>
> >> >> I'm going to deal with every
> >> >> single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE
> >> >> "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE A CONSPIRACY!
> >> >>
> >> >> Not *ONE*.
> >> >>
> >> >> So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when
> >> >> HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!
> >> >
> >> > But even DVP`s poor choice of words isn`t going to help Ben, lurkers, you watch and see.
> >>
> >> Notice that "Dud" didn't bother to defend David.
> >
> >> IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT -
> >> he never even addressed that topic.
> >
> > I went over this before, lurkers. It is impossible to rule out
> > conspiracy in any murder. Yet the authorities routinely close cases,
> > satisfied that they got their man.
>
>
> IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT -
> he never even addressed that topic.

Actually, after reading his response I`m not sure. He seems to be saying this particular issue, and the others on this list point to Oswald`s guilt, and nobody elses.

> Something that you accept, and agree with me on.

Seems a meaningless semantics point to me, lurkers.

> So why fight it, "Dud?"

Don`t have a dog in the fight, lurkers. But what DVP produced indicates Oswald ordered the rifle solely, which by definition means not involving anyone else.

> >> David too runs from this.
> >>
> >> An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt
> >> to defend it.
> >
> > I decided to call it a poor choice of words, lurkers. Ben can pout over that assessment.
>
>
> The decisions of a moron will rarely be intelligent... and then only
> by sheer statistical possibility...
>
> An *honest* man would recognize my legitimate criticism, and would
> either retract what they said, or attempt to defend it.

Ben has no business speaking on things he has no understanding of, such as honesty, lurkers.

If Ben wants to contest that someone was involved with Oswald in ordering the rifle than let him make that case. DVP has put forth the case that it was Oswald alone who did so.

> David has done neither. David, like yourself - isn't honest.
>
>
> >> Neither "Dud" nor David are honest...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on
> >> >> the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.
> >> >
> >> > Not really. Because after each of Ben`s so-called "refutations"
> >> > the possibility of Oswald`s lone guilt will still remain untouched.
> >>
> >> How STUPID of you!
> >>
> >> You merely presume that by offering evidence for Oswald's guilt, THAT
> >> YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE GUILT OF OTHERS.
> >>
> >> You're simply not honest enough to admit that David DIDN'T ADDRESS THE
> >> ISSUE **AT ALL**.
> >>
> >> So on the issue of how many people were involved, David has already
> >> lost - he never even *tried.*
> >
> > Yet the possibility that Oswald acted alone remains, and cannot
> > be refuted by Ben, lurkers.
>
>
> Nope... don't need to.

Then Ben admits defeat, lurkers. He is already backpedaling away from "refutation".

> Just as I have no intention of proving that
> there was no missing elephant in the Paine residence.

If Ben writes words in response to DVP`s arguments and after he is done DVP`s argument is unrefuted then Ben has failed at his stated objective, lurkers. He is the one who claimed to be able to refute DVPs assertions, and yet after Ben`s response nothing has changed, it still remains possible that Oswald ordered the rifle. Nothing Ben wrote rules that possibility out.

> David lost... he *provably* lied in what he was attempting to "prove."

Ben took on the task of showing DVP`s assertions to be untrue, lurkers.

> >> >> Watch as David refuses to address this lack on his part... now... on
> >> >> to each "point," one by one:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of
> >> >> > the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22,
> >> >> > 1963.
> >> >>
> >> >> The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a
> >> >> rifle.
> >> >
> >> > Already with the empty claims, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Can't read, eh "Dud?"
> >>
> >> I specified it below.
> >
> > Did you see Ben establish the credibility of the things he listed,
> > lurkers? Me neither.
>
>
> Another logical fallacy... the shifting of the goalposts...

Ben used the word "credible", lurkers. The goalposts never moved, Ben used a subjective qualifier. Is Ben willing to allow DVP or myself to decide what constitutes "credible evidence"?

> >> >> He stated that he didn't -
> >> >
> >> > He also said he hadn`t shot anyone. The man lied a lot in custody,
> >> > lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Begging the question... a typical logical fallacy that believers often
> >> use.
> >
> > Not a fallacy at all, lurkers, it was the finding of two extensive
> > investigations. It isn`t a fallacy to call the sun hot after it has
> > been determined to be hot.
>
>
> It is suspect when the investigators all work for an air conditioning
> company.

This is the "whole world was out to get Oswald" worldview, lurkers. It is what is necessary for the ideas of the retards to be valid.

> >> >> and his wife originally asserted
> >> >> that he didn't.
> >> >
> >> > Yet she led police to where she thought her husband kept one, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... only a believer can imagine that someone else's imagination is
> >> evidence.
> >
> > Ben finally admits that the witnesses who *thought* shots were
> > fired from the knoll were not providing evidence, lurkers.
>
>
> Molesting the neighborhood children again, eh "Dud?"

<snicker> Ben is upset because he was caught using a double standard, lurkers.

When a knoll witness says they "thought" shots came from the knoll, that is evidence.

When Marina thinks her husband kept a rifle in the Paine`s garage, that is imagination.

> What do the local parents do when they catch you?
>
>
> > And of course if Oswald removed the rifle for use it would no
> > longer be there. I`m sure it only slipped his mind not to wake her and
> > tell her he was taking it.
>
>
> The elephant was no longer there either.

Marina didn`t say anything about an elephant, lurkers. She did think her husband had a rifle in the Paine`s garage, though.

> >> >> There's ZERO evidence that he did - that cannot be *reasonable*
> >> >> refuted.
> >> >
> >> > Little in this world carries less weight than what a conspiracy
> >> > retard sees as "reasonable", lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> If put to a poll, it would be quite simple to prove you wrong.
> >
> > Empty claim, lurkers. In fact the extents that the conspiracy
> > retards go to pretend that Oswald was innocent excludes them from
> > being considered reasonable.
>
>
> As *YOUR'S* is the minority opinion, you've *already* lost. And have
> for over 50 years...

Ben is, of course, lying, lurkers. My position is that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Let him produce polls showing people believe otherwise.

> >> >> There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.
> >> >
> >> > Yet prints of Oswald taken from the rifle exist in evidence, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Again begging the question.
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=316&tab=page
> >
> > Ben is begging the question when he says no prints were found, lurkers.
>
>
> Nope. I'm pointing out HISTORICAL FACTS.

Ben is using empty claims to support empty claims, lurkers. His retard figuring doesn`t not establish facts, it establishes his retardation.

