Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

WCR & Bugliosi Simply Lied...

30 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 11:21:19 AM12/31/11
to

The following was taken from the Amazon forum:

Okay Alan - I've asked to to name any evidence that you're willing to publicly
support and defend.

You've claimed that "I've listed close to 40 separate pieces of evidence taken
from Vincent Bugliosi's magnum opus Reclaiming History. All of them have simple
non-conspiratorial explanations."

So let's examine one, and see if that's really true or not:

1."Whenever Oswald had Wesley Frazier drive him out to visit his wife and
daughters at the Paine residence in Irving, he'd go on a Friday evening and
return to Dallas on Monday morning. The assassination was on Friday, November
22, 1963. For the very first time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a
Thursday evening, November 21, obviously to pick up his Mannlicher-Carcano for
the following day." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History

And surely, Bugliosi was keeping in mind that the WCR made the claim: "On
Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment Commission check for
$33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR 331)

But the EVIDENCE suggests otherwise... the EVIDENCE that the WC used to make the
above statement, and the EVIDENCE that Bugliosi must have relied on, is this:

"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31,
1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above
check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)

The WC clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was
not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick up a
rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.

So too did Bugliosi - he simply lied. He *KNEW* that there was evidence of
visits on other days of the week, and simply ignored them.

You stated that you can give a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for
the evidence.

So let's hear the credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for why both the
WCR and Bugliosi simply LIED about the underlying evidence when they made their
claim...

But, of course, you'll run away again. There really *IS NO EXPLANATION" that you
can give that is both credible, and non-conspiratorial for why they lied about
the evidence.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 1:29:02 PM12/31/11
to

BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "The WC clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Contrary to what Kook Holmes believes, the Warren Commission didn't
need to "lie" in order to show that Lee Oswald went to Irving on
Thursday, November 21 to get his rifle. Oswald's LIES are the ones
Holmes should be focusing on -- because it is OSWALD'S LIES about the
"curtain rods" that he told to Buell Frazier than indicate Oswald was
wanting to hide something with respect to his visit to the Paine home
on 11/21/63.

And the cashier, Mrs. Tarrants, of the Atlantic & Pacific store in
Irving wasn't exactly sure of the date when Oswald went to that store
to cash his unemployment check. CE1165 has these words associated with
Mrs. Tarrant's recollections concerning the date the check was cashed:
"As best as she recalls" it was on Thursday night, October 31st when
Oswald came into the store to cash the check. It certainly could have
been the next evening, however--Fri., Nov. 1st.

And it was on April 13, 1964, when Mrs. Tarrants was asked to recall
the incident--more than five months after Oswald cashed the check. To
think that she would have been able to nail down the date with
absolute certainty seems to be asking a little much of the woman's
memory. And, AFAIK, in this instance there is no definitive way of
knowing the exact date the check was cashed.

Re: Oswald Going To Irving On Weekdays......

I know there was one time when Lee Harvey Oswald went to Irving on a
Monday night, which was October 21st, the day after his daughter
Rachel was born.

But as far as I know, and as far as the witness testimony indicates,
that trip to Irving on Monday, Oct. 21 was the only time LHO went to
Irving on a weekday other than his trip to get his rifle on Thursday,
November 21.

And Ruth Paine's WC testimony clearly indicates that Lee Oswald's trip
to the Paine home on Thursday, Nov. 21 was quite unusual (and for
multiple reasons, not just the day of the week). Let's look at what
Ruth had to say about that:

Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st [of Nov. 1963]. Did anything
occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a
Thursday?

Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he
was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.

Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?

Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come
without asking whether he could.

Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form
without asking your permission to come?

Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

aeffects

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 2:16:22 PM12/31/11
to
TOP POST

Is the lone nut kookster, leader of the WCR faithful, one David Von
Pein (sic) jogging in place or simply running away at 100MPH?
LMAO! ! ! !

Bud

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 2:28:59 PM12/31/11
to
On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> Is the lone nut kookster, leader of the WCR faithful, one David Von
> Pein (sic) jogging in place or simply running away at 100MPH?
> LMAO! ! ! !

<snicker> Did Ben really use the 5 month old memory of a cashier
when she cashed a check to contest the idea that Oswald only went to
the Paine`s house on Fridays previously?

You guys have all the bestest evidence. Keep shooting those blanks,
retards...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 3:55:48 PM12/31/11
to
In article <2661f90f-2608-411b...@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>TOP POST
>
>Is the lone nut kookster, leader of the WCR faithful, one David Von
>Pein (sic) jogging in place or simply running away at 100MPH?
>LMAO! ! ! !


He's demonstrating yet again his inherent dishonesty. (By the way, the original
poster over on Amazon ran away from defending his assertion - as he claimed he
would. Did it surprise me? Of course not!!!)



