Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Proven Lies Of The Warren Commission (#10)
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 29, 2021, 9:15:01 PM4/29/21
to
"Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that
same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials
in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United
Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But
on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at
the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki
Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that
Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's
a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence:
Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there
were no commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could
have taken in order to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See
CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a non-commercial
flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so the
simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day
Oswald left London...
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
(And why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?)
same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials
in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United
Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But
on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at
the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki
Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that
Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's
a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence:
Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there
were no commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could
have taken in order to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See
CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a non-commercial
flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so the
simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day
Oswald left London...
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
(And why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?)
Message has been deleted
David Von Pein
Apr 29, 2021, 10:20:16 PM4/29/21
to
From 2007.......
CONSPIRACY THEORIST BEN HOLMES SAID:
[Quoting the Warren Commission Report:]
"Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence: Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7 and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh boy! The dates are a WHOLE DAY off! I guess this MUST mean that a
massive conspiracy to kill future President John F. Kennedy FOUR YEARS
LATER was afoot!
Or maybe that horrendous 24-hour discrepancy in the dates means that
Lee Oswald was in the employ of the CIA or the military or ONI or
Boeing Aircraft Company or Castro or the National Biscuit Company or
_______ (fill in the agency of your choice). Right, Ben?
Geesh. (And a chuckle.)
BTW, while digging into this matter concerning the October 1959 dates
a little deeper, I found that the Warren Commission fully understood
and dealt with the discrepancy that Ben thinks the Commission just flat-out
"lied" about....because the WC, via its abundant source notes, states in
Source Note #480 on Page 862 of the WCR (which is a Source Note that
pertains to CE2677) that "Oswald could have arrived at 5:05 p.m.,
flying via Copenhagen, or at 5:35 p.m., via Stockholm. See Official Airline
Guide, North American Edition, October 1959, p. C-721. But he would have
been too late to visit the Russian consulate that day. See CE 2714".
So it's fairly obvious that the Commission knew that there were some slight
discrepancies regarding the exact flight that Oswald might have taken
from London to Helsinki. But the fact is, the WC acknowledges the
discrepancy and deals with it accordingly....otherwise WHY would they
even be referencing CE2677 at all in that Source Note that I mentioned?
Just about every little thing you can think of is sourced in the Warren Report,
which is quite strange, don't you think, if the WC wanted to hide something
or keep the public from finding out the truth or keep people from looking
up a source, etc?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And why can't kooks like Benjamin Holmes ever slap together a cohesive conspiracy plot that makes some semblance of reasonable sense?
Instead, all Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
right (like his silly One Day Off attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-Kook
above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
(when Oswald was 19 years of age).
Does Ben think Oswald was employed by some covert agency when he was a
teenager? And was it that Ben-imagined covert agency that was controlling
Oswald and perhaps forced him to apply for that hardship discharge from
the Marine Corps in 1959 (at just exactly the same time when Oswald's
mother had suffered a disabling injury, so that Lee could conveniently use
that accident of Marguerite's as an excuse to lie to his Marine superiors
and get out of the Corps on that "hardship" excuse)?
Maybe the "covert agency" controlling Oswald's destiny also "arranged"
Marguerite Oswald's "accident" in late 1959 too. Huh, Ben?
Ben's silly "Provable Lies" threads are nothing but endless nit-picking to
the Nth degree.
And it's quite obvious to me why kooks like Ben perform this daily nit-
picking task as they pore over the WC and HSCA (or whatever document
they might choose to look at sideways on a particular day) --- It's
because those conspiracists of Ben's strange ilk have got nothing else
that they can resort to (in order to keep the idea of their imagined
multi-gun conspiracy alive) EXCEPT nit-picking to death such stupid and
meaningless crap like the "October 9 vs. October 10" discrepancy
propped up by Ben above.
Ben, in essence, prefers the "October 9 vs. 10" chaff rather than the
"Oswald's Guns Killed JFK and Tippit" wheat.
Ben has a curious chaff-seeking hobby indeed.
Another excellent example of Ben's attraction toward meaningless stuff
in the JFK case is the "Dial Ryder/Gun Scope" incident. Ben loves that
piece of chaff too.