> You're the one who believes Lt. Day...

Has Ben given any good reason not to, lurkers?

>you're the one who lied and
> stated that the palm print had been photographed before being lifted.

Ben is molesting the neighborhood children here, lurkers. If I stated such a thing Ben would be able to quote me stating it. Watch him fail.

> You're a liar.
>
>
> >> As no photograph is in existence, and the
> >> most credible witness never saw any evidence of a print, the
> >> *CREDIBLE* evidence is that the "palm print" was never on the rifle.
> >
> > Irrelevant what Ben finds credible, lurkers.
>
>
> Most honest people would agree that the FBI is more credible than a
> police officer who refuses to sign an affidavit.

This is the False Dilemma fallacy, lurkers.

> Courts demonstrate this quite often... placing FBI testimony as more
> credible than local police.

Let Ben show the FBI took the position that Day did not lift the prints off the rifle, lurkers. Watch as he tries to pass something different off as the FBI taking that position.

> > Lt. Day would be the most credible witness. He said under oath
> > that he lifted the print from the rifle.
>
>
> Why is he more credible?

He was there, lurkers. He was the expert involved in the investigation of this murder to perform tasks such as the recovery of fingerprints from objects involved in this case.

> Explain your claim.
>
> (But you won't.)
>
>
> >> This explains why both the FBI and Warren Commission doubted it.
> >
> > Ben won`t support his, lurkers, you watch and see.
>
> "J. Lee Rankin advised because of the circumstances that now exist
> there was a serious question in the minds of the Commission as to
> whether or not the palm print impression that has been obtained from
> the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent print impression
> removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some
> other source."

"was", lurkers, not "is". Apparently the WC resolved this doubt or they wouldn`t have used the past tense.

> More references can be given, but anyone wanting to discover the truth
> can use that above quote to find more info.

Where is the support for the claim that the FBI doubted this print was lifted from the rifle, lurkers?

> Watch as "Dud" refuses to retract what is now a lie.
>
>
> >> >> The palm print, appearing late,
> >> >
> >> > It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Begging the question again...
> >
> > It is the most common way that fingerprints appear on objects, lurkers.
> >
> > Ben was begging the question when he claimed it "appeared late"
> > (whatever that means to a retard).
>
>
> Still begging the question.

Ben`s claim that the print "appeared late" was begging the question, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> and never being photographed,
> >> >
> >> > Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, "Dud."
> >>
> >> You cannot be stupid enough to think that I'm not referring to a
> >> photograph of the ORIGINAL print on the rifle before lifting.
> >
> > Ben cannot be stupid enough to think that things cannot exist
> > unless they are photographed, lurkers.
>
> This is the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

The goalposts are right where Ben put them. Ben is employing the fallacy known as Argument from Ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

> "Dud" knows *PRECISELY* what I stated and meant.
>
> The rest of the post has been snipped unread and unanswered... because
> when "Dud" gets this stupid, it's simply not worth my time.

Ben has hiked his skirt and ran, lurkers. Of course you know this means I`ve won.

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

Let me clarify something here, the "<snicker>" was not used for the purpose of derision (although I use it that way a lot), it was meant that I found your attempt to be diplomatic, and say I "implied", rather than "said" to be humorous. I saw that as an attempt to protect my feelings and that struck me as funny.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for the clarification, Bud. Point taken. My apologies for the return <snicker>. -----> :-)

[Ben Holmes]

Snicker at each other as much as you want to... but neither one of you
will post even a *SINGLE* one of the 20 items that shows the "sole
guilt" of anyone at all.

Such AMUSING cowardice!

[David Von Pein]

Ben still has the amusing idea that I even ATTEMPTED to put forth ONE single piece of evidence to prove Oswald's "Sole Guilt". *Of course* I never did that. It's the 20 items TOGETHER that implicate Oswald as the one and only assassin.

Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53 Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages 951-969).

Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who WEREN'T COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.

It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time, still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP" concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in "Reclaiming History". And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website. It's not just ONE thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole" assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that trick. (Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered, Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?)

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:02:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Such AMUSING ignorance (on Holmes' behalf)!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:41:52 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:02:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:51:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >BUD SAID:
>> >
>> >Let me clarify something here, the "<snicker>" was not used for the purpose of derision (although I use it that way a lot), it was meant that I found your attempt to be diplomatic, and say I "implied", rather than "said" to be humorous. I saw that as an attempt to protect my feelings and that struck me as funny.
>> >
>> >
>> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >
>> >Thanks for the clarification, Bud. Point taken. My apologies for the return <snicker>. -----> :-)
>>
>> Snicker at each other as much as you want to... but neither one of you
>> will post even a *SINGLE* one of the 20 items that shows the "sole
>> guilt" of anyone at all.
>>
>> Such AMUSING cowardice!
>
> Ben still has the amusing idea that I even ATTEMPTED to put forth
> ONE single piece of evidence to prove Oswald's "Sole Guilt". *Of
> course* I never did that. It's the 20 items TOGETHER that implicate
> Oswald as the one and only assassin.

No, I'm amused that you listed 20 items, yet NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF
THEM shows the "sole guilt" of Oswald, or anyone else for that matter.

You're such a coward that you CONTINUE to refuse to name even *ONE* of
those 20 items that actually supports the *SOLE GUILT* of anyone at
all.

Why is that David? Why the cowardice? And why can't you answer me
here?

WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER ME, DAVID???

> Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T
> NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53
> Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just
> ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the
> ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't
> Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of
> Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages
> 951-969).

Yep... none of them did what Bugliosi thought they did. Indeed, that
list proved beyond all doubt that believers are dishonest people.

BECAUSE NOT *ONE* OF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADMIT THAT READING, OR NOT
READING A NEWSPAPER HAS **NOTHING** TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE GUILT OF
SOMEONE AS A MURDERER!!!

And to this day, you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.

> Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who WEREN'T
> COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out
> that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be
> reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS
> TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.

Logical fallacy.

The strength of the whole isn't better than the weak links it's
composed of. Can you name even *ONE* other person who was caught not
reading a newspaper - and that fact was used to convict him/her of
murder?

> It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time,
> still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP"
> concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in
> "Reclaiming History".

Yep... that's true. Nor will you be able to find any *intelligent*
person who thinks that the whole is stronger than the weak links it's
composed of.

So I merely mesh with the average intelligent person.

Circumstantial evidence is indeed very powerful - but the nonsense
that Bugliosi spouted made believers simply look stupid.

