Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #15-2
64 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 17, 2018, 2:19:53 PM4/17/18
to
As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
series of David's false claim.
> 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*, David has announced that Oswald shot
Tippit, then whines that he wouldn't have done this if he hadn't shot
JFK earlier.
Nor, if I presume for the sake of argument that Oswald shot Tippit,
would it even make *sense*... Tippit had *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* in
common with JFK.
Was Oswald on a rampage against "white guys?"
"White guys with power?"
And this hardly bears repeating, but this item fails to show that
Oswald shot JFK, and CERTAINLY fails to support the "sole guilt" of
Oswald, let alone anyone else.
David makes a claim, then TWENTY TIMES fails to support it. Then,
coward that he is, he refuses to defend his claims against reasonable
and credible refutation.
And leaves nothing but a troll to defend him.
> Answer: He would have no such reason to do so.
And if he *had* shot JFK, he *STILL* would have had no reason to shoot
Tippit.
But you've simply presumed one murder, then presumed two other
shootings in order to support the Presidential one.
Speculation isn't evidence.
But let's carry this further... since we know beyond all doubt that
Jack Ruby shot Oswald - WHO ELSE DID RUBY KILL THAT DAY?
The "logic" is yours... Ruby must have shot someone else. Who was it?
> If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest reasons to shout from
> the rooftops "Oswald Shot JFK!", then I don't know what would be.
Evidence.
item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
series of David's false claim.
> 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*, David has announced that Oswald shot
Tippit, then whines that he wouldn't have done this if he hadn't shot
JFK earlier.
Nor, if I presume for the sake of argument that Oswald shot Tippit,
would it even make *sense*... Tippit had *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* in
common with JFK.
Was Oswald on a rampage against "white guys?"
"White guys with power?"
And this hardly bears repeating, but this item fails to show that
Oswald shot JFK, and CERTAINLY fails to support the "sole guilt" of
Oswald, let alone anyone else.
David makes a claim, then TWENTY TIMES fails to support it. Then,
coward that he is, he refuses to defend his claims against reasonable
and credible refutation.
And leaves nothing but a troll to defend him.
> Answer: He would have no such reason to do so.
And if he *had* shot JFK, he *STILL* would have had no reason to shoot
Tippit.
But you've simply presumed one murder, then presumed two other
shootings in order to support the Presidential one.
Speculation isn't evidence.
But let's carry this further... since we know beyond all doubt that
Jack Ruby shot Oswald - WHO ELSE DID RUBY KILL THAT DAY?
The "logic" is yours... Ruby must have shot someone else. Who was it?
> If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest reasons to shout from
> the rooftops "Oswald Shot JFK!", then I don't know what would be.
Evidence.
David Von Pein
Apr 17, 2018, 10:11:21 PM4/17/18
to
On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
> series of David's false claim.
>
> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
>
> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
>
> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How could he *not* know?)....
> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
> series of David's false claim.
>
> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
>
> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
>
> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit
Ben Holmes
Apr 18, 2018, 11:05:12 AM4/18/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:11:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
>> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
>> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
>> series of David's false claim.
>>
>> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
>> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
>>
>> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
>> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
>> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
>>
>> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
>
> Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed
> Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How
> could he *not* know?)....
I've already pointed out that you're too busy molesting the
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
>> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
>> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
>> series of David's false claim.
>>
>> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
>> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
>>
>> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
>> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
>> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
>>
>> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
>
> Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed
> Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How
> could he *not* know?)....
neighborhood children to engage in debate. If you're too gutless to
ACCURATELY quote me, then by all means, let the world know that you're
a child molester.
What you REFUSE to do is post that evidence *HERE*... because you know
it would be refuted easily.
Bud
Apr 18, 2018, 3:46:31 PM4/18/18
to
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:11:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
> >> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
> >> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
> >> series of David's false claim.
> >>
> >> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> >> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
> >>
> >> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
> >> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
> >> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
> >>
> >> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
> >
> > Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed
> > Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How
> > could he *not* know?)....
>
>
> I've already pointed out that you're too busy molesting the
> neighborhood children to engage in debate. If you're too gutless to
> ACCURATELY quote me, then by all means, let the world know that you're
> a child molester.
>
> What you REFUSE to do is post that evidence *HERE*... because you know
> it would be refuted easily.
Lurkers, Ben is so eager to play the usual childish retard game where an LNer mentions evidence and the tard gives some lame excuse they`ve contrived to ignore that evidence.
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:11:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
> >> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
> >> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
> >> series of David's false claim.
> >>
> >> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> >> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
> >>
> >> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
> >> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
> >> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
> >>
> >> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
> >
> > Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed
> > Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How
> > could he *not* know?)....
>
>
> I've already pointed out that you're too busy molesting the
> neighborhood children to engage in debate. If you're too gutless to
> ACCURATELY quote me, then by all means, let the world know that you're
> a child molester.
>
> What you REFUSE to do is post that evidence *HERE*... because you know
> it would be refuted easily.
David Von Pein
Apr 18, 2018, 4:39:39 PM4/18/18
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 18, 2018, 5:38:18 PM4/18/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
Provide the evidence for your claims RIGHT HERE - where everyone can
examine it and judge it.
Or continue to be the coward you clearly are...
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
Provide the evidence for your claims RIGHT HERE - where everyone can
examine it and judge it.
Or continue to be the coward you clearly are...
Ben Holmes
Apr 18, 2018, 5:42:27 PM4/18/18
to
Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
That's a fact.
One that you're too dishonest to publicly acknowledge.
And *THAT* fact tells the tale.
he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
That's a fact.
One that you're too dishonest to publicly acknowledge.
And *THAT* fact tells the tale.
David Von Pein
Apr 18, 2018, 6:34:44 PM4/18/18
to
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
> refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
>
It's never stupid to link to common sense and the actual evidence.
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
> refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
>
Four more....
http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
http://Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com
Ben Holmes
Apr 18, 2018, 6:39:59 PM4/18/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:34:43 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
criticized in order to defend your lies.
It's meaningless to critically review your other web pages that you
cite, you've already been proven a liar.
You refuse to correct your site and remove lies.
>Four more....
Why the cowardice, David?
Why are you continuing to leave PROVABLE lies on your website?
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
>> refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
>
>It's never stupid to link to common sense and the actual evidence.
