Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #12

[Ben Holmes]

Continuing to refute David Von Pein's RIDICULOUS notion that he's
supported his claim of anyone's "sole guilt" in the JFK case, here we
have an absolutely STUPID item to refute... one that COMPLETELY fails
to support the "sole guilt" of anyone of anything:

>12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
> and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of
> 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.

This just about doesn't even need refutation... but I'll indulge
myself and laugh at David anyway.

First - it's obvious that this particular item fails to support
Oswald's guilt of ANYTHING AT ALL.

There are literally MILLIONS of men who at least occasionally leave
their wedding ring at home... and virtually NO ONE AT ALL carries all
the money they have on them.

I don't always wear my ring, and I rarely have more than $20 being
personally carried, which is actually far less than what Oswald
carried when inflation is taken into account.
http://www.in2013dollars.com/1963-dollars-in-2017?amount=13.87

So which murder do you accuse me of?

David's "logic" is so far off that it's actually worth a good laugh!

Watch as he REFUSES to address this!

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 11:30:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Continuing to refute David Von Pein's RIDICULOUS notion that he's
> supported his claim of anyone's "sole guilt" in the JFK case, here we
> have an absolutely STUPID item to refute... one that COMPLETELY fails
> to support the "sole guilt" of anyone of anything:
>
> >12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
> > and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of
> > 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
>
> This just about doesn't even need refutation...

And it won`t get any either, lurkers.

> but I'll indulge
> myself and laugh at David anyway.

Ben should try not to wet himself, lurkers.

> First - it's obvious that this particular item fails to support
> Oswald's guilt of ANYTHING AT ALL.

This is why stumps are never asked to investigate crime, lurkers. Can you lurkers see Sherlock shit-for-brains investigate a guy who`s wife died mysteriously the day after he took out millions in life insurance on her? "People take life insurance policies out all the time" would be detective dumbass`s reasoning.

> There are literally MILLIONS of men who at least occasionally leave
> their wedding ring at home...

Oswald wasn`t home, lurkers. He was at someone else`s home.

> and virtually NO ONE AT ALL carries all
> the money they have on them.

What a slippery, sleazy, slimy argument, lurkers. DVP`s "and just about every dime he had to his name" becomes Ben`s strawman "...NO ONE AT ALL carries all the money they have on them."

> I don't always wear my ring, and I rarely have more than $20 being
> personally carried, which is actually far less than what Oswald
> carried when inflation is taken into account.
> http://www.in2013dollars.com/1963-dollars-in-2017?amount=13.87

Ben is stupid like a fox, lurkers. One of the things about conspiracy retards is their inability to properly make distinctions. They isolate information out of context and then make false equivalency arguments. They are playing silly games.

> So which murder do you accuse me of?

Real crime investigators might find any change in a suspects routine significant, lurkers. Especially on this day, which Ben seems to be intent as treating like any other day because he is playing silly games with these men`s deaths.

> David's "logic" is so far off that it's actually worth a good laugh!

I`m hopeful Ben took my advice and refrained from wetting himself, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 11:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 11:30:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Continuing to refute David Von Pein's RIDICULOUS notion that he's
>> supported his claim of anyone's "sole guilt" in the JFK case, here we
>> have an absolutely STUPID item to refute... one that COMPLETELY fails
>> to support the "sole guilt" of anyone of anything:
>>
>> >12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
>> > and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of
>> > 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
>>
>> This just about doesn't even need refutation...
>
> And it won`t get any either, lurkers.

stump couldn't refute the charge that it needed none. It doesn't
support Oswald's "sole guilt" of anything at all.

>> but I'll indulge
>> myself and laugh at David anyway.
>
> Ben should try not to wet himself, lurkers.

stump never learned moral character. The blame, obviously, falls on
his parents.

>> First - it's obvious that this particular item fails to support
>> Oswald's guilt of ANYTHING AT ALL.
>
> This is why stumps are never asked to investigate crime, lurkers.

Its takes a true moron to equate these actions of Oswald with murder.

>> There are literally MILLIONS of men who at least occasionally leave
>> their wedding ring at home...
>
> Oswald wasn`t home, lurkers. He was at someone else`s home.

A completely meaningless whimper on stump's part.

>> and virtually NO ONE AT ALL carries all
>> the money they have on them.
>
> What a slippery, sleazy, slimy argument, lurkers. DVP`s "and just
> about every dime he had to his name" becomes Ben`s strawman "...NO ONE
> AT ALL carries all the money they have on them."

Once again, stump shows what a moron he is. I quite carefully worded
that statement as *VIRTUALLY* no-one... knowing that there are indeed
exceptions... such as homeless people - who can indeed carry all the
money they own on them.