>On Dec 31, 10:29=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>
>> >>> "The WC clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to=
> Irving was not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursd=
>ay to pick up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so." <<<
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Contrary to what Kook Holmes believes, the Warren Commission didn't
>> need to "lie" in order to show that Lee Oswald went to Irving on
>> Thursday, November 21 to get his rifle.


That is, of course, an outright lie on DVP's part.

I NO-WHERE STATED THAT THE WCR NEEDED TO LIE IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT OSWALD WENT
TO IRVING ON THURSDAY...

That assertion simply was never made. DVP has simply BLATANTLY LIED about what I
said in order to argue against the strawman he made.


Tell us DVP, are you really so stupid that you thought I'd said that?

The answer, of course, is no... you simply made it up. You're lying in order to
make your argument.

And an argument based on a lie will always fall to the truth.


>> Oswald's LIES are the ones
>> Holmes should be focusing on


Strangely enough, when I point out an OBVIOUS lie on the part of the WCR and
Bugliosi, instead of defending it, DVP simply changes it to something else, and
moves on.

He's not addressed the fact that the WCR and Bugliosi *KNEW* that the evidence
showed a Thursday visit, and simply ignored that evidence in order to present
their theory.


>> -- because it is OSWALD'S LIES about the
>> "curtain rods" that he told to Buell Frazier than indicate Oswald was
>> wanting to hide something with respect to his visit to the Paine home
>> on 11/21/63.

Speculation, and not relevant to *THIS* topic...

>> And the cashier, Mrs. Tarrants, of the Atlantic & Pacific store in
>> Irving wasn't exactly sure of the date when Oswald went to that store
>> to cash his unemployment check. CE1165 has these words associated with
>> Mrs. Tarrant's recollections concerning the date the check was cashed:
>> "As best as she recalls" it was on Thursday night, October 31st when
>> Oswald came into the store to cash the check. It certainly could have
>> been the next evening, however--Fri., Nov. 1st.


Then perhaps it would have been the honest thing to do to POINT THIS OUT, and
make the argument.

Instead, both the WCR and Bugliosi simply lied... they KNEW that the evidence
showed a previous Thursday visit, and simply forgot to tell you.


>> And it was on April 13, 1964, when Mrs. Tarrants was asked to recall
>> the incident--more than five months after Oswald cashed the check. To
>> think that she would have been able to nail down the date with
>> absolute certainty seems to be asking a little much of the woman's
>> memory. And, AFAIK, in this instance there is no definitive way of
>> knowing the exact date the check was cashed.


Again, you're simply arguing the credibility of the evidence.

WHAT YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND
THE WCR AND BUGLIOSI SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.


>> Re: Oswald Going To Irving On Weekdays......
>>
>> I know there was one time when Lee Harvey Oswald went to Irving on a
>> Monday night, which was October 21st, the day after his daughter
>> Rachel was born.
>>
>> But as far as I know, and as far as the witness testimony indicates,
>> that trip to Irving on Monday, Oct. 21 was the only time LHO went to
>> Irving on a weekday other than his trip to get his rifle on Thursday,
>> November 21.


You're lying again. You've just ADMITTED that Mrs. Tarrants spoke of a Thursday
visit...

You're doing PRECISELY the same thing that the WCR and Bugliosi did - YOU'RE
LYING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.

The "witness testimony" *DOES* indicate a previous visit on a Thursday - and
you're now simply denying it.

YOU'RE LYING!!!


>> And Ruth Paine's WC testimony clearly indicates that Lee Oswald's trip
>> to the Paine home on Thursday, Nov. 21 was quite unusual (and for
>> multiple reasons, not just the day of the week). Let's look at what
>> Ruth had to say about that:
>>
>> Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st [of Nov. 1963]. Did anything
>> occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a
>> Thursday?
>>
>> Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he
>> was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
>>
>> Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
>>
>> Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come
>> without asking whether he could.
>>
>> Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form
>> without asking your permission to come?
>>
>> Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

This testimony does *NOT* show that Oswald had never come on a Thursday before,
only that he never came WITHOUT ADVANCE NOTICE.

So you're lying again... this testimony does *NOT* support what you're alleging.

The WCR and Bugliosi simply lied, and *YOU'RE* lying to support them.

The truth is that they should have noted that the evidence DOES show at least
one previous visit on a Thursday - so it was *NOT* the unusual pattern that they
tried to use to support their theory.

But they didn't do so...

They lied.

timstter

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 5:59:01 PM12/31/11
to
Benny, isn't there just ONE tiny problem with your absolutley
BRILLIANT conclusion that Oswald was cashing cheques in Irving on the
evening of Thursday, 31 October, 1963?

Friday, 1 November, 1963 was the FIRST TIME that FBI agent James P.
Hosty visited 2515 West 5th St in Irving, where Marina was staying
with Ruth Paine.

