"And yet, strangely enough, not ONE SINGLE TIME has any LNT`ers who
make this assertion bothered to *quote* my "lie", and the citation that
makes it a "lie".
Seeing as Ben tells so many lies, I can only attribute this to LNT`er
laziness. So, if for no other reason than to prevent Ben from making
this claim ever again, I will do the very thing that according to Ben
has never happened once before.
On July 16th, in a post entitled "Facts LNT`ers Simply *Hate* (#17),
Ben told this untruth...
"...the ticket specifies the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight."
And the citation that shows it to be a lie, the actual "ticket",
which neither specifies three holes, or what those holes would be
for...
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf
I`m sure Ben will waste no time in retracting his misrepresentation,
and look forward to Ben nevermore claiming that this has never
occurred.
Unless you have a pretty good answer to that, you need to post an
apology.
Robert Harris
In article <1153801447....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
--
There is no question an honest man will evade.
First, thanks for responding, so that now Ben, who has me killfiled,
can see this post. There are a variety of ways to answer your question,
Robert (and as we all know, there are no questions an honest man will
evade), but let me reply in Ben`s crooked manner of framing
information.... "Since Ben is a careful researcher who would never make
claims about a piece of evidence without first checking to see what
that evidence actually said, the claims he made about that ticket
*must* be lies."
> Unless you have a pretty good answer to that,
I had a few, and decided on the one I gave.
> you need to post an
> apology.
I have a better idea. Why don`t I instead make this a series,
documenting some (but not all by a longshot) of the lies Ben has told
in this forum over the years, so that you can leap to his defense and
call for my apologies a number of times?
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > How did you confirm that this was a deliberate lie, rather than an
> > honest mistake, Bud?
>
> First, thanks for responding, so that now Ben, who has me killfiled,
> can see this post. There are a variety of ways to answer your question,
> Robert (and as we all know, there are no questions an honest man will
> evade), but let me reply in Ben`s crooked manner of framing
> information.... "Since Ben is a careful researcher who would never make
> claims about a piece of evidence without first checking to see what
> that evidence actually said, the claims he made about that ticket
> *must* be lies."
I don't understand your use of quotation marks, here Bud. Who are you
citing?
And are you claiming then, that Ben is such a meticulous researcher, he
is incapable of error??
>
> > Unless you have a pretty good answer to that,
>
> I had a few, and decided on the one I gave.
What are numbers two and three, Bud?
>
> > you need to post an
> > apology.
>
> I have a better idea. Why don`t I instead make this a series,
> documenting some (but not all by a longshot) of the lies Ben has told
> in this forum over the years, so that you can leap to his defense and
> call for my apologies a number of times?
Bud, I am sorry you are so offended that I asked you to support your
accusation. But, it seems pretty clear, that you had no reason at all,
to label that statement as a lie rather than an error.
Perhaps, you might consider allocating some of the time you spend
trashing people, to actually researching the case. You could start by
examining the question of why every nonvictim in the limousine was
startled by that mysterious loud noise at Z285.
Robert Harris
It's not a mistake...
>Unless you have a pretty good answer to that, you need to post an
>apology.
>
>
>Robert Harris
>
>
>
>In article <1153801447....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>> Recently, Ben Holmes wrote...
>>
>> "And yet, strangely enough, not ONE SINGLE TIME has any LNT`ers who
>> make this assertion bothered to *quote* my "lie", and the citation that
>> makes it a "lie".
>>
>> Seeing as Ben tells so many lies, I can only attribute this to LNT`er
>> laziness.
And yet, the first time a LNT'er actually does so - it seems that I have an
unimpeachable citation for what I stated. Unimpeachable, that is, to LNT'ers.
>> So, if for no other reason than to prevent Ben from making
>> this claim ever again, I will do the very thing that according to Ben
>> has never happened once before.
>>
>> On July 16th, in a post entitled "Facts LNT`ers Simply *Hate* (#17),
>> Ben told this untruth...
>>
>> "...the ticket specifies the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>> telescopic sight."