David's argument has been demolished, and stump is left crying.

>> I don't always wear my ring, and I rarely have more than $20 being
>> personally carried, which is actually far less than what Oswald
>> carried when inflation is taken into account.
>> http://www.in2013dollars.com/1963-dollars-in-2017?amount=13.87
>
> Ben is stupid like a fox, lurkers.

Once again, dufus fails to defend David's silly claims against my
refutation.

>> So which murder do you accuse me of?
>

> Real crime investigators...


stump couldn't do it. And David will never dare try...

>> David's "logic" is so far off that it's actually worth a good laugh!
>

> I`m hopeful...


Sorry, you're born with the intelligence you have, and your morals are
learned (or not learned.)

>> Watch as he REFUSES to address this!

And as predicted, David refuses to address this.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 11:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 11:30:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Continuing to refute David Von Pein's RIDICULOUS notion that he's
> >> supported his claim of anyone's "sole guilt" in the JFK case, here we
> >> have an absolutely STUPID item to refute... one that COMPLETELY fails
> >> to support the "sole guilt" of anyone of anything:
> >>
> >> >12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
> >> > and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of
> >> > 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
> >>
> >> This just about doesn't even need refutation...
> >
> > And it won`t get any either, lurkers.
>
>
> stump couldn't refute the charge that it needed none. It doesn't
> support Oswald's "sole guilt" of anything at all.

Bluff and bluster are not refutation, lurkers.

> >> but I'll indulge
> >> myself and laugh at David anyway.
> >
> > Ben should try not to wet himself, lurkers.
>
> stump never learned moral character. The blame, obviously, falls on
> his parents.

I hope Ben followed my advice, lurkers.

> >> First - it's obvious that this particular item fails to support
> >> Oswald's guilt of ANYTHING AT ALL.
> >
> > This is why stumps are never asked to investigate crime, lurkers.
>
> Its takes a true moron to equate these actions of Oswald with murder.

Tards make no connection between Oswald leaving his ring *this* day and the events of *this* day. Which is why tards are never tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

>
> >> There are literally MILLIONS of men who at least occasionally leave
> >> their wedding ring at home...
> >
> > Oswald wasn`t home, lurkers. He was at someone else`s home.
>
>
> A completely meaningless whimper on stump's part.

It blew Ben`s Oswald apologist nonsense right out of the water, lurkers.

> >> and virtually NO ONE AT ALL carries all
> >> the money they have on them.
> >
> > What a slippery, sleazy, slimy argument, lurkers. DVP`s "and just
> > about every dime he had to his name" becomes Ben`s strawman "...NO ONE
> > AT ALL carries all the money they have on them."
>
>
> Once again, stump shows what a moron he is. I quite carefully worded
> that statement as *VIRTUALLY* no-one... knowing that there are indeed
> exceptions... such as homeless people - who can indeed carry all the
> money they own on them.

Never the point, lurkers. DVPs argument was that Oswald left just about all his money. Ben brings up people who leave money in bank accounts and cookie jars and acts as if this somehow speaks to DVP`s point.

> David's argument has been demolished, and stump is left crying.

David`s argument hasn`t been touched yet this retard is doing a victory dance, lurkers.

>
> >> I don't always wear my ring, and I rarely have more than $20 being
> >> personally carried, which is actually far less than what Oswald
> >> carried when inflation is taken into account.
> >> http://www.in2013dollars.com/1963-dollars-in-2017?amount=13.87
> >
> > Ben is stupid like a fox, lurkers.
>
>
> Once again, dufus fails to defend David's silly claims against my
> refutation.

No refutation, lurkers. In fact Ben hasn`t done the slightest harm to a single idea that DVP expressed.

>
> >> So which murder do you accuse me of?
> >
> > Real crime investigators...
>
>
> stump couldn't do it. And David will never dare try...

Ben has to run from my reasoning, lurkers. What choice does he have?

It is always good to bring back the arguments that Ben was forced to flee from, it shows the lurkers what an intellectual coward he actually is...

"Real crime investigators might find any change in a suspects routine significant, lurkers. Especially on this day, which Ben seems to be intent as treating like any other day because he is playing silly games with these men`s deaths."

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:51:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 11:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 11:30:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Continuing to refute David Von Pein's RIDICULOUS notion that he's
>> >> supported his claim of anyone's "sole guilt" in the JFK case, here we
>> >> have an absolutely STUPID item to refute... one that COMPLETELY fails
>> >> to support the "sole guilt" of anyone of anything:
>> >>
>> >> >12.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
>> >> > and just about every dime he had to his name ($170), on the morning of
>> >> > 11/22/63. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
>> >>
>> >> This just about doesn't even need refutation...
>> >
>> > And it won`t get any either, lurkers.
>>
>> stump couldn't refute the charge that it needed none. It doesn't
>> support Oswald's "sole guilt" of anything at all.
>
> Bluff and bluster are not refutation, lurkers.