Did you read the newspaper today?

> And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I
> was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website.

And yet, you can't produce EVEN *ONE* of those 20 items that even
*SUPPORTS* what you claimed was being shown.

Why the cowardice, David?

WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF YOUR OWN POSTING??? WHY DO YOUR WORDS
TERRIFY YOU SO MUCH???

> It's not just
> ONE thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole"
> assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that
> trick. (Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered,
> Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?)

Which one of your items shows what happened to the elephant that was
at the Paine residence?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:00:30 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:02:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:51:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >BUD SAID:
>> >
>> >Let me clarify something here, the "<snicker>" was not used for the purpose of derision (although I use it that way a lot), it was meant that I found your attempt to be diplomatic, and say I "implied", rather than "said" to be humorous. I saw that as an attempt to protect my feelings and that struck me as funny.
>> >
>> >
>> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >
>> >Thanks for the clarification, Bud. Point taken. My apologies for the return <snicker>. -----> :-)
>>
>> Snicker at each other as much as you want to... but neither one of you
>> will post even a *SINGLE* one of the 20 items that shows the "sole
>> guilt" of anyone at all.
>>
>> Such AMUSING cowardice!
>
>Such AMUSING ignorance (on Holmes' behalf)!

What "ignorance?"

I'm challenging you to QUOTE YOUR OWN WORDS - and show how it supports
your claim of the "sole guilt" of someone.

Yet you continue to refuse to do so... one might argue that this shows
*YOUR* ignorance...

But not me... I know it's dishonesty, not ignorance. You *CAN'T*
credible show how ANY of your 20 items show the "sole guilt" of
anyone.

So you continue to run away...

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 6:57:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:41:52 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:02:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:51:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >BUD SAID:
> >> >
> >> >Let me clarify something here, the "<snicker>" was not used for the purpose of derision (although I use it that way a lot), it was meant that I found your attempt to be diplomatic, and say I "implied", rather than "said" to be humorous. I saw that as an attempt to protect my feelings and that struck me as funny.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the clarification, Bud. Point taken. My apologies for the return <snicker>. -----> :-)
> >>
> >> Snicker at each other as much as you want to... but neither one of you
> >> will post even a *SINGLE* one of the 20 items that shows the "sole
> >> guilt" of anyone at all.
> >>
> >> Such AMUSING cowardice!
> >
> > Ben still has the amusing idea that I even ATTEMPTED to put forth
> > ONE single piece of evidence to prove Oswald's "Sole Guilt". *Of
> > course* I never did that. It's the 20 items TOGETHER that implicate
> > Oswald as the one and only assassin.
>
>
> No, I'm amused that you listed 20 items, yet NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF
> THEM shows the "sole guilt" of Oswald, or anyone else for that matter.
>

Of course "NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM", individually, shows the "sole guilt" of the assassin, you Super Stump! As I just got through explaining above---it's the SUM TOTAL of all the items of evidence that proves Oswald's guilt (in 2 murders).

For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do) that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just plain ridiculous.

But, then too, Ridiculous is apparently Benjamin Holmes' middle name. (Stay tuned for the proverbial "You're a molester" post from Ben coming up next, because I called him Benjamin.)

> You're such a coward that you CONTINUE to refuse to name even *ONE* of
> those 20 items that actually supports the *SOLE GUILT* of anyone at
> all.
>
> Why is that David? Why the cowardice? And why can't you answer me
> here?
>

Do you take Stump lessons on the side, Ben? Geesh.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:52:34 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

If *none* of them support someone's "sole guilt" - then where is this
idea coming from other than the fevered imagination of your nutty
brain?

> For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump
> to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do)
> that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak
> links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just
> plain ridiculous.

The whole cannot support what *NONE* of the individual items support.

You might as well assert that your list shows the sole guilt of Clyde
Barrows...

> But, then too, Ridiculous is apparently Benjamin Holmes' middle
> name. (Stay tuned for the proverbial "You're a molester" post from Ben
> coming up next, because I called him Benjamin.)

No, you're simply showing your stupidity. I've specified TIME AND TIME
AGAIN what draws those comments from me.

You're simply demonstrating that you can't read.

>> You're such a coward that you CONTINUE to refuse to name even *ONE* of
>> those 20 items that actually supports the *SOLE GUILT* of anyone at
>> all.
>>
>> Why is that David? Why the cowardice? And why can't you answer me
>> here?
>>
>
>Do you take Stump lessons on the side, Ben? Geesh.

Didn't answer the question... you simply ran again.

Let's hear you acknowledge that not even a *SINGLE* one of your 20
items shows any support AT ALL for the "sole guilt" of anyone.

You won't, of course... you're simply not an honest person.

>> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER ME, DAVID???

No answer...

>> > Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T
>> > NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53
>> > Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just
>> > ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the
>> > ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't
>> > Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of
>> > Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages
>> > 951-969).
>>
>> Yep... none of them did what Bugliosi thought they did. Indeed, that
>> list proved beyond all doubt that believers are dishonest people.
>>
>> BECAUSE NOT *ONE* OF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADMIT THAT READING, OR NOT
>> READING A NEWSPAPER HAS **NOTHING** TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE GUILT OF
>> SOMEONE AS A MURDERER!!!
>>
>> And to this day, you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Another prediction that has hit the mark. Demonstrating once again
that David's a coward.

>> > Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who WEREN'T
>> > COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out
>> > that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be
>> > reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS
>> > TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>>
>> The strength of the whole isn't better than the weak links it's
>> composed of. Can you name even *ONE* other person who was caught not
>> reading a newspaper - and that fact was used to convict him/her of
>> murder?

More silence from the coward...

>> > It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time,
>> > still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP"
>> > concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in
>> > "Reclaiming History".
>>
>> Yep... that's true. Nor will you be able to find any *intelligent*
>> person who thinks that the whole is stronger than the weak links it's
>> composed of.
>>
>> So I merely mesh with the average intelligent person.

David can't refute this, so he remains silent.

>> Circumstantial evidence is indeed very powerful - but the nonsense
>> that Bugliosi spouted made believers simply look stupid.
>>
>> Did you read the newspaper today?

David *dares* not answer... Bugliosi would rise from the grave and
convict him.

>> > And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I
>> > was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website.
>>
>> And yet, you can't produce EVEN *ONE* of those 20 items that even
>> *SUPPORTS* what you claimed was being shown.
>>
>> Why the cowardice, David?
>>
>> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF YOUR OWN POSTING??? WHY DO YOUR WORDS
>> TERRIFY YOU SO MUCH???