In her WC testimony, Marina advises that the day of the first FBI
Hosty visit, Oswald was DUE TO ARRIVE at 2515 West 5th St that
evening, sometime after 5.30pm (1 H 57).

OBVIOUSLY both the Warren Commission AND Bugliosi would be VERY AWARE
of when Hosty first visited the Irving house, given its overall
importance in the scheme of things.

Mrs Tarrants was simply mistaken. Oswald could NOT POSSIBLY have been
in Irving the evening of Thursday, 31 October, 1963.

Oswald even noted the date of the first visit, on the basis of what
Marina told him, in his notebook:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0044b.htm

You need to weigh ALL the evidence, Ben.

The WCR and Bugliosi obviously did that in this matter.

YOU simply rushed in and took the uncertain word of Mrs Tarrants as
gospel.

Even a modicum of research on your part should have indicated that she
was wrong.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Bill Clarke

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 7:43:32 PM12/31/11
to
In article <63ffbfd0-bc41-4396...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
>
>On Jan 1, 3:21=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> The following was taken from the Amazon forum:
>>
>> Okay Alan - I've asked to to name any evidence that you're willing to pub=
>licly
>> support and defend.
>>
>> You've claimed that "I've listed close to 40 separate pieces of evidence =
>taken
>> from Vincent Bugliosi's magnum opus Reclaiming History. All of them have =
>simple
>> non-conspiratorial explanations."
>>
>> So let's examine one, and see if that's really true or not:
>>
>> 1."Whenever Oswald had Wesley Frazier drive him out to visit his wife and
>> daughters at the Paine residence in Irving, he'd go on a Friday evening a=
>nd
>> return to Dallas on Monday morning. The assassination was on Friday, Nove=
>mber
>> 22, 1963. For the very first time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on =
>a
>> Thursday evening, November 21, obviously to pick up his Mannlicher-Carcan=
>o for
>> the following day." Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History
>>
>> And surely, Bugliosi was keeping in mind that the WCR made the claim: "On
>> Friday, November 1, Oswald did cash a Texas Unemployment Commission check=
> for
>> $33 at another supermarket in Irving..." (WCR 331)
>>
>> But the EVIDENCE suggests otherwise... the EVIDENCE that the WC used to m=
>ake the
>> above statement, and the EVIDENCE that Bugliosi must have relied on, is t=
>his:
>>
>> "Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October =
>31,
>> 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the a=
>bove
>> check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
>>
>> The WC clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irvi=
>ng was
>> not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick=
> up a
>> rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.
>>
>> So too did Bugliosi - he simply lied. He *KNEW* that there was evidence o=
>f
>> visits on other days of the week, and simply ignored them.
>>
>> You stated that you can give a credible and non-conspiratorial explanatio=
>n for
>> the evidence.
>>
>> So let's hear the credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for why bot=
>h the
>> WCR and Bugliosi simply LIED about the underlying evidence when they made=
> their
>> claim...
>>
>> But, of course, you'll run away again. There really *IS NO EXPLANATION" t=
>hat you
>> can give that is both credible, and non-conspiratorial for why they lied =
>about
>> the evidence.
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>Benny, isn't there just ONE tiny problem with your absolutley
>BRILLIANT conclusion that Oswald was cashing cheques in Irving on the
>evening of Thursday, 31 October, 1963?
>
>Friday, 1 November, 1963 was the FIRST TIME that FBI agent James P.
>Hosty visited 2515 West 5th St in Irving, where Marina was staying
>with Ruth Paine.
>
>In her WC testimony, Marina advises that the day of the first FBI
>Hosty visit, Oswald was DUE TO ARRIVE at 2515 West 5th St that
>evening, sometime after 5.30pm (1 H 57).
>
>OBVIOUSLY both the Warren Commission AND Bugliosi would be VERY AWARE
>of when Hosty first visited the Irving house, given its overall
>importance in the scheme of things.
>
>Mrs Tarrants was simply mistaken. Oswald could NOT POSSIBLY have been
>in Irving the evening of Thursday, 31 October, 1963.
>
>Oswald even noted the date of the first visit, on the basis of what
>Marina told him, in his notebook:
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_004=
>4b.htm
>
>You need to weigh ALL the evidence, Ben.
>
>The WCR and Bugliosi obviously did that in this matter.
>
>YOU simply rushed in and took the uncertain word of Mrs Tarrants as
>gospel.
>
>Even a modicum of research on your part should have indicated that she
>was wrong.
>
>Corrective Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Benny reminds me of a castrated dog at a screwing contest. He wants to but
can�t.
Bill Clarke

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 4:31:36 AM1/1/12
to

BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "[Ruth Paine's] testimony does *NOT* support what you're alleging." <<<

DVP SAID WITH A BIG SIGH:

Yes, it does support what I specifically said in my previous post.
Holmes has once again twisted things around.