There's no "bluff" and there's no "bluster" in the fact that this item
of David's completely fails to support his claim of the "sole guilt"
of Oswald.

It's simply a fact.

Claiming that it's "bluff and bluster" is not a refutation.

>> >> but I'll indulge
>> >> myself and laugh at David anyway.
>> >
>> > Ben should try not to wet himself, lurkers.
>>
>> stump never learned moral character. The blame, obviously, falls on
>> his parents.
>
> I hope Ben followed my advice, lurkers.

Following "advice" from someone deficit in moral character is never a
smart thing to do.

>> >> First - it's obvious that this particular item fails to support
>> >> Oswald's guilt of ANYTHING AT ALL.
>> >
>> > This is why stumps are never asked to investigate crime, lurkers.
>>
>> Its takes a true moron to equate these actions of Oswald with murder.
>

> I'm a Tard...

I'm guessing that you'll never learn.

>> >> There are literally MILLIONS of men who at least occasionally leave
>> >> their wedding ring at home...
>> >
>> > Oswald wasn`t home, lurkers. He was at someone else`s home.
>>
>> A completely meaningless whimper on stump's part.
>
> It blew Ben`s Oswald apologist nonsense right out of the water,
> lurkers.

It was a *completely* meaningless whimper on your part.

You were COMPLETELY unable to refute my statement.

>> >> and virtually NO ONE AT ALL carries all
>> >> the money they have on them.
>> >
>> > What a slippery, sleazy, slimy argument, lurkers. DVP`s "and just
>> > about every dime he had to his name" becomes Ben`s strawman "...NO ONE
>> > AT ALL carries all the money they have on them."
>>
>>
>> Once again, stump shows what a moron he is. I quite carefully worded
>> that statement as *VIRTUALLY* no-one... knowing that there are indeed
>> exceptions... such as homeless people - who can indeed carry all the
>> money they own on them.
>
> Never the point, lurkers. DVPs argument was that Oswald left just
> about all his money.

He didn't. He carried more money than you make in a day.

> Ben brings up people who leave money in bank accounts and cookie
> jars and acts as if this somehow speaks to DVP`s point.

Indeed it did. Homeless people are virtually the *only* ones who carry
with them all the money they have.

Oswald wasn't homeless. It's *NATURAL* that he'd leave larger sums at
home.

>> David's argument has been demolished, and stump is left crying.
>
> David`s argument hasn`t been touched

His argument doesn't support his claim.


> I'm a retard is doing a victory dance, lurkers.

It's a good thing when you're proud of your potty training.

>> >> I don't always wear my ring, and I rarely have more than $20 being
>> >> personally carried, which is actually far less than what Oswald
>> >> carried when inflation is taken into account.
>> >> http://www.in2013dollars.com/1963-dollars-in-2017?amount=13.87
>> >
>> > Ben is stupid like a fox, lurkers.
>>
>> Once again, dufus fails to defend David's silly claims against my
>> refutation.
>

> No refutation...

As I pointed out, none needed.

stump is *COMPLETELY* unable to show anything unusual here.

>> >> So which murder do you accuse me of?
>> >
>> > Real crime investigators...
>>
>> stump couldn't do it. And David will never dare try...
>
> Ben has to run from my reasoning

I'm *APPLYING* David's reasoning.

The fact that you can't show that I've murdered anyone is a complete
refutation of the idea that if you leave money at home, and leave a
ring at home, that you're the sole person guilty of murder.

> It is always good to bring back the arguments that Ben was forced
> to flee from, it shows the lurkers what an intellectual coward he
> actually is...

And yet you can't do it.

> "Real crime investigators might find any change in a suspects
> routine significant, lurkers. Especially on this day, which Ben seems
> to be intent as treating like any other day because he is playing
> silly games with these men`s deaths."

No, this is convicting the person *FIRST*, then using anything and
everything as evidence of guilt.

If anyone who left money & ring at home were convicted of murder, most
people would be in prison.

>> >> David's "logic" is so far off that it's actually worth a good laugh!
>> >
>> > I`m hopeful...
>>
>> Sorry, you're born with the intelligence you have, and your morals are
>> learned (or not learned.)
>
>> >> Watch as he REFUSES to address this!
>>
>> And as predicted, David refuses to address this.

David is *such* a coward!