>>
>> And the citation that shows it to be a lie,
Well, let's *look* at the citation that I'd previously mentioned:
"Commission finding. - Dial D. Ryder, an employee of the Irving Sprots Shop,
has stated that he found on his workbench on November 23 an undated work tag
with the name "Oswald" on it, indicating that sometime during the first 2 weeks
of November three holes had been bored in a rifle and a telescopic sight mounted
on it and boresighted." WCR, page 646.
So Bud is arguing that the WC lied? Okay... I believe that.
But sadly, Bud can't argue that *I* lied. I used a citation that LNT'ers can't
impeach.
>> the actual "ticket",
>> which neither specifies three holes, or what those holes would be
>> for...
>>
>>
>>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf
>>
>> I`m sure Ben will waste no time in retracting his misrepresentation,
>> and look forward to Ben nevermore claiming that this has never
>> occurred.
Nope. This is the reason I always demand that someone *QUOTE* my lie, and
provide the citation that "proves" it false. So that lurkers can see that
you've accused me of believing the WCR, and that the WCR lied.
Embarrassing, isn't it Bud?
That was me giving a response in the manner that Ben typically
responds. It was a difficult concept, and I thought the quotes would
make it easier to understand that it was meant to be partially a
chracterization. I`m an imperfect practitioner of the English language,
you were right to ask for a clarification, what is clear to me might
not seem so to you.
> And are you claiming then, that Ben is such a meticulous researcher, he
> is incapable of error??
Well, then, if it`s simply an error, he would welcome a correction,
and will retract and correct, right? But, for reasons made clear in the
thread this excerpt was lifted from, he doesn`t consider it an error.
Since it is an untruth he knows to be untrue, I`m calling it a lie, and
Ben a liar. Don`t worry, Harris, if it was you, I wouldn`t use this
same approach. Ben has pulled this same shit hundreds of times, on
dozens of people. It`s called "turnabouts" and it`s fair play.
> > > Unless you have a pretty good answer to that,
> >
> > I had a few, and decided on the one I gave.
>
> What are numbers two and three, Bud?
The one I allude to above, payback. That Ben is considered by some
to be the nominal leader of the CT faction, so taking him down a peg is
a worthwhile exercise. Annoyance that Ben feels that it`s ok for him
tell lies as long as his motives are pure.
I had others in my original response to you that I removed, and no
longer recall.
> > > you need to post an
> > > apology.
> >
> > I have a better idea. Why don`t I instead make this a series,
> > documenting some (but not all by a longshot) of the lies Ben has told
> > in this forum over the years, so that you can leap to his defense and
> > call for my apologies a number of times?
>
> Bud, I am sorry you are so offended that I asked you to support your
> accusation.
Apology accepted.
> But, it seems pretty clear, that you had no reason at all,
> to label that statement as a lie rather than an error.
I didn`t include all the context for the dispute in my posting, in
order to get that you`d need to read the entire series (Things that
LNT`ers *Hate* (#17). I only included the part that Ben was calling
for, a quote of his lie, and the citation that established it as such.
> Perhaps, you might consider allocating some of the time you spend
> trashing people, to actually researching the case.
You want me to turn from worthwhile, productive pursuits to boldly
go where tens of thousands have gone before? The problems aren`t with
the case, it`s with the kooks. Only by addressing the real cause of
problems can problems be cured.
> You could start by
> examining the question of why every nonvictim in the limousine was
> startled by that mysterious loud noise at Z285.
You can hear loud noises on the z-film? You need to get out more.
No, it`s a lie. Purposeful and deceitful.
> >Unless you have a pretty good answer to that, you need to post an
> >apology.
> >
> >
> >Robert Harris
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <1153801447....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Recently, Ben Holmes wrote...
> >>
> >> "And yet, strangely enough, not ONE SINGLE TIME has any LNT`ers who
> >> make this assertion bothered to *quote* my "lie", and the citation that
> >> makes it a "lie".
> >>
> >> Seeing as Ben tells so many lies, I can only attribute this to LNT`er
> >> laziness.
>
> And yet, the first time a LNT'er actually does so - it seems that I have an
> unimpeachable citation for what I stated. Unimpeachable, that is, to LNT'ers.
Cite anything you want. *You* purposely misrepresented this
information.
> >> So, if for no other reason than to prevent Ben from making
> >> this claim ever again, I will do the very thing that according to Ben
> >> has never happened once before.