Here's exactly what I said earlier:

"Ruth Paine's WC testimony clearly indicates that Lee Oswald's
trip to the Paine home on Thursday, Nov. 21 was quite unusual (and for
multiple reasons, not just the day of the week). Let's look at what
Ruth had to say about that..."

I then cited a portion of Paine's WC testimony, which is testimony
that positively does support what I said about it -- i.e., Paine's
testimony "clearly indicates that Lee Oswald's trip to the Paine home
on Thursday, Nov. 21 was quite unusual (and for multiple reasons, not
just the day of the week)."

I said nothing there about that section of Ruth's testimony proving
that LHO never went to Irving on a prior Thursday.

IOW, Ben is the liar here. Not DVP.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 10:36:11 AM1/1/12
to

THE KOOK NAMED BEN HOLMES LIED WHEN HE SAID THIS:

>>> "That is, of course, an outright lie on DVP's part. I NOWHERE STATED THAT THE WCR NEEDED TO LIE IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT OSWALD WENT TO IRVING ON THURSDAY..." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

And I never said you did say that.

Note the portion of my quote that Kook Holmes deliberately omitted ---
"to get his rifle".

And Holmes is definitely saying that the WC needed to "lie" in order
for Oswald to GET HIS RIFLE in Irving on a Thursday.

Here's Benji's exact quote in that regard:

"The WC clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday
visit to Irving was not unique - for their theory needed a unique
visit on a Thursday to pick up a rifle. They simply lied in order to
do so." -- B. Holmes

But Mr. Piecemeal Holmes apparently thought I wouldn't notice that he
left out the most important words in that quote that he says I lied
about -- "to get his rifle". And that IS the most crucial aspect to
Oswald's Thursday-night visit to Irving on Nov. 21, of course --
whether or not he went there to get his rifle.

And there is a lot of evidence that proves Oswald DID pick up his
rifle and take it to work with him on Nov. 22....such as Oswald's lies
about the curtain rods; the fact that both Frazier and Randle saw LHO
with a large package on 11/22; and the fact that LHO's rifle turned up
missing from its known storage location in Ruth Paine's garage on
11/22.

Ben, though, wants to argue that the above things have no bearing at
all on THIS particular subject of whether Oswald ever went to Irving
on previous Thursdays. But I say those things DO have a bearing on
what Holmes says are "lies" told by the WC and Vince Bugliosi. [See
footnote regarding Bugliosi below, proving that Vince certainly did
not ignore this issue at all in his 2007 book.]

Because Holmes wants to believe that the WC needed to lie about the
"Thursday" thing. But I say that such a notion is crazy -- and that's
because there was NO NEED TO LIE about any "Thursday" pattern when it
comes to the most important question the WC needed to answer in a
satisfactory way -- Did Lee Oswald go to Irving on Thursday, 11/21 to
get his rifle?

And that question can easily be answered "Yes", and without ever
needing to "lie" about a damn thing.

The WC obviously arrived at the conclusion that Oswald was not in
Irving on Thursday, Oct. 31, and they said so in the WCR. They felt
that Mrs. Tarrants at the grocery store was incorrect (and by only a
single day) when she said LHO cashed his check on a Thursday. But the
more reliable evidence (in this instance the testimony of Marina
Oswald and Ruth Paine) indicates that Tarrants was very likely
mistaken as to the exact date.

---------

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "After Rachel was born and after Lee had been there
on Monday [10/21/63] to see you, did he come back to Irving at any
time during the week except the night before the assassination?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "No. He came to Irving only the weekends--only on
weekends."

---------

Here's another interesting piece of testimony that comes from the lips
of Marina Oswald (taken from Marina's testimony at the 1969 Clay Shaw
trial): *

QUESTION -- "Did you see Lee at any time the night of the 21st [of
November 1963] go into the Paine garage?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes, he went a few times."

QUESTION -- "You saw him actually go into the garage?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes."

---------

Footnote:

In his book "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi doesn't
"ignore" the possibility of Lee Oswald going to Irving on a Thursday
prior to 11/21/63. In fact, Vince deals with the "Tarrants" matter in
a decent-sized endnote in his book. So, once again, Ben Holmes is dead
wrong when he said this:

"Bugliosi...simply lied. He *KNEW* that there was evidence of
visits on other days of the week, and simply ignored them." -- B.
Holmes

Below is the text from Bugliosi's endnote that deals with this
"Thursday night" topic. I guess this constitutes "ignoring" the issue
completely, per a kook named Holmes. And, btw, I found this relevant
passage in Bugliosi's book only AFTER I had written my initial post in
this thread, which is a post that includes these remarks (which
directly mirror some of Mr. Bugliosi's comments on the matter):

"It was on April 13, 1964, when Mrs. Tarrants was asked to
recall the incident--more than five months after Oswald cashed the
check. To think that she would have been able to nail down the date
with absolute certainty seems to be asking a little much of the
woman's memory. And, AFAIK, in this instance there is no definitive
way of knowing the exact date the check was cashed." -- DVP;
12/31/2011

[BUGLIOSI QUOTE ON:]

"Warren Commission critic Sylvia Meagher says, “Oswald’s visit
to Irving on Thursday night, November 21, may not have been
unprecedented” (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.37), but there
is no credible evidence to support this.