It's ALWAYS stupid to link to the very website that is being
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
>> refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
>
>It's never stupid to link to common sense and the actual evidence.
criticized in order to defend your lies.
It's meaningless to critically review your other web pages that you
cite, you've already been proven a liar.
You refuse to correct your site and remove lies.
>Four more....
Why the cowardice, David?
Why are you continuing to leave PROVABLE lies on your website?
Jason Burke
Apr 18, 2018, 6:44:02 PM4/18/18
to
On 4/18/2018 2:38 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
> refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
>
> Provide the evidence for your claims RIGHT HERE - where everyone
Got a mouse in your pocket there, Holmie-Boy?
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> No David, simply citing your website when you've ALREADY repeatedly
> refused to defend your website is rather stupid, don't you think?
>
> Provide the evidence for your claims RIGHT HERE - where everyone
borisba...@gmail.com
Apr 18, 2018, 6:45:21 PM4/18/18
to
> It's never stupid to link to common sense and the actual evidence.
>
> Four more....
>
> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com
>
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
> http://Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com
Citing Bugliosi insulting people is not "common sense."
If Bugliosi's claims can be easily refuted, it STOPS becoming common sense and starts to become a logical, statistical problem that needs serious analysis.
Oh and look, Doofus Von Pein calls Bud an "astute internet newsgroup participant." Are you on fucking drugs, Von Pissant? Jesus Christ!
borisba...@gmail.com
Apr 18, 2018, 6:52:00 PM4/18/18
to
"The [Sixth Floor] Museum has NO position, just history. .... Oswald ordered a Carcano, got one, let others see it, had himself photographed with it, used it to try to kill someone but failed, then used it again to kill and injure. That’s what history says and no amount of whining and question asking [by conspiracy theorists] changes any aspect of that. There is simply no significant evidence that has changed that history, at least so far."
-- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012
Amazing how Gary Mack contradicts himself inside THE SAME SENTENCE. Of course, anyone with *common sense* can see where in that first sentence Gary Mack displays this logical problem.
Which is why David Von Pein, who lacks ALL common sense, posts such a stupid remark on his website.
-- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012
Amazing how Gary Mack contradicts himself inside THE SAME SENTENCE. Of course, anyone with *common sense* can see where in that first sentence Gary Mack displays this logical problem.
Which is why David Von Pein, who lacks ALL common sense, posts such a stupid remark on his website.
David Von Pein
Apr 18, 2018, 6:53:57 PM4/18/18
to
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
> he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
>
> Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
>
> That's a fact.
Ben's lying (again). For some idiotic reason all his own, he seems to have gotten into his head that I have claimed that Lt. Day took a picture of the LHO palmprint while the print was still on the rifle. And Ben also seems to be confusing me with Bud in some manner when discussing this "palmprint" subject in this thread and in one other recent acj thread too.
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
> he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
>
> Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
>
> That's a fact.
But just "for the record"....
Neither myself nor Bud has ever said that Lt. Day *photographed* the palmprint. In an acj post from several months ago, Bud said that he had "seen the photo" of the palmprint. But what Bud obviously meant in that post (which can be retrieved here at the acj Asylum if anyone cares to see it again) is that he (Bud) had seen the picture of *CE637*, which is a photograph of the LIFT of the LHO palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day had taken off of Rifle C2766 on 11/22/63.
Bud was *not* suggesting in that prior post that he had actually seen a photo of the palmprint TAKEN BY LT. DAY HIMSELF. I knew what Bud meant immediately upon reading that post of his. Ben The Stump, however, needs to be talked through the most elementary of things.
Now, I want Ben to link to the page on my site that he's referring to here....
"Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists." -- B. Holmes
Please cite the exact "claim" you're talking about, Ben.
Ben Holmes
Apr 18, 2018, 7:53:13 PM4/18/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:53:56 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
All you have to do is CITE the photograph of the rifle that Lt. Day
made showing the palmprint.
But *YOU* know, and stump knows, that no such thing exists. Exactly as
I stated.
So clearly, it's stump that's lying, and IT'S YOU THAT'S LYING.
I expect it of stump, but in the past, you've at least *tried* for
some honesty... you're clearly slipping solidly into the blatantly
dishonest...
> For some idiotic reason all his own, he seems to have gotten into
> his head that I have claimed that Lt. Day took a picture of the LHO
> palmprint while the print was still on the rifle.
Yes moron, you did. You did it as a "quote" from dufus... but it's
*YOUR* website, and you posted what YOU KNOW TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
That makes it yours.
> And Ben also seems to be confusing me with Bud in some manner when
> discussing this "palmprint" subject in this thread and in one other
> recent acj thread too.
Didn't get confused at all.
*YOU* posted what you *KNEW* to be a lie... it becomes *YOUR* lie
because *YOU* are promulgating it without any notice to readers that
it's not true.
Doesn't matter that you're "quoting" someone - you're doing it without
any notice to anyone that it's a lie.
That makes it *YOUR* lie.
> But just "for the record"....
>
> Neither myself nor Bud has ever said that Lt. Day *photographed* the
> palmprint.
You're lying again, David.
> In an acj post from several months ago, Bud said that he had "seen
> the photo" of the palmprint. But what Bud obviously meant in that post
Unlike you, I'm perfectly willing to let everyone see what dufus
"meant," I've quoted the actual topic just below...
> (which can be retrieved here at the acj Asylum if anyone cares to see
> it again) is that he (Bud) had seen the picture of *CE637*, which is a
> photograph of the LIFT of the LHO palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day
> had taken off of Rifle C2766 on 11/22/63.
You can claim anything you want.
But dufus was responding to *MY* statement, and *I"M CLEARLY SPEAKING
OF LT. DAY'S REFUSAL TO PHOTOGRAPH THE RIFLE WITH A PALMPRINT*
*THAT* was the topic.
No-one has claimed that there's no photograph of the palmprint, AND
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANY SUCH CLAIM.
You don't want anyone to see the actual topic, and refuse to quote or
cite it, so I'm happy to do so:
*****************************************************
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.
*****************************************************
dufus lies when pretending that the topic isn't the photograph of the
palmprint on the rifle, JUST AS YOU DO!
You've left an *OUTRIGHT LIE* on your website, with no notice to
anyone that it's not true.