Dead silence. David knows he lost.

>> > It's not just
>> > ONE thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole"
>> > assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that
>> > trick. (Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered,
>> > Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?)
>>
>>
>> Which one of your items shows what happened to the elephant that was
>> at the Paine residence?

Anyone notice the dead silence to the majority of my points I made?

David *KNOWS* he's on the losing end... and is desperately trying to
recoup his self-worth.

[David Von Pein]

It's like a jigsaw puzzle. If you take just one single piece of that puzzle and isolate it separately, you don't see any picture at all. But what happens when all of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are put together?

(Get the "picture"? Or do you want to continue being a dumb stump?)

>
>
> > For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump
> > to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do)
> > that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak
> > links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just
> > plain ridiculous.
>
> The whole cannot support what *NONE* of the individual items support.
>

What a stump!

> You might as well assert that your list shows the sole guilt of Clyde
> Barrows...
>
>
> > But, then too, Ridiculous is apparently Benjamin Holmes' middle
> > name. (Stay tuned for the proverbial "You're a molester" post from Ben
> > coming up next, because I called him Benjamin.)
>
>
> No, you're simply showing your stupidity. I've specified TIME AND TIME
> AGAIN what draws those comments from me.
>
> You're simply demonstrating that you can't read.
>
>
> >> You're such a coward that you CONTINUE to refuse to name even *ONE* of
> >> those 20 items that actually supports the *SOLE GUILT* of anyone at
> >> all.
> >>
> >> Why is that David? Why the cowardice? And why can't you answer me
> >> here?
> >>
> >
> >Do you take Stump lessons on the side, Ben? Geesh.
>
>
> Didn't answer the question... you simply ran again.
>
> Let's hear you acknowledge that not even a *SINGLE* one of your 20
> items shows any support AT ALL for the "sole guilt" of anyone.
>
> You won't, of course... you're simply not an honest person.
>

What a *deaf* stump!

If you try a *little* more, Ben, you might manage to acquire a little more denseness. (But it won't be easy.)

> >> Why the cowardice, David?
> >>
> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF YOUR OWN POSTING??? WHY DO YOUR WORDS
> >> TERRIFY YOU SO MUCH???
>
>
> Dead silence. David knows he lost.
>
>
>
> >> > It's not just
> >> > ONE thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole"
> >> > assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that
> >> > trick. (Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered,
> >> > Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Which one of your items shows what happened to the elephant that was
> >> at the Paine residence?
>
> Anyone notice the dead silence to the majority of my points I made?
>
> David *KNOWS* he's on the losing end... and is desperately trying to
> recoup his self-worth.

Some light reading for any lurkers....

The Best Of Stump Holmes....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes
(Make sure you click "Next Posts" when you get close to the bottom of the first page. Because there's lots more of Ben's idiocy featured on the next few pages too.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:19:59 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

No, it's not.

A jigsaw puzzle has at least *PARTS* of the picture in every single
piece.

> If you take just one single piece of that puzzle and isolate it
> separately, you don't see any picture at all. But what happens when
> all of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are put together?
>
>(Get the "picture"? Or do you want to continue being a dumb stump?)

Your analogy fails. As I just stated, each piece of a jigsaw puzzle
has at *LEAST* the parts of the total scene.

You can't produce even a *SINGLE* item that supports... note that I
didn't say "prove" - I said JUST SUPPORTS the idea of anyone's "sole
guilt."

And that fact proves *YOU* a dishonest moron.

>> > For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump
>> > to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do)
>> > that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak
>> > links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just
>> > plain ridiculous.
>>
>> The whole cannot support what *NONE* of the individual items support.
>>
>
>What a stump!

Ad hominem simply shows that you can't refute what I stated.

You're clearly in for a very miserable number of weeks, as I post each
one of my critical refutations of your nonsense.

>> You might as well assert that your list shows the sole guilt of Clyde
>> Barrows...
>>
>>
>> > But, then too, Ridiculous is apparently Benjamin Holmes' middle
>> > name. (Stay tuned for the proverbial "You're a molester" post from Ben
>> > coming up next, because I called him Benjamin.)
>>
>>
>> No, you're simply showing your stupidity. I've specified TIME AND TIME
>> AGAIN what draws those comments from me.
>>
>> You're simply demonstrating that you can't read.

Dead silence...

Clearly, the moron can't read.

>> >> You're such a coward that you CONTINUE to refuse to name even *ONE* of
>> >> those 20 items that actually supports the *SOLE GUILT* of anyone at
>> >> all.
>> >>
>> >> Why is that David? Why the cowardice? And why can't you answer me
>> >> here?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do you take Stump lessons on the side, Ben? Geesh.
>>
>>
>> Didn't answer the question... you simply ran again.
>>
>> Let's hear you acknowledge that not even a *SINGLE* one of your 20
>> items shows any support AT ALL for the "sole guilt" of anyone.
>>
>> You won't, of course... you're simply not an honest person.
>
>What a *deaf* stump!

Again, the ad hominem is simply an admission on your part that you
can't refute what I just posted.

Why are you incapable of posting even *ONE* item that SUPPORTS your
claim of "sole guilt?"

>> >> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER ME, DAVID???
>>
>>
>> No answer...

And *still* no answer from the coward.

>> >> > Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T
>> >> > NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53
>> >> > Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just
>> >> > ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the
>> >> > ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't
>> >> > Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of
>> >> > Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages
>> >> > 951-969).
>> >>
>> >> Yep... none of them did what Bugliosi thought they did. Indeed, that
>> >> list proved beyond all doubt that believers are dishonest people.
>> >>
>> >> BECAUSE NOT *ONE* OF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADMIT THAT READING, OR NOT
>> >> READING A NEWSPAPER HAS **NOTHING** TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE GUILT OF
>> >> SOMEONE AS A MURDERER!!!
>> >>
>> >> And to this day, you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.
>>
>>
>> Another prediction that has hit the mark. Demonstrating once again
>> that David's a coward.

The cowardice continues...

>> >> > Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who WEREN'T
>> >> > COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out
>> >> > that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be
>> >> > reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS
>> >> > TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.
>> >>
>> >> Logical fallacy.
>> >>
>> >> The strength of the whole isn't better than the weak links it's
>> >> composed of. Can you name even *ONE* other person who was caught not
>> >> reading a newspaper - and that fact was used to convict him/her of
>> >> murder?
>>
>>
>> More silence from the coward...