"Troy Erwin, the manager of the Atlantic & Pacific supermarket
in Irving, told the FBI that check G493187, a Texas Unemployment
Commission check for $33.00 payable to Lee Harvey Oswald, was cashed
at his store on either Thursday, October 31, 1963, or Friday, November
1, 1963.

"On April 13, 1964, the cashier at the store, Mrs. Georgia
Tarrants, told the FBI that as best she recalls, Oswald cashed the
check on Thursday night (CE 1165, 22 H 224–225). But it seems
inconceivable that Mrs. Tarrants, almost five months after the
assassination, would be able to look back and recall whether Oswald
cashed the check on Thursday as opposed to Friday night, especially
since at that time she would have no reason to make note of what night
Oswald was at the store.

"But Marina Oswald, Ruth Paine, and Wesley Frazier would have
every reason to remember that Oswald had never, before November 21,
come to Irving on a Thursday night. Moreover, Oswald had been
instructed NOT to come on any Thursday night, and Friday night made
more sense since he could stay for the weekend." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
Page 529 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

[BUGLIOSI QUOTE OFF.]

Regarding this quote of Mr. Bugliosi's --- "Oswald had been instructed
NOT to come on any Thursday night" ....

I have no idea what the source is for the above conclusion reached by
Bugliosi. It's not sourced in the endnote on Page 529 of Vincent's
book, and I have looked through the complete testimony of Ruth Paine,
Michael Paine, and Marina Oswald, and I found nothing that would
indicate that any of those people had told Lee Oswald never to come to
the Paine home on a Thursday. So I haven't the foggiest notion from
whom Vince got that idea. But I also have little doubt that Vince DID
get that idea from somebody. I just don't know the source. But I
certainly don't think Mr. Bugliosi just made it up out of thin air.

In any event, as can be seen in the above-quoted section of
"Reclaiming History", Vincent Bugliosi did not "ignore" the
possibility of Lee Oswald taking a trip to Irving on Thursday, October
31, 1963.

Additional Footnote For Ben Holmes:

Please go back to ignoring me, retard. I like it much better that way.
Then I won't need to straighten out your lies and misrepresentations
when it comes to examining the TOTALITY of the evidence in the JFK
case.

Because, as we all know, when it comes to logically and reasonably
evaluating and assessing the TOTALITY or SUM TOTAL of the evidence in
the JFK assassination, conspiracy mongers like Benjamin Holmes always
end up looking like the desperate chaff-loving clowns they are. And
this "Thursday night" thread is no exception. It's nothing but another
one of the hundreds of examples of how a conspiracy kook will slice
off a piece of totally unimportant chaff connected with the Kennedy
assassination and blow it up out of all reasonable proportion.

Because even if Oswald had gone to Irving on Thursday, Oct. 31, that
fact would not eliminate the other evidence (and LHO's own lies) that
tells all reasonable people that Oswald did, in fact, pick up his
rifle on Thursday, Nov. 21st. And the Warren Commission knew that,
too. Therefore, as mentioned previously, there would have been
absolutely no logical reason for the Commission to want to
deliberately lie about any possible Oswald visits to Irving on
previous occasions.

------------

* = Addendum About Marina Oswald Saying That LHO Was In The Paine
Garage On 11/21/63:

Before the CTers jump on my case for not calling attention to Marina
Oswald's inconsistent testimony re Lee being in the garage, let me
quote from Marina's Warren Commission testimony, where she totally
contradicts her later 1969 Shaw Trial testimony:

MARINA OSWALD (1964) -- "Ruth [Paine] told me that in the evening she
had worked in the garage and she knows that she had put out the light
but that the light was on later--that the light was on in the morning.
And she guessed that Lee was in the garage. But I didn't see it."

------------------

And there's also this HSCA testimony from Marina in 1978, which
totally conflicts with her earlier 1969 remarks:

QUESTION -- "On the night of the 21st, did you see Lee go into the
garage?"

MARINA OSWALD-PORTER -- "No."