So tell us David, why are you so dishonest that you leave a PROVABLE
LIE posted on your webpage?
> Bud was *not* suggesting in that prior post that he had actually
> seen a photo of the palmprint TAKEN BY LT. DAY HIMSELF.
You're lying, David.
*NO-ONE* ever suggested that there wasn't a photo of the palmprint.
AND YOU **KNOW** THAT. (Amusingly, you'll neither quote any such claim
by a critic, nor will you be honest enough to admit that stump lied in
his response)
stump responded to my statement, quoted above, that was speaking of
the issue of photography of the RIFLE.
You know that.
You're a despicable liar.
> I knew what Bud meant immediately upon reading that post of his.
> Ben The Stump, however, needs to be talked through the most elementary
> of things.
You mean you knew how dufus could be "defended."
But he can't. He literally changed the topic to something else,
responded to *that*, and pretended it was an answer to my statement.
You're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You'll *NEVER* quote or cite any
critic, let alone me, arguing that there's no photograph of the
palmprint itself... and *that* fact proves that you're lying.
You're a liar.
> Now, I want Ben to link to the page on my site that he's referring
> to here....
Nope. *YOU* know precisely where you posted that lie. And despite
being told of it repeatedly, you've *STILL* not removed it.
Indeed, now you're trying to defend it.
But you *KNOW* that no-one was speaking of the photo of the
*palmprint* itself.
Not even stump is that stupid.
> "Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor
> will he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists." -- B. Holmes
>
>Please cite the exact "claim" you're talking about, Ben.
Don't need to, you've cited it several times in the last few days.
I have *NO INTENTION* of linking to a lie.
You've proven in this post that you know PRECISELY what lie you
posted.
Here's the precise QUOTE, however:
*******************************************************
BEN HOLMES SAID:
The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed...
BUD SAID:
It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle.
Ben lies, lurkers, I've seen photographs of it.
*******************************************************
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
>> he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
>>
>> Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
>>
>> That's a fact.
>
>Ben's lying (again).
Then why can't you cite the evidence that contradicts my statement???
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
>> he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
>>
>> Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
>>
>> That's a fact.
>
>Ben's lying (again).
All you have to do is CITE the photograph of the rifle that Lt. Day
made showing the palmprint.
But *YOU* know, and stump knows, that no such thing exists. Exactly as
I stated.
So clearly, it's stump that's lying, and IT'S YOU THAT'S LYING.
I expect it of stump, but in the past, you've at least *tried* for
some honesty... you're clearly slipping solidly into the blatantly
dishonest...
> For some idiotic reason all his own, he seems to have gotten into
> his head that I have claimed that Lt. Day took a picture of the LHO
> palmprint while the print was still on the rifle.
*YOUR* website, and you posted what YOU KNOW TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
That makes it yours.
> And Ben also seems to be confusing me with Bud in some manner when
> discussing this "palmprint" subject in this thread and in one other
> recent acj thread too.
*YOU* posted what you *KNEW* to be a lie... it becomes *YOUR* lie
because *YOU* are promulgating it without any notice to readers that
it's not true.
Doesn't matter that you're "quoting" someone - you're doing it without
any notice to anyone that it's a lie.
That makes it *YOUR* lie.
> But just "for the record"....
>
> Neither myself nor Bud has ever said that Lt. Day *photographed* the
> palmprint.
> In an acj post from several months ago, Bud said that he had "seen
> the photo" of the palmprint. But what Bud obviously meant in that post
"meant," I've quoted the actual topic just below...
> (which can be retrieved here at the acj Asylum if anyone cares to see
> it again) is that he (Bud) had seen the picture of *CE637*, which is a
> photograph of the LIFT of the LHO palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day
> had taken off of Rifle C2766 on 11/22/63.
But dufus was responding to *MY* statement, and *I"M CLEARLY SPEAKING
OF LT. DAY'S REFUSAL TO PHOTOGRAPH THE RIFLE WITH A PALMPRINT*
*THAT* was the topic.
No-one has claimed that there's no photograph of the palmprint, AND
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE ANY SUCH CLAIM.
You don't want anyone to see the actual topic, and refuse to quote or
cite it, so I'm happy to do so:
*****************************************************
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.
*****************************************************
dufus lies when pretending that the topic isn't the photograph of the
palmprint on the rifle, JUST AS YOU DO!
You've left an *OUTRIGHT LIE* on your website, with no notice to
anyone that it's not true.
So tell us David, why are you so dishonest that you leave a PROVABLE
LIE posted on your webpage?
> Bud was *not* suggesting in that prior post that he had actually
> seen a photo of the palmprint TAKEN BY LT. DAY HIMSELF.
*NO-ONE* ever suggested that there wasn't a photo of the palmprint.
AND YOU **KNOW** THAT. (Amusingly, you'll neither quote any such claim
by a critic, nor will you be honest enough to admit that stump lied in
his response)
stump responded to my statement, quoted above, that was speaking of
the issue of photography of the RIFLE.
You know that.
You're a despicable liar.
> I knew what Bud meant immediately upon reading that post of his.
> Ben The Stump, however, needs to be talked through the most elementary
> of things.
But he can't. He literally changed the topic to something else,
responded to *that*, and pretended it was an answer to my statement.
You're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You'll *NEVER* quote or cite any
critic, let alone me, arguing that there's no photograph of the
palmprint itself... and *that* fact proves that you're lying.
You're a liar.
> Now, I want Ben to link to the page on my site that he's referring
> to here....
being told of it repeatedly, you've *STILL* not removed it.
Indeed, now you're trying to defend it.
But you *KNOW* that no-one was speaking of the photo of the
*palmprint* itself.
Not even stump is that stupid.
> "Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor
> will he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists." -- B. Holmes
>
>Please cite the exact "claim" you're talking about, Ben.
I have *NO INTENTION* of linking to a lie.
You've proven in this post that you know PRECISELY what lie you
posted.
Here's the precise QUOTE, however:
*******************************************************
BEN HOLMES SAID:
The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed...
BUD SAID:
It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle.
Ben lies, lurkers, I've seen photographs of it.
*******************************************************
Ben Holmes
Apr 18, 2018, 7:57:21 PM4/18/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Gary Mack can't post in a public forum and defend such nonsense, his
livelihood is on the line.