Vincent Bugliosi (as usual) summed up the thinking of conspiracy-happy
kooks quite nicely, via the words reprinted below:
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- Vince Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why do the trolls & LNT'ers [Lone Nut Theorists] keep running away from these ["Provabe Lies Of The Warren Commission"] posts?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Probably because they're meaningless and ultra-trivial, and because
each silly thread contains stupid, unsupportable, and (frankly) vile
allegations against the Warren Commission and its staff.
In addition: Those forum threads are often ignored because the junk in
them is being uttered by a kook of the "mega" variety named Benjamin
Holmes.
Do I need still more reasons to avoid them? Granted, I didn't avoid
this particular thread....and that's because the trivial and idiotic
nature of the thread struck me as even more idiotic and trivial than
Ben's norm (as incredible as that might seem). So, I responded with a
dose of CS&L [common sense & logic]....which is common sense that
will, of course, be tossed in the trash by a certain rabid conspiracist,
naturally.
Ben The Mega-Kook, of course, will continue to disgorge more and more
"October 9 vs. 10"-like hunks of ridiculous chaff in the future too.
He's got to....because he's made it his life's work to try and discredit
the perfectly acceptable lone-assassin conclusion reached by the
Warren Commission.
But what we'll never see out of Ben is proof of the massive conspiracy
he so desperately WANTS to uncover by way of his chaff-hunting
efforts.
In short, we'll never see Ben place on the table anything of SUBSTANCE
as he tries to prove his make-believe "plot(s)". For, if he had
anything truly substantive to place on the evidence table, we
certainly would have seen it by this December 2007 date. Right, Ben?
David Von Pein
December 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 11, 2007):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/mFAsfIvnFLg/mwdSbCcFegMJ
CONSPIRACY THEORIST BEN HOLMES SAID:
[Quoting the Warren Commission Report:]
"Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh boy! The dates are a WHOLE DAY off! I guess this MUST mean that a
massive conspiracy to kill future President John F. Kennedy FOUR YEARS
LATER was afoot!
Or maybe that horrendous 24-hour discrepancy in the dates means that
Lee Oswald was in the employ of the CIA or the military or ONI or
Boeing Aircraft Company or Castro or the National Biscuit Company or
_______ (fill in the agency of your choice). Right, Ben?
Geesh. (And a chuckle.)
BTW, while digging into this matter concerning the October 1959 dates
a little deeper, I found that the Warren Commission fully understood
and dealt with the discrepancy that Ben thinks the Commission just flat-out
"lied" about....because the WC, via its abundant source notes, states in
Source Note #480 on Page 862 of the WCR (which is a Source Note that
pertains to CE2677) that "Oswald could have arrived at 5:05 p.m.,
flying via Copenhagen, or at 5:35 p.m., via Stockholm. See Official Airline
Guide, North American Edition, October 1959, p. C-721. But he would have
been too late to visit the Russian consulate that day. See CE 2714".
So it's fairly obvious that the Commission knew that there were some slight
discrepancies regarding the exact flight that Oswald might have taken
from London to Helsinki. But the fact is, the WC acknowledges the
discrepancy and deals with it accordingly....otherwise WHY would they
even be referencing CE2677 at all in that Source Note that I mentioned?
Just about every little thing you can think of is sourced in the Warren Report,
which is quite strange, don't you think, if the WC wanted to hide something
or keep the public from finding out the truth or keep people from looking
up a source, etc?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
And why can't kooks like Benjamin Holmes ever slap together a cohesive conspiracy plot that makes some semblance of reasonable sense?
Instead, all Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
right (like his silly One Day Off attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-Kook
above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
(when Oswald was 19 years of age).
Does Ben think Oswald was employed by some covert agency when he was a
teenager? And was it that Ben-imagined covert agency that was controlling
Oswald and perhaps forced him to apply for that hardship discharge from
the Marine Corps in 1959 (at just exactly the same time when Oswald's
mother had suffered a disabling injury, so that Lee could conveniently use
that accident of Marguerite's as an excuse to lie to his Marine superiors
and get out of the Corps on that "hardship" excuse)?