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 2:38:26 PM1/1/12
to
In article <jdoa7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Quite the coward, eh Bill?

aeffects

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 4:32:24 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 31 2011, 4:43 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <63ffbfd0-bc41-4396-923d-8eaec7714...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
> >4b.htm
>
> >You need to weigh ALL the evidence, Ben.
>
> >The WCR and Bugliosi obviously did that in this matter.
>
> >YOU simply rushed in and took the uncertain word of Mrs Tarrants as
> >gospel.
>
> >Even a modicum of research on your part should have indicated that she
> >was wrong.
>
> >Corrective Regards,
>
> >Tim Brennan
> >Sydney, Australia
> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> Benny reminds me of a castrated dog at a screwing contest.  He wants to but
> can�t.

ah so THIS is the best you can do? Best get a few books, get educated
concerning this case and stop making a damn fool out of yourself...
GAWD almighty Bill, this has to be embarrassing for lone trolls
everywhere...

> Bill Clarke

Bud

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 4:44:17 PM1/1/12
to
Don`t speak for lone nutters retard, we liked the analogy fine.

As long as retards like you, Ben, Walt, Gil Jesus, ect are on the
other side of these issues how can their be any doubt which side is
correct?


> > Bill Clarke

aeffects

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 4:54:36 PM1/1/12
to
your problem dudster is you ASSUME .... a problem nutters ALL seem to
share.... plus an insatiable need to be spoon fed *PAP,* even at your
late age, still a sucker for all things official out of Washington...
so carry on hon, we look forward to another year of your babbling....

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Bill Clarke

Bud

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 4:45:34 PM1/1/12
to
On Jan 1, 2:38 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jdoa7k01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <63ffbfd0-bc41-4396-923d-8eaec7714...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
> >>4b.htm
>
> >>You need to weigh ALL the evidence, Ben.
>
> >>The WCR and Bugliosi obviously did that in this matter.
>
> >>YOU simply rushed in and took the uncertain word of Mrs Tarrants as
> >>gospel.
>
> >>Even a modicum of research on your part should have indicated that she
> >>was wrong.
>
> >>Corrective Regards,
>
> >>Tim Brennan
> >>Sydney, Australia
> >>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >Benny reminds me of a castrated dog at a screwing contest.  He wants to but
> >can’t.
> >Bill Clarke
>
> Quite the coward, eh Bill?

Ben broke his New Years resolution not to be retarded on the first
day.

timstter

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 6:12:33 PM1/1/12
to
On Jan 1, 11:43 am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <63ffbfd0-bc41-4396-923d-8eaec7714...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
> >4b.htm
>
> >You need to weigh ALL the evidence, Ben.
>
> >The WCR and Bugliosi obviously did that in this matter.
>
> >YOU simply rushed in and took the uncertain word of Mrs Tarrants as
> >gospel.
>
> >Even a modicum of research on your part should have indicated that she
> >was wrong.
>
> >Corrective Regards,
>
> >Tim Brennan
> >Sydney, Australia
> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> Benny reminds me of a castrated dog at a screwing contest.  He wants to but
> can�t.
> Bill Clarke

Hi Bill,

Benny has been making quite the REMF fool of himself over at the
Amazon thread.

Every BLATANT lie by Mark Lane is accounted for in weasel word fashion
and then Benny goes after Lane's # 1 nemesis, Bugliosi, trying to come
up with something, ANYTHING, to pin on him. Resulting in nonsense like
the above.

BTW, Lane's latest book was at about the 10,000 rank in Amazon
bestsellers the other day. NO ONE will be indicting the CIA on that
pathetic showing, LOL!

Seasonal Regards,

Bud

unread,
Jan 1, 2012, 5:44:52 PM1/1/12
to
Yah, I assume all CTers are retarded and all LNers are reasonable
and level-headed. It has worked well so far.

> a problem nutters ALL seem to
> share.... plus an insatiable need to be spoon fed *PAP,* even at your
> late age,

My age isn`t late, it`s right on time.

> still a sucker for all things official out of Washington...

I didn`t need Washington to tell me what happened, it`s simplest
crime ever committed. I`m certainly not going to be swayed by retards
with nothing to offer.

> so carry on hon, we look forward to another year of your babbling....

Pay attention this time and try to learn something this year, I`d
hate to think my efforts were for naught.

>
>
> > > > Bill Clarke

timstter

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 7:25:31 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 2, 6:38 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jdoa7k01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <63ffbfd0-bc41-4396-923d-8eaec7714...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
> >>4b.htm
>
> >>You need to weigh ALL the evidence, Ben.
>
> >>The WCR and Bugliosi obviously did that in this matter.
>
> >>YOU simply rushed in and took the uncertain word of Mrs Tarrants as
> >>gospel.
>
> >>Even a modicum of research on your part should have indicated that she
> >>was wrong.
>
> >>Corrective Regards,
>
> >>Tim Brennan
> >>Sydney, Australia
> >>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >Benny reminds me of a castrated dog at a screwing contest.  He wants to but
> >can’t.
> >Bill Clarke
>
> Quite the coward, eh Bill?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com

Hey Benny,

Thanks for PROVING that Oswald must have been in Irving, cashing a
check, the night of Friday, 1 November, 1963.