But if David or stump or Steve or any other believer had courage and
honesty, they could try defending such garbage.
But they always fail, and end up running away.
And with the statement above, Gary Mack is certainly a provable
liar... the 6th Floor Museum certainly *does* have a position.
wrote:
livelihood is on the line.
But if David or stump or Steve or any other believer had courage and
honesty, they could try defending such garbage.
But they always fail, and end up running away.
And with the statement above, Gary Mack is certainly a provable
liar... the 6th Floor Museum certainly *does* have a position.
Bud
Apr 18, 2018, 8:19:07 PM4/18/18
to
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > "The [Sixth Floor] Museum has NO position, just history. .... Oswald
> > ordered a Carcano, got one, let others see it, had himself
> > photographed with it, used it to try to kill someone but failed, then
> > used it again to kill and injure. That’s what history says and no
> > amount of whining and question asking [by conspiracy theorists]
> > changes any aspect of that. There is simply no significant evidence
> > that has changed that history, at least so far."
> >
> >-- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012
> >
> > Amazing how Gary Mack contradicts himself inside THE SAME SENTENCE.
> > Of course, anyone with *common sense* can see where in that first
> > sentence Gary Mack displays this logical problem.
> >
> > Which is why David Von Pein, who lacks ALL common sense, posts such
> > a stupid remark on his website.
>
> Gary Mack can't post in a public forum and defend such nonsense, his
> livelihood is on the line.
There is a lot of things Gary Mack can`t do these days, lurkers. He`s dead.
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > "The [Sixth Floor] Museum has NO position, just history. .... Oswald
> > ordered a Carcano, got one, let others see it, had himself
> > photographed with it, used it to try to kill someone but failed, then
> > used it again to kill and injure. That’s what history says and no
> > amount of whining and question asking [by conspiracy theorists]
> > changes any aspect of that. There is simply no significant evidence
> > that has changed that history, at least so far."
> >
> >-- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012
> >
> > Amazing how Gary Mack contradicts himself inside THE SAME SENTENCE.
> > Of course, anyone with *common sense* can see where in that first
> > sentence Gary Mack displays this logical problem.
> >
> > Which is why David Von Pein, who lacks ALL common sense, posts such
> > a stupid remark on his website.
>
> Gary Mack can't post in a public forum and defend such nonsense, his
> livelihood is on the line.
> But if David or stump or Steve or any other believer had courage and
> honesty, they could try defending such garbage.
> But they always fail, and end up running away.
>
> And with the statement above, Gary Mack is certainly a provable
> liar... the 6th Floor Museum certainly *does* have a position.
Bud
Apr 18, 2018, 8:33:42 PM4/18/18
to
Ben: The palm print, appearing late,
Me: It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.
Ben: and never being photographed,
Me: Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.
This is the whole portion as it appeared when Ben wrote it, no mention of prints being photographed 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."
David Von Pein
Apr 18, 2018, 8:51:43 PM4/18/18
to
The only thing Ben The Stump could possibly gripe about in the quote above is Bud's use of the word "photographs" (plural), since I think there is only one photo of the LHO palmprint, and that's CE637. (However, there might be a second picture of it in the HSCA volumes too.)
Ben Holmes
Apr 19, 2018, 11:24:48 AM4/19/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:51:42 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
Despite the fact that you can't cite *ANYONE* who denies that a
photograph of the palmprint itself exists.
>> > For some idiotic reason all his own, he seems to have gotten into
>> > his head that I have claimed that Lt. Day took a picture of the LHO
>> > palmprint while the print was still on the rifle.
>>
>>
>> Yes moron, you did. You did it as a "quote" from dufus... but it's
>> *YOUR* website, and you posted what YOU KNOW TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
>>
>> That makes it yours.
Dead silence...
>> > And Ben also seems to be confusing me with Bud in some manner when
>> > discussing this "palmprint" subject in this thread and in one other
>> > recent acj thread too.
>>
>>
>> Didn't get confused at all.
>>
>> *YOU* posted what you *KNEW* to be a lie... it becomes *YOUR* lie
>> because *YOU* are promulgating it without any notice to readers that
>> it's not true.
>>
>> Doesn't matter that you're "quoting" someone - you're doing it without
>> any notice to anyone that it's a lie.
>>
>> That makes it *YOUR* lie.
Looks like you ran from this one...
WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE, DAVID VON PEIN.
Dead silence...
>> > Bud was *not* suggesting in that prior post that he had actually
>> > seen a photo of the palmprint TAKEN BY LT. DAY HIMSELF.
>>
>> You're lying, David.
>>
>> *NO-ONE* ever suggested that there wasn't a photo of the palmprint.
>>
>> AND YOU **KNOW** THAT. (Amusingly, you'll neither quote any such claim
>> by a critic, nor will you be honest enough to admit that stump lied in
>> his response)
My prediction was spot on.
>> stump responded to my statement, quoted above, that was speaking of
>> the issue of photography of the RIFLE.
>>
>> You know that.
>>
>> You're a despicable liar.
>>
>>
>> > I knew what Bud meant immediately upon reading that post of his.
>> > Ben The Stump, however, needs to be talked through the most elementary
>> > of things.
>>
>> You mean you knew how dufus could be "defended."
>>
>> But he can't. He literally changed the topic to something else,
>> responded to *that*, and pretended it was an answer to my statement.
>>
>> You're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You'll *NEVER* quote or cite any
>> critic, let alone me, arguing that there's no photograph of the
>> palmprint itself... and *that* fact proves that you're lying.
Another prediction fulfilled perfectly.
Why can't you produce the assertion you claim was being answered by
dufus?
Yes there is, and the PROOF of that is that you can't quote anyone
saying that a photograph of the *PALMPRINT* itself doesn't exist.
dufus is arguing against something never stated by *ANYONE*.
> Bud, of course, is talking about seeing CE637.
No David, you're lying... his assertion WAS MEANT TO CONTRADICT WHAT I
STATED.
> He was not implying that Lt. Day photographed the palmprint,
Yes David, that's EXACTLY what he stated. He *CONTRADICTED* my
assertion that Lt. Day HAD NOT photographed the rifle with the print
on it, and he did so by asserting THAT SUCH A PHOTO EXISTED, AND THAT
HE'D SEEN IT.
