David Von Pein Is A Proven Coward...

[Ben Holmes]

>On 17 Feb 2020 10:22:33 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>New page (with an expanded list of opponents):
>>
>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/02/dvp-vs-various-conspiracy-theorists.html
>>
>>Who else could I add to the above list of conspiracists? Any ideas? There
>>are 41 CTers currently on the list.

He can't seem to face real critics in uncensored forums.

Instead, he hides in censored forums, and hides in censored websites.

If the evidence actually supported the WCR - why all the lying and
cowardice???

[Ben Holmes]

I should note: Chickenshit will respond, but he won't be able to
counter the FACTS... David Von Pein reads posts in this forum, but is
TERRIFIED of engaging in debate - he gets shown up to be a fool every
time... and Chickenshit will do anything he can to obfuscate that
simple fact.

Watch folks, I've predicted it.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:15:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:13:10 -0800, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 17 Feb 2020 10:22:33 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>New page (with an expanded list of opponents):
> >>>
> >>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/02/dvp-vs-various-conspiracy-theorists.html
> >>>
> >>>Who else could I add to the above list of conspiracists? Any ideas? There
> >>>are 41 CTers currently on the list.
> >
> >He can't seem to face real critics in uncensored forums.
> >
> >Instead, he hides in censored forums, and hides in censored websites.
> >
> >If the evidence actually supported the WCR - why all the lying and
> >cowardice???
>
> I should note: Chickenshit will respond, but he won't be able to
> counter the FACTS...

What you call FACTS are nothing more than begged assertions.

> David Von Pein reads posts in this forum, but is
> TERRIFIED of engaging in debate - he gets shown up to be a fool every
> time... and Chickenshit will do anything he can to obfuscate that
> simple fact.
>
> Watch folks, I've predicted it.

Hot air and ad hominem is all you have. Make some conspiracy arguments or STFU.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:46:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:15:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:13:10 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 17 Feb 2020 10:22:33 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>New page (with an expanded list of opponents):
>>>>>
>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/02/dvp-vs-various-conspiracy-theorists.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Who else could I add to the above list of conspiracists? Any ideas? There
>>>>>are 41 CTers currently on the list.
>>>
>>>He can't seem to face real critics in uncensored forums.
>>>
>>>Instead, he hides in censored forums, and hides in censored websites.
>>>
>>>If the evidence actually supported the WCR - why all the lying and
>>>cowardice???
>>
>> I should note: Chickenshit will respond, but he won't be able to
>> counter the FACTS...
>
> What you call FACTS are nothing more than begged assertions.

Remember folks, I PREDICTED IT!

>> David Von Pein reads posts in this forum, but is
>> TERRIFIED of engaging in debate - he gets shown up to be a fool every
>> time... and Chickenshit will do anything he can to obfuscate that
>> simple fact.
>>
>> Watch folks, I've predicted it.
>

> Hot air and ad hominem is all you have. Make some conspiracy arguments...


Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to deny that David Von Pein
reads this forum? Or that he refuses to debate critics here?

[Obscenities removed]

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:46:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:15:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:13:10 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>On 17 Feb 2020 10:22:33 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>New page (with an expanded list of opponents):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/02/dvp-vs-various-conspiracy-theorists.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Who else could I add to the above list of conspiracists? Any ideas? There
> >>>>>are 41 CTers currently on the list.
> >>>
> >>>He can't seem to face real critics in uncensored forums.
> >>>
> >>>Instead, he hides in censored forums, and hides in censored websites.
> >>>
> >>>If the evidence actually supported the WCR - why all the lying and
> >>>cowardice???
> >>
> >> I should note: Chickenshit will respond, but he won't be able to
> >> counter the FACTS...
> >
> > What you call FACTS are nothing more than begged assertions.
>
>
> Remember folks, I PREDICTED IT!

They already know I call you out on your fallacious arguments.

> >> David Von Pein reads posts in this forum, but is
> >> TERRIFIED of engaging in debate - he gets shown up to be a fool every
> >> time... and Chickenshit will do anything he can to obfuscate that
> >> simple fact.
> >>
> >> Watch folks, I've predicted it.
> >
> > Hot air and ad hominem is all you have. Make some conspiracy arguments...
>
>
> Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to deny that David Von Pein
> reads this forum?

