Why Is Davy Von Penis Afraid Of Bugliosi Being REFUTED?

[Ben Holmes]

The question speaks for itself.

The forum's leading defender of Vincent Bugliosi absolutely REFUSES to
defend Bugliosi's "53 Reasons"...

I wonder why?

[Charles Schuyler]

Defend from what?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:28:14?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> The question speaks for itself.
>>
>> The forum's leading defender of Vincent Bugliosi absolutely REFUSES to
>> defend Bugliosi's "53 Reasons"...
>>
>> I wonder why?
>
>Defend from what?

Being refuted, of course. Are you stupid?

[Charles Schuyler]

> Being refuted, of course. Are you smart?

Yes.

Bugliosi isn't claiming a conspiracy killed JFK. You are.

Look up your answers here:

https://www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:41:27 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:28:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:28:14?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> The question speaks for itself.
>>>>
>>>> The forum's leading defender of Vincent Bugliosi absolutely REFUSES to
>>>> defend Bugliosi's "53 Reasons"...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why?
>>>
>>>Defend from what?
>

>> Being refuted, of course. Are you stupid?

>
>Yes.
>
>Bugliosi isn't claiming a conspiracy killed JFK. You are.

I'm proving it. Davy Von Penis is running from it.

You aren't claiming anything at all, nor defending anything.

You're simply a coward.

[Bud]

Says the person who thinks he can refute someone when they don`t even address their actual arguments.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:28:46?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:28:14?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> The question speaks for itself.
>>>>
>>>> The forum's leading defender of Vincent Bugliosi absolutely REFUSES to
>>>> defend Bugliosi's "53 Reasons"...
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why?
>>>
>>>Defend from what?
>>
>> Being refuted, of course. Are you stupid?

Logical fallacy deleted.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:28:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> The forum's leading defender of Vincent Bugliosi absolutely REFUSES to defend Bugliosi's "53 Reasons".

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes+Bugliosi+53+Reasons

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:53:27 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:28:14?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> The forum's leading defender of Vincent Bugliosi absolutely REFUSES to defend Bugliosi's "53 Reasons".

Posted daily, you ran the LAST time this series was posted, AND YOU'RE
RUNNING AWAY RIGHT NOW!!!

I'm sure that Bugliosi is looking up right now, and isn't very happy
with your cowardice.

But this is what cowards do... they run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[David Von Pein]

From June 2014 (via the Amazon discussion forums, which no longer exist. All traces of the many Amazon forums were completely deleted on October 6, 2017):

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell us David - when I soon begin my 53 refutations of Bugliosi, will you defend what he said?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vince doesn't need my help, Ben. And I'm quite confident that any so-called "refutations of Bugliosi" that a clown named Ben Holmes comes up with will be just as accurate and rib-tickling as the 297 times he has uttered the words "You're a GUTLESS liar, David Von Pein". [https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2NNz8tlSORs/m/Nu-90vkfAQAJ]

In other words, "refutations" from someone of Ben's "Anybody But Oswald" ilk are worth about as much to me as an eleven-dollar bill.

But I will say this about Vince Bugliosi's "53 items of evidence" against Oswald:

Two of those items are things that should not be on the list at all, in my opinion. Those two things being ---

Item #23 (about Oswald changing his pants, which certainly doesn't prove anything one way or the other; and, in fact, I don't think Oswald changed his pants at Beckley at all on 11/22/63).

And:

Item #41 (about the paraffin test, since such tests are very unreliable, and even Mr. Bugliosi knows they are unreliable, so he shouldn't be using such a test as proof of anything).


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Quite a few more than those two [don't belong on Bugliosi's list], Davy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I disagree. Most of the things on Mr. Bugliosi's 53-item list are very solid and worthy of such a list of Oswald-incriminating material. And some of them fall into the "Why Didn't I Ever Think Of That?" category too. (At least for me they do.)

Such as:

Vincent's 19th item, which is a great point Vince makes about Oswald's total silence while in William Whaley's taxicab just after the assassination. Even though Oswald was right there at the scene of the crime just minutes earlier....and even though Oswald has been told by Mrs. Robert Reid that the President has been shot (so even the CTers who think LHO didn't pull the trigger have to admit that Oswald still was made aware of the President being shot by Mrs. Reid)....Lee Oswald still doesn't utter a word to Whaley after Whaley says "I wonder what the hell is the uproar?"

Such silence in that particular situation and at that particular moment in time (and knowing what Oswald definitely did know) is, IMO, highly indicative of "consciousness of guilt" on Lee Harvey Oswald's behalf. Such silence most certainly cannot be utilized to point to Oswald's innocence, can it Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

And you're demonstrating your cowardice.