You can keep lying all you want, but what you can't do is **QUOTE**
the topic that dufus was attempting to contradict.
> and that's because Bud *knows* that Lt. Day never photographed the
> palmprint.
This might mean something if dufus were known as an honest man.
He not. He's a liar perfectly willing to contradict A KNOWN HISTORICAL
FACT by claiming to have seen what he knows doesn't exist.
And moreover, you're simply digging yourself in deeper as a provable
liar by attempting to defend the impossible.
WHAT WAS THE TOPIC THAT DUFUS WAS DISPUTING???
QUOTE ME ON THE TOPIC!!!
But you've thus far refused to do so.
And *that* fact shows that you know you're lying.
> Therefore, WHY would he ever imply that he thought Day *did*
> photograph the print? Answer: He wouldn't.
Your presumption that dufus is an "honest" man is provably wrong...
for all this time, **NOT ONCE** has dufus admitted that Lt. Day *DID
NOT* photography that rifle with a palmprint on it.
Instead, he's been CONTRADICTING me on that issue.
> The only thing Ben The Stump...
This is proof that you know you've lost.
You're a despicable liar, David Von Pein.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:53:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:53:56 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
>> >> he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
>> >>
>> >> Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
>> >>
>> >> That's a fact.
>> >
>> >Ben's lying (again).
>>
>>
>> Then why can't you cite the evidence that contradicts my statement???
>>
>> All you have to do is CITE the photograph of the rifle that Lt. Day
>> made showing the palmprint.
>>
>> But *YOU* know, and stump knows, that no such thing exists. Exactly as
>> I stated.
>>
>> So clearly, it's stump that's lying, and IT'S YOU THAT'S LYING.
>>
>> I expect it of stump, but in the past, you've at least *tried* for
>> some honesty... you're clearly slipping solidly into the blatantly
>> dishonest...
And are 'doubling down' on it now...
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:53:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:53:56 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:42:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, David hasn't removed the lies told on his website, nor will
>> >> he DARE try to cite the photo he claims exists.
>> >>
>> >> Lt. Day *NEVER* photographed the alleged palmprint on the rifle.
>> >>
>> >> That's a fact.
>> >
>> >Ben's lying (again).
>>
>>
>> Then why can't you cite the evidence that contradicts my statement???
>>
>> All you have to do is CITE the photograph of the rifle that Lt. Day
>> made showing the palmprint.
>>
>> But *YOU* know, and stump knows, that no such thing exists. Exactly as
>> I stated.
>>
>> So clearly, it's stump that's lying, and IT'S YOU THAT'S LYING.
>>
>> I expect it of stump, but in the past, you've at least *tried* for
>> some honesty... you're clearly slipping solidly into the blatantly
>> dishonest...
Despite the fact that you can't cite *ANYONE* who denies that a
photograph of the palmprint itself exists.
>> > For some idiotic reason all his own, he seems to have gotten into
>> > his head that I have claimed that Lt. Day took a picture of the LHO
>> > palmprint while the print was still on the rifle.
>>
>>
>> Yes moron, you did. You did it as a "quote" from dufus... but it's
>> *YOUR* website, and you posted what YOU KNOW TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
>>
>> That makes it yours.
>> > And Ben also seems to be confusing me with Bud in some manner when
>> > discussing this "palmprint" subject in this thread and in one other
>> > recent acj thread too.
>>
>>
>> Didn't get confused at all.
>>
>> *YOU* posted what you *KNEW* to be a lie... it becomes *YOUR* lie
>> because *YOU* are promulgating it without any notice to readers that
>> it's not true.
>>
>> Doesn't matter that you're "quoting" someone - you're doing it without
>> any notice to anyone that it's a lie.
>>
>> That makes it *YOUR* lie.
WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE, DAVID VON PEIN.
>> > Bud was *not* suggesting in that prior post that he had actually
>> > seen a photo of the palmprint TAKEN BY LT. DAY HIMSELF.
>>
>> You're lying, David.
>>
>> *NO-ONE* ever suggested that there wasn't a photo of the palmprint.
>>
>> AND YOU **KNOW** THAT. (Amusingly, you'll neither quote any such claim
>> by a critic, nor will you be honest enough to admit that stump lied in
>> his response)
>> stump responded to my statement, quoted above, that was speaking of
>> the issue of photography of the RIFLE.
>>
>> You know that.
>>
>> You're a despicable liar.
>>
>>
>> > I knew what Bud meant immediately upon reading that post of his.
>> > Ben The Stump, however, needs to be talked through the most elementary
>> > of things.
>>
>> You mean you knew how dufus could be "defended."
>>
>> But he can't. He literally changed the topic to something else,
>> responded to *that*, and pretended it was an answer to my statement.
>>
>> You're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You'll *NEVER* quote or cite any
>> critic, let alone me, arguing that there's no photograph of the
>> palmprint itself... and *that* fact proves that you're lying.
Why can't you produce the assertion you claim was being answered by
dufus?
saying that a photograph of the *PALMPRINT* itself doesn't exist.
dufus is arguing against something never stated by *ANYONE*.
> Bud, of course, is talking about seeing CE637.
STATED.
> He was not implying that Lt. Day photographed the palmprint,
assertion that Lt. Day HAD NOT photographed the rifle with the print
on it, and he did so by asserting THAT SUCH A PHOTO EXISTED, AND THAT
HE'D SEEN IT.
You can keep lying all you want, but what you can't do is **QUOTE**
the topic that dufus was attempting to contradict.
> and that's because Bud *knows* that Lt. Day never photographed the
> palmprint.
He not. He's a liar perfectly willing to contradict A KNOWN HISTORICAL
FACT by claiming to have seen what he knows doesn't exist.
And moreover, you're simply digging yourself in deeper as a provable
liar by attempting to defend the impossible.
WHAT WAS THE TOPIC THAT DUFUS WAS DISPUTING???
QUOTE ME ON THE TOPIC!!!
But you've thus far refused to do so.
And *that* fact shows that you know you're lying.
> Therefore, WHY would he ever imply that he thought Day *did*
> photograph the print? Answer: He wouldn't.
for all this time, **NOT ONCE** has dufus admitted that Lt. Day *DID
NOT* photography that rifle with a palmprint on it.
Instead, he's been CONTRADICTING me on that issue.