More cowardice demonstrated by David's silence....

>> >> > It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time,
>> >> > still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP"
>> >> > concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in
>> >> > "Reclaiming History".
>> >>
>> >> Yep... that's true. Nor will you be able to find any *intelligent*
>> >> person who thinks that the whole is stronger than the weak links it's
>> >> composed of.
>> >>
>> >> So I merely mesh with the average intelligent person.
>>
>>
>> David can't refute this, so he remains silent.

Clearly unable to refute me...

>> >> Circumstantial evidence is indeed very powerful - but the nonsense
>> >> that Bugliosi spouted made believers simply look stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Did you read the newspaper today?
>>
>>
>> David *dares* not answer... Bugliosi would rise from the grave and
>> convict him.

The logic is inescapable - and David has nothing to say.

He knows he lost. (None of this will ever appear on his website...)

>> >> > And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I
>> >> > was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website.
>> >>
>> >> And yet, you can't produce EVEN *ONE* of those 20 items that even
>> >> *SUPPORTS* what you claimed was being shown.
>
> If you try a *little* more, Ben, you might manage to acquire a
> little more denseness. (But it won't be easy.)

No "denseness" needed. You've made a claim that isn't supported by a
*SINGLE* sentence or topic you've raised.

Nor by all 20 of them combined together.

And you're clearly too dishonest to acknowledge that fact.

>> >> Why the cowardice, David?
>> >>
>> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF YOUR OWN POSTING??? WHY DO YOUR WORDS
>> >> TERRIFY YOU SO MUCH???
>>
>>
>> Dead silence. David knows he lost.

Still dead silence... David can't refute the obvious facts I'm
posting.

>> >> > It's not just
>> >> > ONE thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole"
>> >> > assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that
>> >> > trick. (Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered,
>> >> > Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Which one of your items shows what happened to the elephant that was
>> >> at the Paine residence?
>>
>> Anyone notice the dead silence to the majority of my points I made?
>>
>> David *KNOWS* he's on the losing end... and is desperately trying to
>> recoup his self-worth.
>
>Some light reading for any lurkers....
>
>The Best Of Stump Holmes....

>http?//jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes

This is merely an illustration of your cowardice... I'm RIGHT HERE -
and you're afraid to debate.

Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

[David Von Pein]

So does the "Oswald Did It (Alone)" jigsaw puzzle (of course).

What a stump.

>
> > If you take just one single piece of that puzzle and isolate it
> > separately, you don't see any picture at all. But what happens when
> > all of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are put together?
> >
> >(Get the "picture"? Or do you want to continue being a dumb stump?)
>
> Your analogy fails. As I just stated, each piece of a jigsaw puzzle
> has at *LEAST* the parts of the total scene.
>

And why you think otherwise when it comes to the "Oswald's Guilty" puzzle is anyone's guess. (Could it be because you're a stump?)

> You can't produce even a *SINGLE* item that supports... note that I
> didn't say "prove" - I said JUST SUPPORTS the idea of anyone's "sole
> guilt."
>

Nobody can really do that, because (as I've said a hundred times) it's really the MOSAIC or TOTALITY of those parts that form the big (puzzle) picture. And any prosecuting attorney who has ever handled a case in court knows that fact very well. They don't just rely on one thing. They rely on many (sometimes smaller) things to convict the guilty party. If there were just ONE single thing that a prosecutor could rely on, the defendant is probably gonna walk. But in Oswald's case, we have so much stuff it's possible that the prosecutor wouldn't even have time to present it all.

> And that fact proves *YOU* a dishonest moron.
>

An insult coming from a stump doesn't hold much weight. Sorry.

And the crap from stumpdom continues....

[David Von Pein]

I skipped a few of Stump Holmes' items in my last post which I now want to address (so forgive my skipping around)....

In actuality, EVERY single item on my list--individually--"SUPPORTS" (not "proves", but supports) the conclusion that Oswald was the "Sole Assassin". And that's because there is nothing ELSE on the table (evidence-wise) for consideration that knocks the "Oswald Alone" theory out of contention. So, *of course*, each item "supports" the overall notion that LHO was the ONLY killer. (What else COULD such an array of "Oz Did It" evidence "SUPPORT"? His complete INNOCENCE? LOL)

> And that fact proves *YOU* a dishonest moron.
>

And you just proved yourself to be in "CD" mode (Complete Denial)--yet again.

>
> >> > For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump
> >> > to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do)
> >> > that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak
> >> > links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just
> >> > plain ridiculous.
> >>
> >> The whole cannot support what *NONE* of the individual items support.
> >>
> >
> >What a stump!
>
>
> Ad hominem simply shows that you can't refute what I stated.
>
> You're clearly in for a very miserable number of weeks, as I post each
> one of my critical refutations of your nonsense.
>

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

So bring on Part 2, Mr. Denial.

#2 on my list, btw, is this....

"Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit."

I can't wait to see the level of Complete Denial that Holmes is forced to exhibit when he tries to "refute" the above wholly accurate fact regarding Oswald owning the Smith & Wesson #V510210 handgun that killed J.D. Tippit. It should be a barrel of laughs. Maybe 2 barrels.

And do you think you're fooling any lurkers into believing you're anything *but* a stump who is in total denial about what the evidence shows in the JFK case?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:09:13 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

You're lying again, David. And the PROOF that you're lying is the
simple fact that you refuse, ABSOLUTELY REFUSE; to quote any *one* of
your 20 items... and show how it supports the "sole guilt" of anyone
at all.

You're a gutless wonder, David...

Keep running - because you help prove my point... that *ALL* believers
are cowards and liars...

>> > If you take just one single piece of that puzzle and isolate it
>> > separately, you don't see any picture at all. But what happens when
>> > all of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are put together?
>> >
>> >(Get the "picture"? Or do you want to continue being a dumb stump?)
>>
>> Your analogy fails. As I just stated, each piece of a jigsaw puzzle
>> has at *LEAST* the parts of the total scene.
>>
>
> And why you think otherwise when it comes to the "Oswald's Guilty"
> puzzle is anyone's guess. (Could it be because you're a stump?)

Oh, you *agree* with me.

Otherwise, you'd have long ago listed which of the 20 items suipports
the "sole guilt" of anyone at all - and defended it.

Even **DUD** won't support you here!!! And *that* tells the tale.