Maybe the "covert agency" controlling Oswald's destiny also "arranged"
Marguerite Oswald's "accident" in late 1959 too. Huh, Ben?
Ben's silly "Provable Lies" threads are nothing but endless nit-picking to
the Nth degree.
And it's quite obvious to me why kooks like Ben perform this daily nit-
picking task as they pore over the WC and HSCA (or whatever document
they might choose to look at sideways on a particular day) --- It's
because those conspiracists of Ben's strange ilk have got nothing else
that they can resort to (in order to keep the idea of their imagined
multi-gun conspiracy alive) EXCEPT nit-picking to death such stupid and
meaningless crap like the "October 9 vs. October 10" discrepancy
propped up by Ben above.
Ben, in essence, prefers the "October 9 vs. 10" chaff rather than the
"Oswald's Guns Killed JFK and Tippit" wheat.
Ben has a curious chaff-seeking hobby indeed.
Another excellent example of Ben's attraction toward meaningless stuff
in the JFK case is the "Dial Ryder/Gun Scope" incident. Ben loves that
piece of chaff too.
Vincent Bugliosi (as usual) summed up the thinking of conspiracy-happy
kooks quite nicely, via the words reprinted below:
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- Vince Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why do the trolls & LNT'ers [Lone Nut Theorists] keep running away from these ["Provabe Lies Of The Warren Commission"] posts?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Probably because they're meaningless and ultra-trivial, and because
each silly thread contains stupid, unsupportable, and (frankly) vile
allegations against the Warren Commission and its staff.
In addition: Those forum threads are often ignored because the junk in
them is being uttered by a kook of the "mega" variety named Benjamin
Holmes.
Do I need still more reasons to avoid them? Granted, I didn't avoid
this particular thread....and that's because the trivial and idiotic
nature of the thread struck me as even more idiotic and trivial than
Ben's norm (as incredible as that might seem). So, I responded with a
dose of CS&L [common sense & logic]....which is common sense that
will, of course, be tossed in the trash by a certain rabid conspiracist,
naturally.
Ben The Mega-Kook, of course, will continue to disgorge more and more
"October 9 vs. 10"-like hunks of ridiculous chaff in the future too.
He's got to....because he's made it his life's work to try and discredit
the perfectly acceptable lone-assassin conclusion reached by the
Warren Commission.
But what we'll never see out of Ben is proof of the massive conspiracy
he so desperately WANTS to uncover by way of his chaff-hunting
efforts.
In short, we'll never see Ben place on the table anything of SUBSTANCE
as he tries to prove his make-believe "plot(s)". For, if he had
anything truly substantive to place on the evidence table, we
certainly would have seen it by this December 2007 date. Right, Ben?
David Von Pein
December 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 11, 2007):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/mFAsfIvnFLg/mwdSbCcFegMJ
Ben Holmes
Apr 30, 2021, 10:57:39 AM4/30/21
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:20:15 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>"Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that
>>same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials
>>in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United
>>Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But
>>on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at
>>the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki
>>Hotel." (WCR 690)
>>
>>Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that
>>Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's
>>a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence:
>>
>>Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>"Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that
>>same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials
>>in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United
>>Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But
>>on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at
>>the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki
>>Hotel." (WCR 690)
>>
>>Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that
>>Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's
>>a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence:
>>
>>
>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
>>
>>and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
>>
>>and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
>>
>>But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there
>>were no commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could
>>have taken in order to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See
>>CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a non-commercial
>>flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so the
>>simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day
>>Oswald left London...
>>
>>were no commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could
>>have taken in order to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See
>>CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a non-commercial
>>flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so the
>>simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day
>>Oswald left London...
>>
>>Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
>>
>>(And why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?)
>>
>
>Oh boy! The dates are a WHOLE DAY off!
Yep. One day is all you need to prove a coverup. As I described
>Oh boy! The dates are a WHOLE DAY off!
above, they could *NOT* put down the accurate date, as there were
clear and obvious problems with that date.
So they simply lied. They had **NOTHING** to support their changed
date.