> The only thing Ben The Stump...
This is proof that you know you've lost.
You're a despicable liar, David Von Pein.
Bud
Apr 19, 2018, 2:47:03 PM4/19/18
to
"The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed..." -Ben Holmes
David Von Pein
Apr 19, 2018, 6:24:10 PM4/19/18
to
> He *CONTRADICTED* my
> assertion that Lt. Day HAD NOT photographed the rifle with the print
> on it, and he did so by asserting THAT SUCH A PHOTO EXISTED, AND THAT
> HE'D SEEN IT.
>
Ben Holmes
Apr 19, 2018, 7:05:10 PM4/19/18
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
stump *CONTRADICTED* my statement. **MY** statement was concerning the
photography of the rifle by Lt. Day.
You *PROVE* yourself a liar by not answering my posts statement by
statement, as I do yours.
You realize that you simply cannot refute what I say.
You've **STILL** not stated what stump was contradicting... and if you
can't say what stump was contradicting, then you *KNOW* you're a liar.
>> He *CONTRADICTED* my
>> assertion that Lt. Day HAD NOT photographed the rifle with the print
>> on it, and he did so by asserting THAT SUCH A PHOTO EXISTED, AND THAT
>> HE'D SEEN IT.
>>
>
>Wrong.
Then grow a pair, and QUOTE THE TOPIC THAT STUMP RESPONDED TO.
But you can't.
You **KNOW** you're lying right now.
> Bud knows there was no photo taken by Lt. Day while the print was
> still on the rifle.
Again, you're lying. stump has *NOT* stated that publicly... indeed,
he keeps refusing to acknowledge this.
How do *you* know something that stump refuses to state?
>And that's how I *know* that what you just asserted is dead wrong.
You can't quote stump saying that Lt. Day never photographed the
palmprint on the rifle.
You can't quote MY OWN STATEMENT that stump was attempting to
contradict.
You *KNOW* you've been caught lying.
> Bud was talking only about seeing CE637.
Who cares?
Does CE637 contradict my statement?
>> You can keep lying all you want, but what you can't do is **QUOTE**
>> the topic that dufus was attempting to contradict.
>>
>> > and that's because Bud *knows* that Lt. Day never photographed the
>> > palmprint.
>>
>> This might mean something if dufus were known as an honest man.
>>
>> He not. He's a liar perfectly willing to contradict A KNOWN HISTORICAL
>> FACT by claiming to have seen what he knows doesn't exist.
>>
>> And moreover, you're simply digging yourself in deeper as a provable
>> liar by attempting to defend the impossible.
>>
>> WHAT WAS THE TOPIC THAT DUFUS WAS DISPUTING???
>>
>> QUOTE ME ON THE TOPIC!!!
>>
>> But you've thus far refused to do so.
>>
>> And *that* fact shows that you know you're lying.
>>
>> > Therefore, WHY would he ever imply that he thought Day *did*
>> > photograph the print? Answer: He wouldn't.
>>
>> Your presumption that dufus is an "honest" man is provably wrong...
>> for all this time, **NOT ONCE** has dufus admitted that Lt. Day *DID
>> NOT* photography that rifle with a palmprint on it.
Interestingly, you claim he knows this.
I DEFY you to cite his previous assertion that Lt. Day never
photographed the palmprint ON THE RIFLE.
But you won't.
You're a liar.
>> Instead, he's been CONTRADICTING me on that issue.
>>
>>
>> > The only thing Ben The Stump...
>>
>>
>> This is proof that you know you've lost.
>>
>> You're a despicable liar, David Von Pein.
Still a coward, eh David?
photography of the rifle by Lt. Day.
You *PROVE* yourself a liar by not answering my posts statement by
statement, as I do yours.
You realize that you simply cannot refute what I say.
You've **STILL** not stated what stump was contradicting... and if you
can't say what stump was contradicting, then you *KNOW* you're a liar.
>> He *CONTRADICTED* my
>> assertion that Lt. Day HAD NOT photographed the rifle with the print
>> on it, and he did so by asserting THAT SUCH A PHOTO EXISTED, AND THAT
>> HE'D SEEN IT.
>>
>
>Wrong.
But you can't.
You **KNOW** you're lying right now.
> Bud knows there was no photo taken by Lt. Day while the print was
> still on the rifle.
he keeps refusing to acknowledge this.
How do *you* know something that stump refuses to state?
>And that's how I *know* that what you just asserted is dead wrong.
palmprint on the rifle.
You can't quote MY OWN STATEMENT that stump was attempting to
contradict.
You *KNOW* you've been caught lying.
> Bud was talking only about seeing CE637.
Does CE637 contradict my statement?
>> You can keep lying all you want, but what you can't do is **QUOTE**
>> the topic that dufus was attempting to contradict.
>>
>> > and that's because Bud *knows* that Lt. Day never photographed the
>> > palmprint.
>>
>> This might mean something if dufus were known as an honest man.
>>
>> He not. He's a liar perfectly willing to contradict A KNOWN HISTORICAL
>> FACT by claiming to have seen what he knows doesn't exist.
>>
>> And moreover, you're simply digging yourself in deeper as a provable
>> liar by attempting to defend the impossible.
>>
>> WHAT WAS THE TOPIC THAT DUFUS WAS DISPUTING???
>>
>> QUOTE ME ON THE TOPIC!!!
>>
>> But you've thus far refused to do so.
>>
>> And *that* fact shows that you know you're lying.
>>
>> > Therefore, WHY would he ever imply that he thought Day *did*
>> > photograph the print? Answer: He wouldn't.
>>
>> Your presumption that dufus is an "honest" man is provably wrong...
>> for all this time, **NOT ONCE** has dufus admitted that Lt. Day *DID
>> NOT* photography that rifle with a palmprint on it.
I DEFY you to cite his previous assertion that Lt. Day never
photographed the palmprint ON THE RIFLE.
But you won't.
You're a liar.
>> Instead, he's been CONTRADICTING me on that issue.
>>
>>
>> > The only thing Ben The Stump...
>>
>>
>> This is proof that you know you've lost.
>>
>> You're a despicable liar, David Von Pein.
Bud
Apr 19, 2018, 7:15:43 PM4/19/18
to
This is what Ben wrote that I responded to, see if you can find "on the rifle" anywhere...