>> You can't produce even a *SINGLE* item that supports... note that I
>> didn't say "prove" - I said JUST SUPPORTS the idea of anyone's "sole
>> guilt."
>>
>
> Nobody can really do that,

Of course not... that's what I've been saying from the very first post
you ran from.

You pretend to list 20 items THAT DON'T EVEN **SUPPORT** what you
claim.

You're a gutless liar.

> because (as I've said a hundred times) it's really the MOSAIC or
> TOTALITY of those parts that form the big (puzzle) picture. And any
> prosecuting attorney who has ever handled a case in court knows that
> fact very well. They don't just rely on one thing. They rely on many
> (sometimes smaller) things to convict the guilty party. If there were
> just ONE single thing that a prosecutor could rely on, the defendant
> is probably gonna walk. But in Oswald's case, we have so much stuff
> it's possible that the prosecutor wouldn't even have time to present
> it all.

Your 20 items also mention nothing at all about the Grassy Knoll
shooter, therefore you've proven his existence.

A *perfect* analogy, even by your admission that *NONE* of your items
even come *close* to supporting your thesis.

Therefore, you've also proven the Grassy Knoll shooter.

>> And that fact proves *YOU* a dishonest moron.
>>
>
>An insult coming from a stump doesn't hold much weight. Sorry.

Actually, I didn't offer an insult - I pointed out a fact.

>> >> > For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump
>> >> > to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do)
>> >> > that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak
>> >> > links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just
>> >> > plain ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> The whole cannot support what *NONE* of the individual items support.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What a stump!
>>
>>
>> Ad hominem simply shows that you can't refute what I stated.
>>
>> You're clearly in for a very miserable number of weeks, as I post each
>> one of my critical refutations of your nonsense.

You might as well pack it in now, and run back to the censored forum.

>> >> You might as well assert that your list shows the sole guilt of Clyde
>> >> Barrows...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > But, then too, Ridiculous is apparently Benjamin Holmes' middle
>> >> > name. (Stay tuned for the proverbial "You're a molester" post from Ben
>> >> > coming up next, because I called him Benjamin.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, you're simply showing your stupidity. I've specified TIME AND TIME
>> >> AGAIN what draws those comments from me.
>> >>
>> >> You're simply demonstrating that you can't read.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
>>
>> Clearly, the moron can't read.

Or refute what I state.

>> >> >> You're such a coward that you CONTINUE to refuse to name even *ONE* of
>> >> >> those 20 items that actually supports the *SOLE GUILT* of anyone at
>> >> >> all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is that David? Why the cowardice? And why can't you answer me
>> >> >> here?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you take Stump lessons on the side, Ben? Geesh.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Didn't answer the question... you simply ran again.
>> >>
>> >> Let's hear you acknowledge that not even a *SINGLE* one of your 20
>> >> items shows any support AT ALL for the "sole guilt" of anyone.
>> >>
>> >> You won't, of course... you're simply not an honest person.
>> >
>> >What a *deaf* stump!
>>
>>
>> Again, the ad hominem is simply an admission on your part that you
>> can't refute what I just posted.
>>
>> Why are you incapable of posting even *ONE* item that SUPPORTS your
>> claim of "sole guilt?"

The moron has finally admitted the truth, HE CAN'T!!

>> >> >> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER ME, DAVID???
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No answer...
>>
>>
>> And *still* no answer from the coward.

The coward has finally admitted why he can't answer... THERE IS
NOTHING IN HIS 20 ITEMS THAT SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

>> >> >> > Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T
>> >> >> > NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53
>> >> >> > Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just
>> >> >> > ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the
>> >> >> > ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't
>> >> >> > Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of
>> >> >> > Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages
>> >> >> > 951-969).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep... none of them did what Bugliosi thought they did. Indeed, that
>> >> >> list proved beyond all doubt that believers are dishonest people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BECAUSE NOT *ONE* OF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADMIT THAT READING, OR NOT
>> >> >> READING A NEWSPAPER HAS **NOTHING** TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE GUILT OF
>> >> >> SOMEONE AS A MURDERER!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And to this day, you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Another prediction that has hit the mark. Demonstrating once again
>> >> that David's a coward.
>>
>>
>> The cowardice continues...
>
>And the crap from stumpdom continues....

How can it be "crap" - you've agreed that you can't list anything that
supports your claim.

Nor can you admit that reading or not reading a newspaper has NOTHING
to do with being a suspect in a murder case.

This isn't "crap" - it's cowardice.

>> >> >> > Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who WEREN'T
>> >> >> > COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out
>> >> >> > that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be
>> >> >> > reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS
>> >> >> > TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Logical fallacy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The strength of the whole isn't better than the weak links it's
>> >> >> composed of. Can you name even *ONE* other person who was caught not
>> >> >> reading a newspaper - and that fact was used to convict him/her of
>> >> >> murder?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> More silence from the coward...
>>
>>
>> More cowardice demonstrated by David's silence....

As the silence before David finally admits the truth of what I've been
saying... clearly *THIS* silence also shows that David understands the
truth of my statement... and his inability to answer it.

Why not ask McAdams for help?

>> >> >> > It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time,
>> >> >> > still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP"
>> >> >> > concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in
>> >> >> > "Reclaiming History".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep... that's true. Nor will you be able to find any *intelligent*
>> >> >> person who thinks that the whole is stronger than the weak links it's
>> >> >> composed of.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So I merely mesh with the average intelligent person.
>> >>
>> >> David can't refute this, so he remains silent.
>>
>> Clearly unable to refute me...

Still silent...

>> >> >> Circumstantial evidence is indeed very powerful - but the nonsense
>> >> >> that Bugliosi spouted made believers simply look stupid.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did you read the newspaper today?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> David *dares* not answer... Bugliosi would rise from the grave and
>> >> convict him.
>>
>>
>> The logic is inescapable - and David has nothing to say.
>>
>> He knows he lost. (None of this will ever appear on his website...)

Come on David... PROVE ME WRONG - cite where this material is showing
up on your website in uncensored form.

>> >> >> > And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I
>> >> >> > was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And yet, you can't produce EVEN *ONE* of those 20 items that even
>> >> >> *SUPPORTS* what you claimed was being shown.
>> >
>> > If you try a *little* more, Ben, you might manage to acquire a
>> > little more denseness. (But it won't be easy.)
>>
>>
>> No "denseness" needed. You've made a claim that isn't supported by a
>> *SINGLE* sentence or topic you've raised.
>>
>> Nor by all 20 of them combined together.
>>
>> And you're clearly too dishonest to acknowledge that fact.