> >>
> >> On July 16th, in a post entitled "Facts LNT`ers Simply *Hate* (#17),
> >> Ben told this untruth...
> >>
> >> "...the ticket specifies the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> >> telescopic sight."
> >>
> >> And the citation that shows it to be a lie,
>
> Well, let's *look* at the citation that I'd previously mentioned:
>
> "Commission finding. - Dial D. Ryder, an employee of the Irving Sprots Shop,
> has stated that he found on his workbench on November 23 an undated work tag
> with the name "Oswald" on it, indicating that sometime during the first 2 weeks
> of November three holes had been bored in a rifle and a telescopic sight mounted
> on it and boresighted." WCR, page 646.
What the fuck difference does it make who said what? Ben Holmes said
this "ticket" contained certain specific information, which he went on
to mention. This "ticket" does not contain that specific information.
Ben knew it did not. That makes what he said a lie. Had he framed his
statement that a employee at the shop thought the ticket indicated
certain work being done, that would have been honest. Ben Holmes choose
to lie instead.
And imagine the precident Ben is now setting. All I need to do now
is offer a Commission finding, and that in itself makes it an
established fact. Ben Holmes, WC defender.
> So Bud is arguing that the WC lied?
No, you. The Warren Commission didn`t come to this newsgroup, and
write that lie, Ben Holmes did.
> Okay... I believe that.
>
> But sadly, Bud can't argue that *I* lied. I used a citation that LNT'ers can't
> impeach.
You didn`t site the WC in your original post pertaining to this
matter. Had you said, "according to WC findings, three holes were
drilled for the mounting of a telescopic sight", or some such thing,
that may have been truthful. You saying that tag contained certain
specific information was a lie. Will you be a man and retract?
Doubtful. Will you admit that at least once, an LNT`er has quoted you,
and shown what you said to be a lie? Never. And can you imagine if I
had the resources that kooks have poured into their assault on the WC?
Give me ten researchers pouring through everything you`ve written on
this newsgroup, I`d bet hundreds of lies could be located. I know of
around eight offhand, and only laziness and poor computing skills
prevent me from exploiting them.
> >> the actual "ticket",
> >> which neither specifies three holes, or what those holes would be
> >> for...
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf
> >>
> >> I`m sure Ben will waste no time in retracting his misrepresentation,
> >> and look forward to Ben nevermore claiming that this has never
> >> occurred.
>
> Nope.
I knew you wouldn`t, this isn`t the first time you`ve been caught
red-handed and refused to retract. Tony just got you on your claim
about polls (from memory, something like "up to 90% would include at
least one instance of a poll finding of 90%"). I`m glad you don`t, it
shows you to be an inflexible asshole with little credibility.
> This is the reason I always demand that someone *QUOTE* my lie,
Did that.
> and
> provide the citation that "proves" it false.
And that.
> So that lurkers can see that
> you've accused me of believing the WCR, and that the WCR lied.
Ben Holmes, WC defender.
> Embarrassing, isn't it Bud?
Yah, embarrassing you was my motivation. And Harris choose to get
involved and embarrass himself also. What do you think now, Robert, was
I right in calling Ben`s claim a "lie"? Or can`t CT tell anymore?
Here's the testimony of Ryder. How do you construe anything other than
3 holes being on a ticket to be bored?
TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER RESUMED
The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 12:45 p.m., on April
1, 1964, at the Irving Sports Shop, 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving,
Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
Commission.
Mr. LIEBELER. This is the continued deposition of Dial Duwayne Ryder.
The witness having been previously sworn, we will continue with the
examination.
First of all, Mr. Ryder, I want to show you a picture that has been
marked Exhibit No. 1, on Mr. Greener's deposition. I ask you if that is
a picture of the repair tag that you found here in the shop?
Mr. RYDER. Yes; that is the one right there.
Mr. LIEBELER. It has the name Oswald on it and the words drill and tap
$4.50; bore sight, $1.50; total $6.
Mr. RYDER. That is the one we was thinking about the other day. Did it
have the $6 tag or the $4.50 tag, because we sometimes charge for the
boresight and sometimes don't, depending on the type work we do or what
we actually do on the thing.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the exact details under which you found
the tag in the shop?