"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."
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:50 AM4/23/18
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Interestingly, stump was too much a coward to quote the ENTIRE topic.
Here it is:
*********************************************************
> 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.
*********************************************************
"There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle."
stump couldn't quote this, because it proves dufus a liar.
David keeps refusing to quote it, because HE likewise knows it proves
him a liar.
What's the one print not photographed, DESPITE OTHER PRINTS BEING
PHOTOGRAPHED (by Lt. Day)
stump won't say.
He knows he got caught lying.
>> >> You can keep lying all you want, but what you can't do is **QUOTE**
>> >> the topic that dufus was attempting to contradict.
>> >>
>> >> > and that's because Bud *knows* that Lt. Day never photographed the
>> >> > palmprint.
>> >>
>> >> This might mean something if dufus were known as an honest man.
>> >>
>> >> He not. He's a liar perfectly willing to contradict A KNOWN HISTORICAL
>> >> FACT by claiming to have seen what he knows doesn't exist.
>> >>
>> >> And moreover, you're simply digging yourself in deeper as a provable
>> >> liar by attempting to defend the impossible.
>> >>
>> >> WHAT WAS THE TOPIC THAT DUFUS WAS DISPUTING???
>> >>
>> >> QUOTE ME ON THE TOPIC!!!
>> >>
>> >> But you've thus far refused to do so.
>> >>
>> >> And *that* fact shows that you know you're lying.
>> >>
>> >> > Therefore, WHY would he ever imply that he thought Day *did*
>> >> > photograph the print? Answer: He wouldn't.
>> >>
>> >> Your presumption that dufus is an "honest" man is provably wrong...
>> >> for all this time, **NOT ONCE** has dufus admitted that Lt. Day *DID
>> >> NOT* photography that rifle with a palmprint on it.
>>
>> Interestingly, you claim he knows this.
>>
>> I DEFY you to cite his previous assertion that Lt. Day never
>> photographed the palmprint ON THE RIFLE.
Interestingly, stump won't cite any such statement either.
Here it is:
*********************************************************
> 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.
"There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle."
David keeps refusing to quote it, because HE likewise knows it proves
him a liar.
What's the one print not photographed, DESPITE OTHER PRINTS BEING
PHOTOGRAPHED (by Lt. Day)
stump won't say.
He knows he got caught lying.
>> >> You can keep lying all you want, but what you can't do is **QUOTE**
>> >> the topic that dufus was attempting to contradict.
>> >>
>> >> > and that's because Bud *knows* that Lt. Day never photographed the
>> >> > palmprint.
>> >>
>> >> This might mean something if dufus were known as an honest man.
>> >>
>> >> He not. He's a liar perfectly willing to contradict A KNOWN HISTORICAL
>> >> FACT by claiming to have seen what he knows doesn't exist.
>> >>
>> >> And moreover, you're simply digging yourself in deeper as a provable
>> >> liar by attempting to defend the impossible.
>> >>
>> >> WHAT WAS THE TOPIC THAT DUFUS WAS DISPUTING???
>> >>
>> >> QUOTE ME ON THE TOPIC!!!
>> >>
>> >> But you've thus far refused to do so.
>> >>
>> >> And *that* fact shows that you know you're lying.
>> >>
>> >> > Therefore, WHY would he ever imply that he thought Day *did*
>> >> > photograph the print? Answer: He wouldn't.
>> >>
>> >> Your presumption that dufus is an "honest" man is provably wrong...
>> >> for all this time, **NOT ONCE** has dufus admitted that Lt. Day *DID
>> >> NOT* photography that rifle with a palmprint on it.
>>
>> Interestingly, you claim he knows this.
>>
>> I DEFY you to cite his previous assertion that Lt. Day never
>> photographed the palmprint ON THE RIFLE.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:50 AM4/23/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:33:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
It came DIRECTLY from David's website - EXACTLY AS QUOTED.
You're a liar, stump... and a provable one.
> Ben: The palm print, appearing late,
>
> Me: It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.
You're too stupid to understand that the "appearing" is referring to
when it came up in the evidence trail.
> Ben: and never being photographed,
>
> Me: Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.
>
> This is the whole portion as it appeared when Ben wrote it, no
> mention of prints being photographed 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."
It takes a true moron to think that this isn't referring to the
photographing OF THE RIFLE.
That's the ENTIRE point of this.
That you intentionally pretend to misunderstand it is neither here nor
there... I already know you're a liar.
Amusingly, YOU STILL REFUSE TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LT. DAY NEVER
PHOTOGRAPHED THE PALMPRINT **ON** THE RIFLE - as he did the other
prints.
> Ben wanted to lie to the readers and make them think that there
> are no photos of the palm print in evidence. I didn`t allow it.
You're pretending to be a moron, but you're really just a liar.
*NO-ONE* who's debated this topic for as many years as you have is
unaware of the **FACT** that Lt. Day never photographed the palmprint
ON THE RIFLE as he did other prints.
But it's truly amusing that David posted your lie as if it were true.
>> >> One that you're too dishonest to publicly acknowledge.
>> >>
>> >> And *THAT* fact tells the tale.
Indeed it does... dufus *STILL* refuses to publicly acknowledge this
fact.
And that I'm *ABSOLUTELY CORRECT* in what I stated.
You're a liar, stump... and a provable one.
> Ben: The palm print, appearing late,
>
> Me: It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle, lurkers.
when it came up in the evidence trail.
> Ben: and never being photographed,
>
> Me: Ben lies, lurkers, I`ve seen photographs of it.
>
> This is the whole portion as it appeared when Ben wrote it, no
> mention of prints being photographed 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."
photographing OF THE RIFLE.
That's the ENTIRE point of this.
That you intentionally pretend to misunderstand it is neither here nor
there... I already know you're a liar.
Amusingly, YOU STILL REFUSE TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LT. DAY NEVER
PHOTOGRAPHED THE PALMPRINT **ON** THE RIFLE - as he did the other
prints.
> Ben wanted to lie to the readers and make them think that there
> are no photos of the palm print in evidence. I didn`t allow it.
*NO-ONE* who's debated this topic for as many years as you have is
unaware of the **FACT** that Lt. Day never photographed the palmprint
ON THE RIFLE as he did other prints.
But it's truly amusing that David posted your lie as if it were true.