And Davy can't defend this lie, so he tries to make light of it. He
tries to turn it into a joke.
But he's not refuted it.
> I guess this MUST mean that a massive conspiracy to kill future
> President John F. Kennedy FOUR YEARS LATER was afoot!
date did *NOT* happen four years earlier, it happened during the
coverup.
This anacronistic error could only be made by a moron or a dishonest
person... take your pick.
Davy Boy often makes mistakes of this sort... and this clearly
explains why he's a believer. He is logically challenged, and cannot
view the evidence as the average person would.
>Or maybe that horrendous 24-hour discrepancy in the dates means that
>Lee Oswald was in the employ of the CIA or the military or ONI or
>Boeing Aircraft Company or Castro or the National Biscuit Company or
>_______ (fill in the agency of your choice). Right, Ben?
>
>Geesh. (And a chuckle.)
defend this lie, so he tries to make a joke out of it.
>BTW, while digging into this matter concerning the October 1959 dates
>a little deeper, I found that the Warren Commission fully understood
>and dealt with the discrepancy that Ben thinks the Commission just flat-out
>"lied" about....because the WC, via its abundant source notes, states in
>Source Note #480 on Page 862 of the WCR (which is a Source Note that
>pertains to CE2677) that "Oswald could have arrived at 5:05 p.m.,
>flying via Copenhagen, or at 5:35 p.m., via Stockholm. See Official Airline
>Guide, North American Edition, October 1959, p. C-721. But he would have
>been too late to visit the Russian consulate that day. See CE 2714".
to lie about the date for valid (on their part) reasons. This isn't
the WC "dealing with it" - this is the proof that the WC knew exactly
what they were doing when they intentionally lied.
You've not helped the WC by pointing this out, you've only indicted
them further.
And *still* no refutation.
>So it's fairly obvious that the Commission knew that there were some slight
>discrepancies
departure, they had **NOTHING** to show any other date, so they simply
lied, and claimed an earlier date.
And the *REASON* is clear - as I've already explained, and you've
admitted.
Still no refutation...
>regarding the exact flight that Oswald might have taken
>from London to Helsinki. But the fact is, the WC acknowledges the
>discrepancy and deals with it accordingly....otherwise WHY would they
>even be referencing CE2677 at all in that Source Note that I mentioned?
Still no refutation in sight...
>Just about every little thing you can think of is sourced in the Warren Report,
>which is quite strange, don't you think, if the WC wanted to hide something
>or keep the public from finding out the truth or keep people from looking
>up a source, etc?
mistake they made was in releasing the WC volumes. Time and time
again the WCR doesn't reflect the actual evidence.
They lied, and PROVABLY so.
You've not refuted that fact, you've not denied that the date they
gave CONTRADICTS the evidence they had, you've not shown any honesty
on their part at all. So where's your refutation? When are you going
to start?
>> Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
>
> And why can't kooks like Benjamin Holmes ever slap together a
> cohesive conspiracy plot that makes some semblance of reasonable
> sense?
There you go, lying again. I've produced a scenario that YOU
> cohesive conspiracy plot that makes some semblance of reasonable
> sense?
ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO RESPOND TO.
And you know this to be a fact.
Yet you're willing to blatantly lie.
Why does the "truth" require so many lies?
>Instead, all Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
>investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
>right (like his silly One Day Off attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
>even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
>long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
>covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
into a joke?
Still no refutation to be seen anywhere...
>And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-Kook
>above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
>(when Oswald was 19 years of age).
**NOT** occur four years earlier.
This constant attempt at logical fallacies to save you from admitting
that the WC lied simply won't work.
[Logical fallacies deleted.]
>> Why do the trolls & LNT'ers keep running away from these posts?
>
>Probably because they're meaningless and ultra-trivial, and because
>each silly thread contains stupid, unsupportable, and (frankly) vile
>allegations against the Warren Commission and its staff.
And yet, you've been completely unable to explain why the WC simply
>Probably because they're meaningless and ultra-trivial, and because
>each silly thread contains stupid, unsupportable, and (frankly) vile
>allegations against the Warren Commission and its staff.
lied in stating what date Oswald left.