Mr. RYDER. Well, we talked about this thing on Saturday morning and
like I said before, like you saw the workbench up there today, that it
is cluttered up,
CJ
It`s a subtle point, let me see if I can dumb it down to within your
grasp, Curt. Ben said the tag (or "ticket", as he referred to it as)
specifically contained certain information. The tag did not
specifically contain that information. It`s a lie to say that the Bill
of Rights contains a specific right to privacy, even if you can show
that the Supreme Court read such a thing into the Bill of Rights.
> TESTIMONY OF DIAL DUWAYNE RYDER RESUMED
>
> The testimony of Dial Duwayne Ryder was taken at 12:45 p.m., on April
> 1, 1964, at the Irving Sports Shop, 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving,
> Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's
> Commission.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. This is the continued deposition of Dial Duwayne Ryder.
> The witness having been previously sworn, we will continue with the
> examination.
> First of all, Mr. Ryder, I want to show you a picture that has been
> marked Exhibit No. 1, on Mr. Greener's deposition. I ask you if that is
> a picture of the repair tag that you found here in the shop?
> Mr. RYDER. Yes; that is the one right there.
> Mr. LIEBELER. It has the name Oswald on it and the words drill and tap
> $4.50; bore sight, $1.50; total $6.
> Mr. RYDER. That is the one we was thinking about the other day. Did it
> have the $6 tag or the $4.50 tag, because we sometimes charge for the
> boresight and sometimes don't, depending on the type work we do or what
> we actually do on the thing.
> Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the exact details under which you found
> the tag in the shop?
> Mr. RYDER. Well, we talked about this thing on Saturday morning and
> like I said before, like you saw the workbench up there today, that it
> is cluttered up,
>
>
> CJ
>
<SNIP>
Shame of the WC to do that, isn't it?
>> > >Unless you have a pretty good answer to that, you need to post an
>> > >apology.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Robert Harris
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >In article <1153801447....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Recently, Ben Holmes wrote...
>> > >>
>> > >> "And yet, strangely enough, not ONE SINGLE TIME has any LNT`ers who
>> > >> make this assertion bothered to *quote* my "lie", and the citation that
>> > >> makes it a "lie".
>> > >>
>> > >> Seeing as Ben tells so many lies, I can only attribute this to LNT`er
>> > >> laziness.
>> >
>> > And yet, the first time a LNT'er actually does so - it seems that I have an
>>> unimpeachable citation for what I stated. Unimpeachable, that is, to LNT'ers.
>>
>> Cite anything you want. *You* purposely misrepresented this
>> information.
And yet, you can't show this. I stated *EXACTLY* what the WCR said.
>Here's the testimony of Ryder. How do you construe anything other than
>3 holes being on a ticket to be bored?
I didn't even bother looking at this. The WCR says three holes, Bud is simply
going to have to admit it.
Of course it matters. When I demonstrate that I simply passed along the
information GIVEN BY THE WCR - you have no cause to claim I was "lying".
>> Ben Holmes said
>> this "ticket" contained certain specific information,
Quote me. Then quote the WCR. Show the contradiction...
>> which he went on
>> to mention. This "ticket" does not contain that specific information.
>> Ben knew it did not. That makes what he said a lie. Had he framed his
>> statement that a employee at the shop thought the ticket indicated
>> certain work being done, that would have been honest. Ben Holmes choose
>> to lie instead.
In other words, you believe that the WCR lied. That's fine. All you have to do
is make it *EXPLICIT*.
But I'm willing to bet that you won't.
>> And imagine the precident Ben is now setting. All I need to do now
>> is offer a Commission finding, and that in itself makes it an
>> established fact. Ben Holmes, WC defender.
And yet, Bud the clown will refuse to admit that the WCR lied... yet he calls
me a liar for quoting their information.
>> > So Bud is arguing that the WC lied?
>>
>> No, you. The Warren Commission didn`t come to this newsgroup, and
>> write that lie, Ben Holmes did.
Gutless, aren't you?
>> > Okay... I believe that.
>> >
>> > But sadly, Bud can't argue that *I* lied. I used a citation that
>> > LNT'ers can't impeach.