>> >> One that you're too dishonest to publicly acknowledge.
>> >>
>> >> And *THAT* fact tells the tale.
fact.
And that I'm *ABSOLUTELY CORRECT* in what I stated.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:50 AM4/23/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "The [Sixth Floor] Museum has NO position, just history. .... Oswald
>> > ordered a Carcano, got one, let others see it, had himself
>> > photographed with it, used it to try to kill someone but failed, then
>> > used it again to kill and injure. That’s what history says and no
>> > amount of whining and question asking [by conspiracy theorists]
>> > changes any aspect of that. There is simply no significant evidence
>> > that has changed that history, at least so far."
>> >
>> >-- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012
>> >
>> > Amazing how Gary Mack contradicts himself inside THE SAME SENTENCE.
>> > Of course, anyone with *common sense* can see where in that first
>> > sentence Gary Mack displays this logical problem.
>> >
>> > Which is why David Von Pein, who lacks ALL common sense, posts such
>> > a stupid remark on his website.
>>
>> Gary Mack can't post in a public forum and defend such nonsense, his
>> livelihood is on the line.
>
> There is a lot of things Gary Mack can`t do these days, lurkers. He`s dead.
Gary Mack REFUSED TO POST IN A PUBLIC FORUM AND DEFEND SUCH NONSENSE
when he was alive.
And dufus is too much a liar to publicly acknowledge this.
>> But if David or stump or Steve or any other believer had courage and
>> honesty, they could try defending such garbage.
>
> Against *what*, lurkers?
Gary Mack lied in the above posted quote.
You can't defend that lie, and indeed, you refuse to even try.
>> But they always fail, and end up running away.
>>
>> And with the statement above, Gary Mack is certainly a provable
>> liar... the 6th Floor Museum certainly *does* have a position.
>
> Above the 5th floor, lurkers.
You're lying again, stump.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:57:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "The [Sixth Floor] Museum has NO position, just history. .... Oswald
>> > ordered a Carcano, got one, let others see it, had himself
>> > photographed with it, used it to try to kill someone but failed, then
>> > used it again to kill and injure. That’s what history says and no
>> > amount of whining and question asking [by conspiracy theorists]
>> > changes any aspect of that. There is simply no significant evidence
>> > that has changed that history, at least so far."
>> >
>> >-- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012
>> >
>> > Amazing how Gary Mack contradicts himself inside THE SAME SENTENCE.
>> > Of course, anyone with *common sense* can see where in that first
>> > sentence Gary Mack displays this logical problem.
>> >
>> > Which is why David Von Pein, who lacks ALL common sense, posts such
>> > a stupid remark on his website.
>>
>> Gary Mack can't post in a public forum and defend such nonsense, his
>> livelihood is on the line.
>
> There is a lot of things Gary Mack can`t do these days, lurkers. He`s dead.
when he was alive.
And dufus is too much a liar to publicly acknowledge this.
>> But if David or stump or Steve or any other believer had courage and
>> honesty, they could try defending such garbage.
>
> Against *what*, lurkers?
You can't defend that lie, and indeed, you refuse to even try.
>> But they always fail, and end up running away.
>>
>> And with the statement above, Gary Mack is certainly a provable
>> liar... the 6th Floor Museum certainly *does* have a position.
>
> Above the 5th floor, lurkers.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:50 AM4/23/18
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:47:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> I an idiot, lurkers.
It's easy to make someone look stupid when their words are taken out
of context.
> "The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed..." -Ben Holmes
Anyone notice that dufus *STILL* refuses to publicly acknowledge that
Lt. Day never photographed the rifle WITH THE PALMPRINT ON IT... as he
did with the other prints?
Even dufus refuses to do so...
He knows PRECISELY what the context was, and lies about it.
And the simple proof of this is that dufus *STILL* refuses to
acknowledge that Lt. Day never photographed the palmprint *ON* the
rifle.
wrote:
It's easy to make someone look stupid when their words are taken out
of context.
> "The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed..." -Ben Holmes
Lt. Day never photographed the rifle WITH THE PALMPRINT ON IT... as he
did with the other prints?
He knows PRECISELY what the context was, and lies about it.
acknowledge that Lt. Day never photographed the palmprint *ON* the
rifle.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:50 AM4/23/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:11:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
>> >> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
>> >> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
>> >> series of David's false claim.
>> >>
>> >> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
>> >> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
>> >>
>> >> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
>> >> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
>> >> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
>> >>
>> >> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
>> >
>> > Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed
>> > Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How
>> > could he *not* know?)....
>>
>>
>> I've already pointed out that you're too busy molesting the
>> neighborhood children to engage in debate. If you're too gutless to
>> ACCURATELY quote me, then by all means, let the world know that you're
>> a child molester.
>>
>> What you REFUSE to do is post that evidence *HERE*... because you know
>> it would be refuted easily.
>
> Lurkers, I'm eager to play the usual childish retard game...
No-one else is.
If David can't list or cite the evidence, why don't *YOU* try to do
so? Instead of playing silly games with the deaths of these men...
wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:11:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> As David Von Pein correctly pointed out, I jumped and used the wrong
>> >> item on my #15 last time. So despite David's cowardice in refusing to
>> >> answer these, it's incumbent on me to be complete in my refutation
>> >> series of David's false claim.
>> >>
>> >> > 15.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
>> >> > crime just 45 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza?
>> >>
>> >> This is a good example of what I've repeatedly pointed out ... David
>> >> likes to *presume* Oswald's guilt, then look at anything and
>> >> everything else that might support his preconceived notion.
>> >>
>> >> With *NO EVIDENCE AT ALL*,
>> >
>> > Ben wants to pretend I have "no evidence at all" that LHO killed
>> > Tippit. But even a rabid liar like Benny knows that's a lie. (How
>> > could he *not* know?)....
>>
>>
>> I've already pointed out that you're too busy molesting the
>> neighborhood children to engage in debate. If you're too gutless to
>> ACCURATELY quote me, then by all means, let the world know that you're
>> a child molester.
>>
>> What you REFUSE to do is post that evidence *HERE*... because you know
>> it would be refuted easily.
>
No-one else is.
If David can't list or cite the evidence, why don't *YOU* try to do
so? Instead of playing silly games with the deaths of these men...
0 new messages