You've used nothing but logical fallacies to make your case, and
you've not REFUTED A SINGLE THING I STATED! (Indeed, you've actually
added further support!)
This is far more likely to be the reason believers don't like to
respond, because they end up looking like morons.
Such as when you started crying that the WCR told this lie four years
earlier.
[Logical fallacies deleted]
>In short, we'll never see Ben place on the table anything of SUBSTANCE
>as he tries to prove his make-believe "plot(s)". For, if he had
>anything truly substantive to place on the evidence table, we
>certainly would have seen it by this December 2007 date. Right, Ben?
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Notice that not a *SINGLE* one has even so much as a *SINGLE* response
from any of the proven cowards... Davy being one of the leading
cowards.
>David Von Pein
>December 2007
>
>LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 11, 2007):
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/mFAsfIvnFLg/mwdSbCcFegMJ
his website with my replies to his nonsense?
This post right here is why he usually refuses to respond... he gets
spanked.
Not only has Davy failed COMPLETELY to refute the facts I laid out,
he's shown to be anacronistically moronic, and fully capable in the
logical fallacies department.
Message has been deleted
Ben Holmes
Apr 30, 2021, 1:10:02 PM4/30/21
to
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:08:05 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Worthy of any replay....
>
>"All Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-82.html
Notice folks, that Davy's too much a coward to actually respond to the
points I raised.
He's a liar and a coward...
How sad that the WC must depend on such people!
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Worthy of any replay....
>
>"All Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
>investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
>right (like his silly "One Day Off" attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
>even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
>long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
>covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
>right (like his silly "One Day Off" attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
>even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
>long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
>covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
>And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-Kook
>above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
>(when Oswald was 19 years of age)." -- DVP; Dec. 2007
>above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-82.html
Notice folks, that Davy's too much a coward to actually respond to the
points I raised.
He's a liar and a coward...
How sad that the WC must depend on such people!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Von Pein
Apr 30, 2021, 1:22:15 PM4/30/21
to
Worthy of a replay.... "All Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
Chuck Schuyler
Apr 30, 2021, 1:23:41 PM4/30/21
to
Your multi-segment hobby-point rant has been extensively dealt with; it's a collection of logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks that goes nowhere and contains no tests or research backing the wacky things you allege occurred, and contains no conclusion other than your oft-stated opinion that Oswald most likely wasn't involved at all.
And Ben wonders why historians don't take him seriously.
Ben Holmes
Apr 30, 2021, 7:09:22 PM4/30/21
to
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:23:40 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:08:05 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Worthy of any replay....
>>>
>>>"All Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
>>>investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
>>>right (like his silly "One Day Off" attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
>>>even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
>>>long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
>>>covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
>>>And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-Kook
>>>above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
>>>(when Oswald was 19 years of age)." -- DVP; Dec. 2007
>>>
>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-82.html
>
>> Notice folks, that Davy's too much a coward to actually respond to the
>> points I raised.
And Chuckles does it again!
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:08:05 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Worthy of any replay....
>>>
>>>"All Ben can do is pick apart the Warren Commission's very extensive
>>>investigation, and whenever he finds something that doesn't look quite
>>>right (like his silly "One Day Off" attempt above at calling the WC "liars"),
>>>even though that "something" doesn't really mean a hill of beans in the
>>>long run, Ben will prop up that slight discrepancy like it proves that a
>>>covert plot of some kind existed regarding JFK's murder.
>>>And, as mentioned, in the instance propped up by Ben The Super-Kook
>>>above, it is something that occurred FOUR YEARS before JFK's assassination
>>>(when Oswald was 19 years of age)." -- DVP; Dec. 2007
>>>
>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-82.html
>
>> Notice folks, that Davy's too much a coward to actually respond to the
>> points I raised.
Ben Holmes
Apr 30, 2021, 7:10:07 PM4/30/21
to
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Worthy of a replay....
You got spanked, Davy Boy, and you can't respond.
Go to your safe place and whine by yourself.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Worthy of a replay....
You got spanked, Davy Boy, and you can't respond.
Go to your safe place and whine by yourself.
0 new messages