>>
>> You didn`t site the WC in your original post pertaining to this
>> matter. Had you said, "according to WC findings, three holes were
>> drilled for the mounting of a telescopic sight", or some such thing,
>> that may have been truthful. You saying that tag contained certain
>> specific information was a lie.
No... in fact, that *is* what the WCR said.
>> Will you be a man and retract?
How can I retract what the WCR actually *said*?
>> Doubtful. Will you admit that at least once, an LNT`er has quoted you,
>> and shown what you said to be a lie?
No, because you've not been able to do it.
If making statements that are 100% supported by the WCR means that you lie, then
Bud, you're a liar... as are *ALL* LNT'ers...
>> Never. And can you imagine if I
>> had the resources that kooks have poured into their assault on the WC?
>> Give me ten researchers pouring through everything you`ve written on
>> this newsgroup, I`d bet hundreds of lies could be located. I know of
>> around eight offhand, and only laziness and poor computing skills
>> prevent me from exploiting them.
Your charges have thus far fallen flat. So now you merely *imply* that you have
other examples? I could just as easily demolish them. This is why LNT'ers
never *quote* my "lie" along with the citation that makes it so.
>> > >> the actual "ticket",
>> > >> which neither specifies three holes, or what those holes would be
>> > >> for...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>>>
>>>>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf
>> > >>
>> > >> I`m sure Ben will waste no time in retracting his misrepresentation,
>> > >> and look forward to Ben nevermore claiming that this has never
>> > >> occurred.
>> >
>> > Nope.
>>
>> I knew you wouldn`t, this isn`t the first time you`ve been caught
>> red-handed and refused to retract. Tony just got you on your claim
>> about polls (from memory, something like "up to 90% would include at
>> least one instance of a poll finding of 90%").
Actually, there *are* polls that hit 90%. So yet another "example" has fallen
flat.
I don't claim 90% because I don't think that the particular poll citing it is
valid. But the 89% poll definitely is. This is why I've always been careful in
my language. And, in fact, during that first conversation, *YOU* lied about a
poll.
>> I`m glad you don`t, it
>> shows you to be an inflexible asshole with little credibility.
>>
>> > This is the reason I always demand that someone *QUOTE* my lie,
>>
>> Did that.
>>
>> > and
>> > provide the citation that "proves" it false.
>>
>> And that.
>>
>> > So that lurkers can see that
>> > you've accused me of believing the WCR, and that the WCR lied.
>>
>> Ben Holmes, WC defender.
>>
>> > Embarrassing, isn't it Bud?
>>
>> Yah, embarrassing you was my motivation. And Harris choose to get
>> involved and embarrass himself also. What do you think now, Robert, was
>> I right in calling Ben`s claim a "lie"? Or can`t CT tell anymore?
You still haven't shown any "lie" on my part. The best you can do is claim that
the WCR lied, and that I passed it along.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1153832656....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Bud is 100% correct! (as usual.)
Ben Holmes is a liar....AND full of utter shit as well!!
Here's why......
I've taken the time to dig into the Warren Report, and look up the WCR
passage in question on Page #646. And it's very interesting (but not
surprising, given Ben-Kook's motives here) that Ben chose to truncate a
very important portion of that particular "Commission Finding" found on
page 646....because by being selective and by "snipping" the last
(approx.) two-thirds of that WC "Finding" re. this rifle-scope matter,
Ben can make it look like the WC has lied.
Although, actually, in point of fact, even via ONLY the snipped "WC
Finding" that Ben provided, it's doubtful you can claim the WC "lied",
per se -- because the WC merely was stating information that was given
to them by Dial D. Ryder...which is info that COULD be wrong...and, in
fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate
"THREE HOLES BORED". Which is no doubt one of the reasons that the WC
ultimately considered this information from Ryder to be invalid and not
accurate (as I'll quote below).
But when we continue from where Ben conveniently left off on page 646,
here's what we'll find......
"However, Ryder and his employer, Charles W. Greener, had no
recollection of Oswald, his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, of the
transaction allegedly represented by the repair tag, or of any person
for whom such a repair was supposedly made. The rifle found on the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had two holes in it
bored for the installation of a scope prior to shipment to Oswald in
March 1963.