So?

> Or that he refuses to debate critics here?

Loaded.

Even if true, how do these things support your other contentions?

> [Obscenities removed]

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:19:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:46:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:15:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:13:10 -0800, Ben Holmes
>>>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>On 17 Feb 2020 10:22:33 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>New page (with an expanded list of opponents):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/02/dvp-vs-various-conspiracy-theorists.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who else could I add to the above list of conspiracists? Any ideas? There
>>>>>>>are 41 CTers currently on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>He can't seem to face real critics in uncensored forums.
>>>>>
>>>>>Instead, he hides in censored forums, and hides in censored websites.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the evidence actually supported the WCR - why all the lying and
>>>>>cowardice???
>>>>
>>>> I should note: Chickenshit will respond, but he won't be able to
>>>> counter the FACTS...
>>>
>>> What you call FACTS are nothing more than begged assertions.
>>
>> Remember folks, I PREDICTED IT!
>
> They already know I call you out on your fallacious arguments.

Another empty and unsupported claim from the self-described "Dumbass.

>>>> David Von Pein reads posts in this forum, but is
>>>> TERRIFIED of engaging in debate - he gets shown up to be a fool every
>>>> time... and Chickenshit will do anything he can to obfuscate that
>>>> simple fact.
>>>>
>>>> Watch folks, I've predicted it.
>>>
>>> Hot air and ad hominem is all you have. Make some conspiracy arguments...
>>
>> Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to deny that David Von Pein
>> reads this forum?
>
> So?

So you admit that my statement was correct. David Von Pein reads these
posts, yet refuses to engage in debate in an open forum.

>> Or that he refuses to debate critics here?
>
> Loaded.

A simple fact. You can't refute it.

> Even if true, how do these things support your other contentions?

You've now acknowledged *both* of my "contentions."


>> [Obscenities removed]

[Bud]

I assume he chooses not to. So what?

> >> Or that he refuses to debate critics here?
> >
> > Loaded.
>
>
> A simple fact. You can't refute it.

Support your contention that debate goes on here.

> > Even if true, how do these things support your other contentions?
>
>
> You've now acknowledged *both* of my "contentions."

Why lie, and pretend they were your only contentions?

>
> >> [Obscenities removed]

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

So you admit that my statement was correct. David Von Pein reads these posts, yet refuses to engage in debate in an open forum.

BUD SAID:

I assume he chooses not to.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Of late I have chosen not to, yes. But in the recent and distant past, I have engaged Holmes in debate on many issues. All of which I've archived at my site (and they continue on and on for many pages when you click "Next Posts" near the bottom of each search page)....

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

And Holmes knows this, of course. He just likes to resurrect his incorrect "DVP Is A Coward And Refuses To Debate Me" shtick every few months. Despite knowing the above link exists, with dozens of examples to prove that Prick Holmes will forever be nuts when he continues to say "David Von Pein refuses to engage in debate in an open forum."

I wonder how many blog pages of stuff with "Ben Holmes Said" on them I have to produce before Prick Holmes will stop gushing the "Von Pein Refuses To Debate" lie? 500? 1,000? How many, Holmes?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:50:01 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> So you admit that my statement was correct. David Von Pein reads
> these posts, yet refuses to engage in debate in an open forum.

Amusingly, David Von Pein now *PROVES* my statement correct.

He's proven that he reads this forum.

And he's proven that he refuses to debate knowledgeable critics in

open forum.


>BUD SAID:
>
>I assume he chooses not to.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Of late I have chosen not to, yes.

Yep... it's a "choice" not to have your lies constantly revealed.

Of course, most people would correctly label this cowardice.

> But in the recent and distant past, I have engaged Holmes in debate on
> many issues.

And been proven wrong and a coward on many of them...

> All of which I've archived at my site

No David, YOU'RE LYING AGAIN!