Don't worry, I'll be posting this series at a few places online - and I'll be sure to mention that you refuse to defend Bugliosi.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Anything, no matter how thorough and comprehensive, can be criticized by people, Ben. The Warren Commission and its very good report being a great example of that. And even LNers such as myself have criticized the Commission for certain things.

And I have criticized a few parts of Vince Bugliosi's book too. The biggest (and weirdest) mistake in the book is probably this one --- http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

But what conspiracy advocates should be doing, instead of constantly bashing Mr. Bugliosi's excellent book to death with meaningless nitpicky things that don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run, is to try and assemble a reasonable and coherent conspiracy plot and shooting scenario that they (the CTers) think really did occur in Dallas to combat the vast array of hard facts and physical evidence that Vincent Bugliosi has placed on the table via his book "Reclaiming History".

The conspiracy theorists can nitpick Vince all they want (and they do), but the overall case of Lee Oswald's guilt is still going to exist within the many pages of "Reclaiming History"---regardless of what any nitpicking CTer has to say about that evidence.

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-719.html

[Bud]

This is what can be expected to occur with any responses to your series.

I won`t be reading it.

[David Von Pein]

Continued....
From 2014....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Let's read what Bugliosi said:

"Has the evidence in this case proved Oswald's guilt to the point where we know that there must be an innocent explanation, one that in no way disturbs the conclusion of Oswald's guilt, to whatever question a Warren Commission critic or conspiracy theorist has about the case? Yes, unquestionably so. In very abbreviated and summary form, let's look at most of that evidence."

So Vincent Bugliosi states that this is "evidence" which 'proves Oswald's guilt'.

And Bugliosi DOES say that this is proof of Oswald's guilt. Bugliosi DOES believe that Oswald's silence [in the cab] indicts him. So are you going to add #19 to the list of the 53 items that you don't believe?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben has put on his "Thick Head" hat today. How nice.

So, Ben will pretend that Vince is saying that each item on his 53-item list--individually!--spells out definitive GUILT against Lee Harvey Oswald. When, of course, Vince isn't suggesting that at all---and Ben knows that full well. But Ben-boy is going to pretend that each individual item isn't part of the TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE that comprises the fabric of Oswald's guilt.

Each item--by itself--doesn't necessarily add up to LHO's obvious guilt. But when added together, the items on Vince's list (with a couple of exceptions, IMO) positively do paint a clear picture of a guilty Lee H. Oswald.

But instead of evaluating the SUM TOTAL of all fifty-three items on VB's list, Ben Holmes will nitpick to death each item separately in an attempt to isolate things and tear down Vincent's clearly-established "mosaic of guilt" (as Vince likes to say).

But I'd expect nothing less from an Anybody-But-Oz CTer like Ben Holmes. I've yet to encounter a single CT clown who possessed the ability to properly evaluate a "sum total" of evidence like that exhibited by Vincent T. Bugliosi in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in "Reclaiming History".

But go ahead and play your little "refutation" game with Bugliosi's 53 items. And then I can always refer to this post I'm writing now to combat a person named Holmes who couldn't evaluate evidence in the JFK case properly if his life hung in the balance.

Again....

It's the SUM TOTAL of those fifty-three items that proves Oswald's guilt. That's what Vince is saying in his "Summary" chapter.

Why on Earth does this obvious stuff need to be explained to you, Ben?

Let's now take a look at the stuff Mr. Bugliosi said in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter that Ben didn't want to share.....

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 952 of "Reclaiming History"

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-719.html

[David Von Pein]

Continued....
Part 3 from 2014....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Yep... and there it is folks!!! PROOF of what I've already claimed... that you *START* with the presumption of guilt, then take any and all actions or inactions of your presumed murderer to indict him. Were you to admit the possibility of his innocence - YOU WOULDN'T FIND ANYTHING AT ALL UNUSUAL ABOUT SOMEONE NOT TALKING IN A CAB. Not, of course, that I'd expect you to admit this... but it's true, nonetheless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben's inability to see that forest for the trees is reaching staggering proportions.

So, according to Ben, I should indeed ISOLATE each piece of evidence and separate it from the sum total (or the "whole"), such as the Oswald-in-the-cab example. And apparently I should NEVER ever be allowed to ADD UP the various pieces of evidence (including Oswald's actions and movements on November 22) in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion based on EVERYTHING, not just isolated pieces.

Brilliant strategy to exonerate your patsy, Ben. By isolating and separating every single thing Oswald did or said on 11/22/63, OF COURSE you can pretend he is squeaky clean of the two murders he committed. Because, yes, all by itself Oswald's silence in the taxicab doesn't PROVE he murdered John F. Kennedy. But when we take that one single thing and add it into the sum total of everything else, that cab incident can take on a new meaning.

But according to Ben, I'm not allowed to add up the various pieces of evidence in order to form a "sum total" or a "whole". I must ALWAYS keep the cab incident isolated and separate.