"The Commission concluded that it is doubtful whether the tag produced
by Ryder was authentic. All of the evidence developed proves that
Oswald owned only one rifle --- the Mannlicher-Carcano --- and that he
did not bring it or a second rifle to the Irving Sports Shop." -- WCR;
Page #646*
* = This COMPLETE "Finding" is followed by a footnote number (#"33"),
which, via the index indicates: "See supra, pp. 315-318."
~~~~~~~~~
Therefore, we can easily see that the WC didn't "lie" in any way,
shape, or form on Page #646 of the WR. The WC, based on other evidence,
had reason to believe that the repair tag brought to their attention
via Ryder was NOT AUTHENTIC.
Ben has been caught red-handed (again), and something that he cannot
tolerate in others (i.e., "snipping"), is something that he himself has
engaged in here. Because via just the "snipped" portion of the WC
Finding that Ben presented, an argument could be made that the Warren
Commission DID, in fact, believe Ryder and accepted the repair tag as a
valid and worthwhile piece of evidence.
But when the last part of that WC Finding is added in -- it's obvious
that the WC did NOT think the "second rifle" rumor had any validity to
it whatsoever....and the WC tells us why in black and white.
Now, Ben, of course, can continue from here and say that the WC is
STILL "lying" when they said that they (the WC) felt the tag was not
authentic. And Ben no doubt does think that that was just a convenient
excuse used by the WC to get themselves off the hook re. this matter
concerning a "second Oswald rifle".
But that's not the real point here -- because the "snipping" cat (i.e.,
deception on Ben's part by not posting that ENTIRE WC Finding) is
already out of the bag. And Ben-Kook will just have to live with the
fact that he will "snip" vital info if it serves his CT-Kook purpose.
In the final analysis -- Ben H. is a liar. Period.
It was your name on that post, Ben. Be a man and claim what is
yours.
> >> > >Unless you have a pretty good answer to that, you need to post an
> >> > >apology.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Robert Harris
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >In article <1153801447....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Recently, Ben Holmes wrote...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "And yet, strangely enough, not ONE SINGLE TIME has any LNT`ers who
> >> > >> make this assertion bothered to *quote* my "lie", and the citation that
> >> > >> makes it a "lie".
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Seeing as Ben tells so many lies, I can only attribute this to LNT`er
> >> > >> laziness.
> >> >
> >> > And yet, the first time a LNT'er actually does so - it seems that I have an
> >>> unimpeachable citation for what I stated. Unimpeachable, that is, to LNT'ers.
> >>
> >> Cite anything you want. *You* purposely misrepresented this
> >> information.
>
>
> And yet, you can't show this. I stated *EXACTLY* what the WCR said.
Doesn`t matter what the WC said or didn`t say. Ben Holmes said
certain work was specified on that tag which was not. What you said was
untrue, and you knew it. That lying, in layman`s terms.
> >Here's the testimony of Ryder. How do you construe anything other than
> >3 holes being on a ticket to be bored?
>
>
> I didn't even bother looking at this. The WCR says three holes, Bud is simply
> going to have to admit it.
But the lie you told was that the tag specified certain work. The
tag does not.
No, it doesn`t matter. What matters is if what you said about
specific work being mentioned on that tag is actually contained on that
tag like *you* claimed.
> When I demonstrate that I simply passed along the
> information GIVEN BY THE WCR - you have no cause to claim I was "lying".
When *you* said the tag specified this information, knowing it
didn`t, you lied. It`s not a complicated concept.
> >> Ben Holmes said
> >> this "ticket" contained certain specific information,
>
> Quote me.
I did. "...the ticket specifies the drilling of *three* holes to
mount a telescopic sight." Thats you telling a lie. Care to retract?
> Then quote the WCR. Show the contradiction...
I wasn`t claiming a contradiction between what you said and the what
the WC said. I was claiming a contradiction between the information you
claimed was on the tag, and what actually was.
> >> which he went on
> >> to mention. This "ticket" does not contain that specific information.
> >> Ben knew it did not. That makes what he said a lie. Had he framed his
> >> statement that a employee at the shop thought the ticket indicated
> >> certain work being done, that would have been honest. Ben Holmes choose
> >> to lie instead.