Even Priscilla Johnson McMillan wasn't CERTAIN he was in town.

You've filled a gap in JFK assassination research!

timstter

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 9:24:53 PM1/6/12
to
It's amazing what a FOOL Holmes is!

The VERY document he cites the WC using details the woman's supervisor
stating that Oswald could have cashed the check on Thursday night OR
Friday night.

Given all the OTHER evidence that the visit was on Friday, 1 November,
1963, all Benny has managed with his idiocy is to CONFIRM that, in
fact,that WAS the date, LOL!

Ol' Benny Holmes; a million laffs, a million laffs...

LMFAO Regards,

timstter

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 3:59:39 PM1/7/12
to
Bud, the lady's supervisor, in the SAME document, advises the check
was cashed sometime between Thursday afternoon and COB on Friday. In
other words it's simply MORE proof that Oswald arrived in Irving on
Friday night.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 6:34:06 PM1/7/12
to


>>> "The lady's supervisor, in the SAME document, advises the check was cashed sometime between Thursday afternoon and COB on Friday." <<<

Indeed. You are correct.

The "Friday, November 1" reference is on page 5 of CE1165, here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0127b.htm

The person who said that Oswald's unemployment check could have been
cashed on Friday, November 1st was Troy Erwin, the manager of the
Atlantic & Pacific store in Irving where Oswald definitely did cash
the check. And Erwin said the check positively had to have been cashed
on one of those two dates (Oct. 31 or Nov. 1), which is perfectly
consistent with Oswald having gone to Irving after work on Fri., Nov.
1 (with Buell Frazier), and then very likely he cashed the check at
the grocery store before it closed on Friday night.

Of course, Erwin wasn't the person who actually cashed the check, and
he wasn't the person who saw LHO in the store. But Erwin's interview
with the FBI on 4/13/64 does confirm, beyond all doubt, that the check
COULD have been cashed at his store on Friday, November 1st.

And given Oswald's general habit of going to Irving on Fridays with
Buell Wesley Frazier, coupled with Troy Erwin's confirmation that the
check definitely could have been cashed on Friday, Nov. 1st, the
Warren Commission concluded the same thing that almost any reasonable
person would conclude -- and that is: the cashier, Mrs. Tarrants, was
simply mistaken when she said Oswald probably cashed the check on
Thursday. And she was only mistaken by a mere 24 hours. And she was
attempting, more than five months later, to recall something very
innocuous and ordinary (the cashing of one particular check).

But this is just the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel nonsense that
conspiracists like Ben Holmes love to prop up as meaningful and
conclusive "evidence" in their efforts to try and prove that the
Warren Commission lied about something.

But when we look deeper into the record (as Tim Brennan did regarding
this check-cashing topic), we can easily see that there is always--
invariably--a reasonable, non-sinister, and non-conspiratorial
explanation to virtually every barrel-scraping effort made by the
conspiracy theorists when it comes to the JFK assassination.

Thanks, Tim, for pointing out the "November 1" portion of CE1165.

aeffects

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 7:21:23 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 3:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
...
> But when we look deeper into the record (as Tim Brennan did regarding
> this check-cashing topic), we can easily see that there is always--
> invariably--a reasonable, non-sinister, and non-conspiratorial
> explanation to virtually every barrel-scraping effort made by the
> conspiracy theorists when it comes to the JFK assassination.

then why do you have such a difficult time with the non-conspiratorial
*45 questions*? In fact, all you nutters have a horrible time with
those pesky 45 questions...

> Thanks, Tim, for pointing out the "November 1" portion of CE1165.

yeah, thank Tim for showing how cowardly this latest grouping of lone
nut nit-wits really are... glad you got that pout of the way--we CT's
are forever grateful--carry on Fats!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 11:34:03 PM1/7/12
to
In article <aa5f047a-2d59-45f1...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jan 7, 3:34=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>...
>> But when we look deeper into the record (as Tim Brennan did regarding
>> this check-cashing topic), we can easily see that there is always--
>> invariably--a reasonable, non-sinister, and non-conspiratorial
>> explanation


Then why hasn't anyone provided it?

It's STILL a fact that the WCR made assertions that are contrary to it's own
evidence.

That hasn't changed... and Tim, or any other kook, *STILL* hasn't given a
credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this fact.

But what DVP does is quite common among the kooks - to merely *assert* that it's
been done... without ever actually doing it.


>> to virtually every barrel-scraping effort made by the
>> conspiracy theorists when it comes to the JFK assassination.
>
>then why do you have such a difficult time with the non-conspiratorial
>*45 questions*? In fact, all you nutters have a horrible time with
>those pesky 45 questions...