How long do you think it would take me to find embarrassing errors and
outright lies that are **NOT** "archived" on your website?

> (and they continue
> on and on for many pages when you click "Next Posts" near the bottom
> of each search page)....
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes
>
> And Holmes knows this, of course.

I know that you're lying. And I know that you're a coward. Both are
indubitably true.


[Obscene ad hominem deleted.]


Looks like David has admitted that he lost...

[David Von Pein]

Ben Holmes never gets tired of looking silly. You'd think he would tire of it after multiple decades, but he doesn't. And this statement of his is just about as silly (and provably wrong) as you can get --- "David Von Pein refuses to engage in debate in an open forum."

[Ben Holmes]

Amusingly, Davey snipped everything again... so I simply put it back
in so that everyone can see what Davey ran from:


On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:35:34 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

I see you finally got my name right. Let's see how long you can
remember...

And here's the simple proof that you're lying again...

Is there any part of the occipital *NOT* located at the back of the
head?

Can you have a wound ENTIRELY in the parietal, several inches in
diameter, yet still be ENTIRELY in the back of the head?

Does the Autopsy Report place the wound EVEN PARTIALLY in the
back of the head?

Now, if I'm right - you'll snip all of the above and refuse to debate.
If *YOU* are right... then we should see some answers in your reply.

I predict that *I* have been telling the absolute truth - that you're
a coward who refuses to debate knowledgeable critics in open forum.

[Bud]

The extent of the wounds was given using anatomical landmarks. Rather than demand that other people cure your ignorance perhaps you should look up where those landmarks exist anatomically.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:17:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Only David Von Pein has been denying the location of the occipital...
clearly *YOU* are now doing the same.

Why do these simple questions terrify you so much?

[Bud]

Why lie, DVP wrote this years ago...

""Occipital" is in the back of the head....as I already said several days ago. (Didn't you pay attention, or even notice the chart/diagram I posted which shows the occipital?)"

You expect people to go over the same ground endlessly.

> clearly *YOU* are now doing the same.
>
> Why do these simple questions terrify you so much?

Why aren`t you interested in where the autopsy placed the wound using anatomical landmarks?

By looking at the right things I can determine where the wound was. By standing on your head and insisting on looking at the wrong things you will never be able to determine where the autopsy placed the wound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:22:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

So you acknowledge that Davey was lying when he posted this:

*******************************************************************
IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS ---

SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS WHO SIGNED-OFF ON JFK'S
OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT? OR SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE "BOH WOUND"
WITNESSES?
*******************************************************************

Davey has clearly and repeatedly denied the existence of a large 'BOH'
wound.

Here's another one, where he's claiming 'right frontal':

******************************************************************
Anyway, here's what Bugliosi and Baden had to say....

---- Quoting From Page 407 of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History":
----

"Even apart from Dr. McClelland's wandering completely off the
reservation in the sketch he drew for Josiah Thompson, what is the
explanation for several of the other Parkland doctors erroneously
thinking that the large exit wound was to the right rear of the
president's head as opposed to the right frontal region, where all the
medical and scientific evidence proved it to be? Dr. Michael Baden,
the chief forensic pathologist for the HSCA, has what I believe to be
the answer, one whose logic is solid...." ...[see image below]...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s1600/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png
******************************************************************

So tell us Chickenshit... was Davey lying when he said that the
Ocipital is in the back of the head? Or was he lying when he tried
denying it as the two examples above show?

And where did Davey go?

WHY ISN'T HE ANSWERING NOW???

Why is a liar defending a coward?

>> clearly *YOU* are now doing the same.
>>
>> Why do these simple questions terrify you so much?
>
> Why aren`t you interested in where the autopsy placed the wound
> using anatomical landmarks?

I am. I REPEATEDLY use the medical terms. Why are you terrified of
admitting that the large wound was in the back of the head?

> By looking at the right things I can determine where the wound
> was.

Chickenshit, the child molester that can't support his own claims...

From now on, the *MOMENT* you whine about looking at the right things
correctly... without defining the statement, I'm going to stop, and
quote this response.