>
> In other words, you believe that the WCR lied. That's fine. All you have to do
> is make it *EXPLICIT*.
I did all I needed to do to nail you in a lie.
> But I'm willing to bet that you won't.
I made the one and only point I set out to. That you lied. I even
did it in the manner you suggested, with a quote of yours, and a
citation.
> >> And imagine the precident Ben is now setting. All I need to do now
> >> is offer a Commission finding, and that in itself makes it an
> >> established fact. Ben Holmes, WC defender.
>
>
> And yet, Bud the clown will refuse to admit that the WCR lied... yet he calls
> me a liar for quoting their information.
I called you a liar for *your* claim that the tag specified three
holes drilled for the mounting of a telescopic sight.
> >> > So Bud is arguing that the WC lied?
> >>
> >> No, you. The Warren Commission didn`t come to this newsgroup, and
> >> write that lie, Ben Holmes did.
>
>
> Gutless, aren't you?
<snicker> Skewered, aren`t you? A man with more chracter would admit
he was wrong, and move on. We both know that isn`t an option for you,
don`t we?
> >> > Okay... I believe that.
> >> >
> >> > But sadly, Bud can't argue that *I* lied. I used a citation that
> >> > LNT'ers can't impeach.
> >>
> >> You didn`t site the WC in your original post pertaining to this
> >> matter. Had you said, "according to WC findings, three holes were
> >> drilled for the mounting of a telescopic sight", or some such thing,
> >> that may have been truthful. You saying that tag contained certain
> >> specific information was a lie.
>
>
> No... in fact, that *is* what the WCR said.
But the information *you* said was specified on that tag is not
specified on that tag.
Was it merely ignorance, or deceit that led you to say it was?
> >> Will you be a man and retract?
>
>
> How can I retract what the WCR actually *said*?
Thats a new position for you, standing by what the WC said, isn`t
it?
> >> Doubtful. Will you admit that at least once, an LNT`er has quoted you,
> >> and shown what you said to be a lie?
>
>
> No, because you've not been able to do it.
So, you can continue to claim it hasn`t been done regardless of how
many times it`s been done, eh?
> If making statements that are 100% supported by the WCR means that you lie, then
> Bud, you're a liar... as are *ALL* LNT'ers...
See, thats your problem once again, you are proceeding off of your
own mistaken assumptions. Have you ever heard an LN say that he agrees
with every conclusion about every aspect of the case that the WC found?
So, why do you present that as the reality?
> >> Never. And can you imagine if I
> >> had the resources that kooks have poured into their assault on the WC?
> >> Give me ten researchers pouring through everything you`ve written on
> >> this newsgroup, I`d bet hundreds of lies could be located. I know of
> >> around eight offhand, and only laziness and poor computing skills
> >> prevent me from exploiting them.
>
>
> Your charges have thus far fallen flat. So now you merely *imply* that you have
> other examples? I could just as easily demolish them.
You haven`t touched this one.
> This is why LNT'ers
> never *quote* my "lie" along with the citation that makes it so.
Did so in this post. Why does lying come so easily to you?
> >> > >> the actual "ticket",
> >> > >> which neither specifies three holes, or what those holes would be
> >> > >> for...
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I`m sure Ben will waste no time in retracting his misrepresentation,
> >> > >> and look forward to Ben nevermore claiming that this has never
> >> > >> occurred.
> >> >
> >> > Nope.
> >>
> >> I knew you wouldn`t, this isn`t the first time you`ve been caught
> >> red-handed and refused to retract. Tony just got you on your claim
> >> about polls (from memory, something like "up to 90% would include at
> >> least one instance of a poll finding of 90%").
>
> Actually, there *are* polls that hit 90%. So yet another "example" has fallen
> flat.
Sure, a poll taken on a crackpot conspiracy site amongst it`s users
might hit 99%.
> I don't claim 90% because I don't think that the particular poll citing it is
> valid.
But you still keep claiming "up to 90%" from a source you find
invalid. Your dishonesty knows no limits, does it?
> But the 89% poll definitely is.