One of my newer questions is to ask the kooks if they believe that the WCR was
telling the truth when they asserted that: "According to the testimony of
Frazier, Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine, it appears that Oswald never returned to
Irving in midweek prior to November 21, 1963, except on Monday, October 21, when
he visited his wife in the hospital after the birth of their second child."
Everyone can find this lie of the WCR's on page 129.


>> Thanks, Tim, for pointing out the "November 1" portion of CE1165.
>
> yeah, thank Tim for showing how cowardly this latest grouping of lone
>nut nit-wits really are... glad you got that pout of the way--we CT's
>are forever grateful--carry on Fats!

It'll be fun to watch Tim run from this latest... I'm waiting for one of the
other kooks to verify that he believes the WCR on this lie before demolishing
it. But Tim will be in for another rude shock when he finds out how blatantly
the WCR lied.

Jason Burke

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 2:18:28 AM1/8/12
to
On 1/7/2012 4:21 PM, aeffects wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:34 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...
>> But when we look deeper into the record (as Tim Brennan did regarding
>> this check-cashing topic), we can easily see that there is always--
>> invariably--a reasonable, non-sinister, and non-conspiratorial
>> explanation to virtually every barrel-scraping effort made by the
>> conspiracy theorists when it comes to the JFK assassination.
>
> then why do you have such a difficult time with the non-conspiratorial
> *45 questions*? In fact, all you nutters have a horrible time with
> those pesky 45 questions...
>

1) Those "questions" are all BS - and you know it. None of them does
ANYTHING to show conspiracy.
2) All 45 were blown out of the water a few years ago. Forget that, Zippy?

Now go back to mommy's basement again. She'll call you for supper.

Bud

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 5:05:23 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 7, 11:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <aa5f047a-2d59-45f1-b959-0eb66c4d5...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Jan 7, 3:34=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> But when we look deeper into the record (as Tim Brennan did regarding
> >> this check-cashing topic), we can easily see that there is always--
> >> invariably--a reasonable, non-sinister, and non-conspiratorial
> >> explanation
>
> Then why hasn't anyone provided it?

Tim did, retard. The kooks are always saying "the evidence, the
evidence", but when the evidence goes against their ideas it just
doesn`t show on their radars.

> It's STILL a fact that the WCR made assertions that are contrary to it's own
> evidence.

This is why retards should not be looking into this case at all.
Much of the evidence is contrary, you can`t treat all the evidence as
fact. You`d end up where the conspiracy retards are, nowhere.

> That hasn't changed... and Tim, or any other kook, *STILL* hasn't given a
> credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this fact.

You still can`t tell the difference between your retarded opinions
and fact. Stay hiding Ben, you haven`t a chance in an exchange of
ideas.

> But what DVP does is quite common among the kooks - to merely *assert* that it's
> been done... without ever actually doing it.

Both DVP and Tim cited evidence, retard. I don`t see you addressing
it at all, coward.

> >> to virtually every barrel-scraping effort made by the
> >> conspiracy theorists when it comes to the JFK assassination.
>
> >then why do you have such a difficult time with the non-conspiratorial
> >*45 questions*? In fact, all you nutters have a horrible time with
> >those pesky 45 questions...
>
> One of my newer questions is to ask the kooks if they believe that the WCR was
> telling the truth when they asserted that: "According to the testimony of
> Frazier, Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine, it appears that Oswald never returned to
> Irving in midweek prior to November 21, 1963, except on Monday, October 21, when
> he visited his wife in the hospital after the birth of their second child."
> Everyone can find this lie of the WCR's on page 129.

That looks good to me. I think all 3 indicated a Thursday trip was
unique.

> >> Thanks, Tim, for pointing out the "November 1" portion of CE1165.
>
> > yeah, thank Tim for showing how cowardly this latest grouping of lone
> >nut nit-wits really are... glad you got that pout of the way--we CT's
> >are forever grateful--carry on Fats!
>
> It'll be fun to watch Tim run from this latest...

Blah, blah, blah. Nothing but empty claims and ad hominem.

> I'm waiting for one of the
> other kooks to verify that he believes the WCR on this lie before demolishing
> it. But Tim will be in for another rude shock when he finds out how blatantly
> the WCR lied.

It would be shocking if you ever supported your claims.

timstter

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 9:20:48 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 8, 7:34 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The lady's supervisor, in the SAME document, advises the check was cashed sometime between Thursday afternoon and COB on Friday." <<<
>
> Indeed. You are correct.
>
> The "Friday, November 1" reference is on page 5 of CE1165, here:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
Hi DVP,

Thanks. It's AMAZING, given all the OTHER contrary evidence (like
Hosty's visit) that Ben would have been STUPID enough to propose a
Thursday, 31 October visit by Oswald to Irving.

But NOTHING would surprise about the antics of the mendacious Holmes,
I guess.
0 new messages