It looks like the text I just quoted above from Mr. Bugliosi was spot-on correct when talking about Ben Holmes' methods of solving the case.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-719.html

[David Von Pein]

Continued....
Part 4 from 2014....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Since you can't point to even *ONE* time where you supported such claims [of LHO being the owner of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766], why bother lying, Davy?

People are only going to wonder why you can't just 'cut & paste' your previous posts where you detailed this evidence.

Why the cowardice Davy?

Can't you produce this evidence???


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh goodie! Another fine treat from Ben "Obviously No Relation To Sherlock" Holmes! He's now going to pretend I've never provided any evidence in any post I've ever written to back up the notion that LHO ordered and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle No. C2766. (As we have all seen, Ben does a lot of pretending.)

Of course, WHY any conspiracist wants to run away from the rock-solid fact that Oswald (the CTers' favorite patsy) was the owner of Rifle C2766 is anyone's guess. I never have been able to figure the logic of that maneuver by the CT clowns. Because it's much much better for the CT clowns if C2766 WAS, indeed, Oswald's own rifle. The CTers' make-believe plotters could then have framed Sweet Lee with his own rifle that Oswald himself bought and paid for.

Instead, the conspiracy clowns have unknown plotters jumping through a variety of hoops--faking Klein's records and faking Oswald's signature and then faking backyard photos--in order to create from whole cloth a paper trail and a photo trail leading to Patsy Lee Harvey.

(Silly plotters. They should have found a way to transfer Thomas Vallee to Dallas for Patsy Plot #2 in November 1963. At least Mr. Vallee owned a bunch of guns they could easily frame him with. Or were all of Vallee's guns "planted" too?)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/02/dvp-vs-various-conspiracy-theorists.html

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:23:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Continued....
> Part 3 from 2014....
>
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Yep... and there it is folks!!! PROOF of what I've already claimed... that you *START* with the presumption of guilt, then take any and all actions or inactions of your presumed murderer to indict him. Were you to admit the possibility of his innocence - YOU WOULDN'T FIND ANYTHING AT ALL UNUSUAL ABOUT SOMEONE NOT TALKING IN A CAB. Not, of course, that I'd expect you to admit this... but it's true, nonetheless.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Ben's inability to see that forest for the trees is reaching staggering proportions.
>
> So, according to Ben, I should indeed ISOLATE each piece of evidence and separate it from the sum total (or the "whole"),

Even firing a gun becomes meaningless if you rule out considering whether someone was hit by the bullet fired.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So you're admitting that all you'll post are logical fallacies?

> I won`t be reading it.

Believers ALWAYS run from the evidence. That's what cowards do.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:36:34 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>From June 2014 (via the Amazon discussion forums, which no longer exist. All traces of the many Amazon forums were completely deleted on October 6, 2017):
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:

Why do you bother posting what I say? You can't refute me, you run
every single time...

I'm RIGHT HERE, and responding daily... coward, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Continued....
>From 2014....
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:23:31 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Continued....
>Part 3 from 2014....
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:38:45 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Continued....
>Part 4 from 2014....
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:

[John Corbett]

> I'm RIGHT HERE, and lying daily... I'm a coward, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:39:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:52:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:36:34 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>From June 2014 (via the Amazon discussion forums, which no longer exist. All traces of the many Amazon forums were completely deleted on October 6, 2017):
>>>
>>>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>> Why do you bother posting what I say? You can't refute me, you run
>> every single time...
>>

>> I'm RIGHT HERE, and responding daily... coward, aren't you?

And here we see that Corbutt had nothing to say...

[John Corbett]

Oh, I thought you were going to present your scenario here. My bad.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:33:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Already posted... you've never responded.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 14:49:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:23:32?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Continued....
>> Part 3 from 2014....
>>
>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>
>> Yep... and there it is folks!!! PROOF of what I've already claimed... that you *START* with the presumption of guilt, then take any and all actions or inactions of your presumed murderer to indict him. Were you to admit the possibility of his innocence - YOU WOULDN'T FIND ANYTHING AT ALL UNUSUAL ABOUT SOMEONE NOT TALKING IN A CAB. Not, of course, that I'd expect you to admit this... but it's true, nonetheless.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Ben's inability to see that forest for the trees is reaching staggering proportions.
>>
>> So, according to Ben, I should indeed ISOLATE each piece of evidence and separate it from the sum total (or the "whole"),
>
> Even firing a gun becomes meaningless if you rule out considering whether someone was hit by the bullet fired.

You morons can't deal with what I ACTUALLY say... so you have to
invent things.

Today, for example, I refuted Bugliosi's ENTIRE statement, and
Chickenshit hasn't yet responded...

Coward, aren't you?