Indeed, I've previously posted on Chickenshit's absolute fear of
publicly stating where the large wound was located.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:35:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

And despite it being pointed out, Chickenshit couldn't deny it... or
support his empty claim.

>>>>>> David Von Pein reads posts in this forum, but is
>>>>>> TERRIFIED of engaging in debate - he gets shown up to be a fool every
>>>>>> time... and Chickenshit will do anything he can to obfuscate that
>>>>>> simple fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch folks, I've predicted it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hot air and ad hominem is all you have. Make some conspiracy arguments...
>>>>
>>>> Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to deny that David Von Pein
>>>> reads this forum?
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> So you admit that my statement was correct. David Von Pein reads these
>> posts, yet refuses to engage in debate in an open forum.
>
> I assume he chooses not to. So what?

I assume he's a coward. And, having been a Marine, I'm an expert on
cowards. Since one expert can over-ride everyone else - you've lost.

[Watch Chickenshit slam the Corps...]

>>>> Or that he refuses to debate critics here?
>>>
>>> Loaded.
>>
>> A simple fact. You can't refute it.
>
> Support your contention that debate goes on here.

Define "debate."

>>> Even if true, how do these things support your other contentions?
>>
>> You've now acknowledged *both* of my "contentions."
>
> Why lie, and pretend they were your only contentions?

I'm the one and only expert on what I assert. And, as that expert,
I've made the assertion - you lose.


>>>> [Obscenities removed]


Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to refute the fact that

David Von Pein reads this forum?

Or that he refuses to debate critics in open forum?

David Von Pein is a proven coward.

[Bud]

Every time you ask questions of other people you are admitting you have nothing. If you could make arguments using the location of the occipital, you would. The only reason you don`t is because you can`t.

> >> clearly *YOU* are now doing the same.
> >>
> >> Why do these simple questions terrify you so much?
> >
> > Why aren`t you interested in where the autopsy placed the wound
> > using anatomical landmarks?
>
>
> I am.

No, you aren`t. The autopsy gives 4 anatomical points on the right side of the skull that represent the extent of the wound to the right side of Kennedy`s head. They are enumerated a, b, c and d.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Show where you ever expressed the slightest interest in where these anatomical landmarks are that designate the wound on the right side of Kennedy`s head.

> I REPEATEDLY use the medical terms. Why are you terrified of
> admitting that the large wound was in the back of the head?

The anatomical landmarks given show where the wound was. On the right side of Kennedy`s head. Same place it is seen in the Zapruder film.

> > By looking at the right things I can determine where the wound
> > was.
>
>
> Chickenshit, the child molester that can't support his own claims...

I can and anyone else can also. You just have to be honest enough to do it. Anyone can look at the anatomical landmarks given and search for those anatomical landmarks. You can look up the "targus, the "orbital ridge", ect. You can use those landmarks to determine the extent of the wound on the right side of Kennedy`s head. You just have to be honest, rather than playing silly childish games.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:50:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Every time you refuse to answer simple questions you are admitting
that you CANNOT answer those questions.

You lose!

>>>> clearly *YOU* are now doing the same.
>>>>
>>>> Why do these simple questions terrify you so much?
>>>
>>> Why aren`t you interested in where the autopsy placed the wound
>>> using anatomical landmarks?
>>
>> I am.
>
> No, you aren`t.

Yes. I am. And as I'm the sole expert on this entire planet for what
I'm interested in, you lose.

>> I REPEATEDLY use the medical terms. Why are you terrified of
>> admitting that the large wound was in the back of the head?
>
> The anatomical landmarks given show where the wound was. On the
> right side of Kennedy`s head. Same place it is seen in the Zapruder
> film.

You're just TERRIFIED of acknowledging that JFK had a large wound on
the back of his head, aren't you?

Just as Davey is...

>>> By looking at the right things I can determine where the wound
>>> was.
>>
>> Chickenshit, the child molester that can't support his own claims...
>
> I can and anyone else can also.

THEN DO IT COWARD!!! DEFINE BY CITATION THE "RIGHT THINGS."

If you cannot, then you are indeed a child molester that can't support
his own claims.