Actually, you've *FINALLY* admitted the truth of what I've been saying
all along.

Why did it take you so long to admit the simple truth, David?

>> >> >> Why the cowardice, David?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED OF YOUR OWN POSTING??? WHY DO YOUR WORDS
>> >> >> TERRIFY YOU SO MUCH???
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dead silence. David knows he lost.
>>
>> Still dead silence... David can't refute the obvious facts I'm
>> posting.
>>
>> >> >> > It's not just
>> >> >> > ONE thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole"
>> >> >> > assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that
>> >> >> > trick. (Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered,
>> >> >> > Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which one of your items shows what happened to the elephant that was
>> >> >> at the Paine residence?
>> >>
>> >> Anyone notice the dead silence to the majority of my points I made?
>> >>
>> >> David *KNOWS* he's on the losing end... and is desperately trying to
>> >> recoup his self-worth.
>> >
>> >Some light reading for any lurkers....
>> >
>> >The Best Of Stump Holmes....
>> >http?//jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes
>>
>> This is merely an illustration of your cowardice... I'm RIGHT HERE -
>> and you're afraid to debate.
>>
>> Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Dead silence... the presumption is, David knows he's not fooling
anyone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:25:39 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

Amusingly, you've NEVER seemed capable of simply taking my first post
on a topic, and going through the whole thing, and answering point by
point.

This fact tells the true story - even if you wish to pretend not to
understand it.

> In actuality, EVERY single item on my list--individually--"SUPPORTS"
> (not "proves", but supports) the conclusion that Oswald was the "Sole
> Assassin". And that's because there is nothing ELSE on the table
> (evidence-wise) for consideration that knocks the "Oswald Alone"
> theory out of contention. So, *of course*, each item "supports" the
> overall notion that LHO was the ONLY killer. (What else COULD such an
> array of "Oz Did It" evidence "SUPPORT"? His complete INNOCENCE? LOL)

ROTFLMAO!!!

I *** D A R E *** you to quote just *one* of them, and show by logical
argument that it supports the idea that there were no other shooters.

YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!

Yet you're claiming now that *ALL* of them do this...

You're a rather STUPID liar, David.

>> And that fact proves *YOU* a dishonest moron.
>>
>
>And you just proved yourself to be in "CD" mode (Complete Denial)--yet again.

Why would pointing out a fact have anything to do with me?


(Watch as David runs again...)

>> >> > For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump
>> >> > to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do)
>> >> > that EACH item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak
>> >> > links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just
>> >> > plain ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> The whole cannot support what *NONE* of the individual items support.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What a stump!
>>
>>
>> Ad hominem simply shows that you can't refute what I stated.
>>
>> You're clearly in for a very miserable number of weeks, as I post each
>> one of my critical refutations of your nonsense.
>>
>
> Miserable?? You're on crack, Mr. Stump. I'm lovin' this. And I'm
> especially enjoying arching on my site Bud's always insightful and
> relevant replies to your pathetic posts, which are posts that only
> prove--once again--your state of Complete Denial regarding the events
> of Nov. 22nd. (Maybe I should increase my "Oswald Did It" list to 30
> or 40 items to keep this fun alive even longer. Ya think?)

You've proven time and time again to run. You do it again this time
too.

>So bring on Part 2, Mr. Denial.
>
>#2 on my list, btw, is this....
>
>"Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit."
>
> I can't wait to see the level of Complete Denial that Holmes is
> forced to exhibit when he tries to "refute" the above wholly accurate
> fact regarding Oswald owning the Smith & Wesson #V510210 handgun that
> killed J.D. Tippit. It should be a barrel of laughs. Maybe 2 barrels.

Stay tuned for my full answer... but riddle me this - why did the
Warren Commission go "expert shopping?"

Interestingly, you're now claiming that *ALL* of them show "sole
guilt," yet you still refuse to cite even *ONE* of them - and explain
how it does so...

>> >> >> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER ME, DAVID???
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No answer...
>>
>>
>> And *still* no answer from the coward.
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T
>> >> >> > NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53
>> >> >> > Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just
>> >> >> > ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the
>> >> >> > ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't
>> >> >> > Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of
>> >> >> > Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages
>> >> >> > 951-969).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep... none of them did what Bugliosi thought they did. Indeed, that
>> >> >> list proved beyond all doubt that believers are dishonest people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BECAUSE NOT *ONE* OF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADMIT THAT READING, OR NOT
>> >> >> READING A NEWSPAPER HAS **NOTHING** TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE GUILT OF
>> >> >> SOMEONE AS A MURDERER!!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And to this day, you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Another prediction that has hit the mark. Demonstrating once again
>> >> that David's a coward.
>>
>> The cowardice continues...

David claims that he's not miserable right now - yet here's an example
where he's just shut his mouth, and refuses to say a single word.

David's cowardice is on full display here, folks!

Of course, the fact that this won't appear on his website is *PROOF*
of David's dishonesty.

Your parents are ashamed of you, David.

>> >> >> > And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I
>> >> >> > was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And yet, you can't produce EVEN *ONE* of those 20 items that even
>> >> >> *SUPPORTS* what you claimed was being shown.
>> >
>> > If you try a *little* more, Ben, you might manage to acquire a
>> > little more denseness. (But it won't be easy.)
>>
>> No "denseness" needed. You've made a claim that isn't supported by a
>> *SINGLE* sentence or topic you've raised.
>>
>> Nor by all 20 of them combined together.
>>
>> And you're clearly too dishonest to acknowledge that fact.

Dead silence...

I school you every time you dare poke your head in this public forum.
And all you can do in return is lie.

[Bud]

I did that very thing, lurkers. Ben cut and ran from most of those responses. He is both a coward *and* a hypocrite.

> This fact tells the true story - even if you wish to pretend not to
> understand it.
>
>
> > In actuality, EVERY single item on my list--individually--"SUPPORTS"
> > (not "proves", but supports) the conclusion that Oswald was the "Sole
> > Assassin". And that's because there is nothing ELSE on the table
> > (evidence-wise) for consideration that knocks the "Oswald Alone"
> > theory out of contention. So, *of course*, each item "supports" the
> > overall notion that LHO was the ONLY killer. (What else COULD such an
> > array of "Oz Did It" evidence "SUPPORT"? His complete INNOCENCE? LOL)
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> I *** D A R E *** you to quote just *one* of them, and show by logical
> argument that it supports the idea that there were no other shooters.
>
> YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!
>
> Yet you're claiming now that *ALL* of them do this...
>
> You're a rather STUPID liar, David.

Ben is a bit of a stump, lurkers. He addressed the first one, where David lays out the evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle. Does any of that information point to anyone other than the individual Lee Harvey Oswald? Unless you think Hidell was different person it all leads to Oswald so it all supportive of his lone guilt. No other person is necessary to explain the evidence in the case.

Empty claim, lurkers.

He did, lurkers. Each one points to the guilt of one individual, Oswald. Solely.

> >> >> >> WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER ME, DAVID???
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No answer...
> >>
> >>
> >> And *still* no answer from the coward.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> > Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T
> >> >> >> > NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53
> >> >> >> > Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just
> >> >> >> > ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the
> >> >> >> > ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't
> >> >> >> > Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of
> >> >> >> > Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages
> >> >> >> > 951-969).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yep... none of them did what Bugliosi thought they did. Indeed, that
> >> >> >> list proved beyond all doubt that believers are dishonest people.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BECAUSE NOT *ONE* OF YOU WERE ABLE TO ADMIT THAT READING, OR NOT
> >> >> >> READING A NEWSPAPER HAS **NOTHING** TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE GUILT OF
> >> >> >> SOMEONE AS A MURDERER!!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And to this day, you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Another prediction that has hit the mark. Demonstrating once again
> >> >> that David's a coward.
> >>
> >> The cowardice continues...
>
>
> David claims that he's not miserable right now - yet here's an example
> where he's just shut his mouth, and refuses to say a single word.
>
> David's cowardice is on full display here, folks!

Retards look at the wrong things and then look at those wrong things incorrectly. What Bugliosi wrote years after Oswald killed Kennedy has never been the point.

But since these retards cannot put a reasonable, feasible supportable outline of what they believe happened that day on the table for consideration they are forced criticize what others have done. But if if weren`t for the retard conspiracy mongering associated with this event Bugliosi`s book would not have a purpose.

If you want to see sheer, unadulterated dishonesty give Ben`s conspiracy forum a look, lurkers.

> Your parents are ashamed of you, David.

Ben`s folks raised him to be a cowardly lying hypocrite, lurkers.

All Ben does is display what a stump he really is, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:14:43 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I did that very thing...


And, as I *correctly* pointed out, David has not.

David's a coward.

Acknowledge the truthful statements such as the one above, and maybe
I'll pay more attention to your ramblings...

But your constant lying is beginning to bore me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:24:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:20:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:18:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:02:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>> >> >> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>> >> >
>> >> > I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How silly!
>> >>
>> >> You *KNOW* from past experience that I do what I say I'm going to do.
>> >
>> > Ben`s track record isn`t as good as he seems to think, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, "Dud."
>
> I`ll let you lurkers decide, Ben said this this over 10 months ago...
>
> "I'll give you a week to find the names, and if you still can't find 'em, I'll simply point out your ignorance, and give you the cite you pretend I don't have."
>
> He hasn`t provided that cite yet. His track record isn`t as good as he thinks it is.

Quite amusingly, you're lying again. Omission is a lie, right?

[Bud]

And as I correctly pointed out Ben cut and ran from most of my responses, lurkers. You can see how this makes him a hypocrite to harangue David for the same thing he rountinely does.

> David's a coward.
>
> Acknowledge the truthful statements such as the one above, and maybe
> I'll pay more attention to your ramblings...

My responses are not for Ben`s benefit, lurkers.

[Bud]

Did Ben support his claim, lurkers? Nope, he lied when he said he would produce those names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:53:05 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:27 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:24:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:20:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:18:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:02:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:40:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> >> Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that
>> >> >> >> David Von Pein and "Dud" are anxiously hoping that I never post...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn`t start it soon I was going to start badgering him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How silly!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You *KNOW* from past experience that I do what I say I'm going to do.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben`s track record isn`t as good as he seems to think, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, "Dud."
>> >
>> > I`ll let you lurkers decide, Ben said this this over 10 months ago...
>> >
>> > "I'll give you a week to find the names, and if you still can't find 'em, I'll simply point out your ignorance, and give you the cite you pretend I don't have."
>> >
>> > He hasn`t provided that cite yet. His track record isn`t as good as he thinks it is.
>>
>>
>> Quite amusingly, you're lying again. Omission is a lie, right?
>

> Did Ben support his claim...

Have you correctly quoted my "claim" - or have you cherry picked?

Run Dufus... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:52:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> And as I correctly pointed out ...

Tut tut tut, Dufus... you've refused to quote any such example where
you quoted my post, then cited the evidence.

[Bud]

I quoted the part that was relevant to the point I made, lurkers. The part where Ben lied. Here is that lie again....

"I'll give you a week to find the names, and if you still can't find 'em, I'll simply point out your ignorance, and give you the cite you pretend I don't have."

He hasn`t produced that cite to this day, and he never will, lurkers.

> Run Dufus... RUN!!!

[Bud]

I answer point by point, lurkers. Ben is a hypocrite to cry about David not answering point by point when he cuts and runs from most of my points, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:48:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I quoted...

Have you correctly quoted my "claim" - or have you cherry picked?

It's a simple question...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:54:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I answer point by point...

[Bud]

Ben has refused to acknowledge that I`ve done this numerous times, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:36:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Why would I "acknowledge" a lie, Dufus?

YOU **STILL** CAN'T DO IT, no matter how many times I yank your chain.

[Bud]

Why doesn`t Ben acknowledge that it isn`t a lie, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:42:55 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Why doesn`t Ben acknowledge that it isn`t a lie...

For the simple reason that you REFUSE ... time and time again... to
quote any such example.

Which merely shows that you cannot... you're lying.

[Jason Burke]

More of Ben's masturbatory fantasies.

[Bud]

I have shown Ben to be a liar time and time again, lurkers. So often I refuse to repeat the useless activity. Ben just isn`t honest enough to admit his dishonesty.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:45:36 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I have shown ...

No you haven't.

Once again, you refuse.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

[Bud]

Yes, I have, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:22:43 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You will, as usual, ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite it.


You're simply lying.

[Bud]

Been there, done that, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:28:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

If this were true, it would be easy to cite.

I can't prove you a liar, because I can't point to a non-existent
post.

What I *will* do is simply point out that you're not capable of citing
this mythical post.

[Bud]

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:41:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Yet once again, you refuse.