Really? Have you ever seen this poll, or just the press release
mentioning it? Did you notice that the press release didn`t include the
question that was asked that returned a finding of 89%? Did you notice
that the press release said the findings from the poll refered to were
that 89% don`t think Oz acted alone, implying that the whole 89% feels
that Oz participated in the assassination?
> This is why I've always been careful in
> my language.
Actually, the "up to 90%" part stays pretty consistant, but you
make vastly differing claims for that figure. Sometimes it`s something
like "up to 90% don`t believe the WC", other times it`s something like
"up to 90% believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy", two completely
different concepts.
> And, in fact, during that first conversation, *YOU* lied about a
> poll.
What would be "that first coversation"? By all means, if you can
specify information *not* contained on that tag, you can give some
details about this issue.
> >> I`m glad you don`t, it
> >> shows you to be an inflexible asshole with little credibility.
> >>
> >> > This is the reason I always demand that someone *QUOTE* my lie,
> >>
> >> Did that.
> >>
> >> > and
> >> > provide the citation that "proves" it false.
> >>
> >> And that.
> >>
> >> > So that lurkers can see that
> >> > you've accused me of believing the WCR, and that the WCR lied.
> >>
> >> Ben Holmes, WC defender.
> >>
> >> > Embarrassing, isn't it Bud?
> >>
> >> Yah, embarrassing you was my motivation. And Harris choose to get
> >> involved and embarrass himself also. What do you think now, Robert, was
> >> I right in calling Ben`s claim a "lie"? Or can`t CT tell anymore?
>
> You still haven't shown any "lie" on my part.
Sure I have. Now I`m showing that you aren`t man enough to admit it.
> The best you can do is claim that
> the WCR lied, and that I passed it along.
Thats the way you`d like to see it portrayed. Problem is, *you*
made this claim in a post with your *name* on it. Lied, didn`t you?
And yet, he's been proven wrong. That makes you the fool's fool.
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Ben Holmes is a liar....AND full of utter shit as well!!
And just as Bud, you'll be unable to quote any such "lie", along with the
citation that makes it so.
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Here's why......
>
>I've taken the time to dig into the Warren Report, and look up the WCR
>passage in question on Page #646.
Good of you to do so. What did I *say* that is in contradiction to that page?
(You won't answer this question, of course...)
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>And it's very interesting (but not
>surprising, given Ben-Kook's motives here) that Ben chose to truncate a
>very important portion of that particular "Commission Finding" found on
>page 646....because by being selective and by "snipping" the last
>(approx.) two-thirds of that WC "Finding" re. this rifle-scope matter,
>Ben can make it look like the WC has lied.
I quoted EXACTLY the portion that Bud was claiming to be a lie. You *do*
understand what Bud was asserting, don't you?
I referenced the page number for anyone to look at. Someone who snips as much
as you, accusing someone of "snipping" (you clearly don't even know what the
word means) is rather funny!
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Although, actually, in point of fact, even via ONLY the snipped "WC
>Finding" that Ben provided, it's doubtful you can claim the WC "lied",
Then it's "doubtful" if you can claim *I* lied. I merely provided the
information that the WARREN COMMISSION DID.
Embarrassing, isn't it?
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>per se -- because the WC merely was stating information that was given
>to them by Dial D. Ryder...which is info that COULD be wrong...and, in
>fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate
>"THREE HOLES BORED".
The WCR said so. Are *you* admitting that the WCR lied?
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Which is no doubt one of the reasons that the WC
>ultimately considered this information from Ryder to be invalid and not
>accurate (as I'll quote below).
At no point can you provide a citation that will support this assertion of
yours.
Nor will you.
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>But when we continue from where Ben conveniently left off on page 646,
>here's what we'll find......
>
>"However, Ryder and his employer, Charles W. Greener, had no
>recollection of Oswald, his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, of the
>transaction allegedly represented by the repair tag, or of any person
>for whom such a repair was supposedly made. The rifle found on the
>sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had two holes in it
>bored for the installation of a scope prior to shipment to Oswald in
>March 1963.
>
>"The Commission concluded that it is doubtful whether the tag produced
>by Ryder was authentic. All of the evidence developed proves that
>Oswald owned only one rifle --- the Mannlicher-Carcano --- and that he
>did not bring it or a second rifle to the Irving Sports Shop." -- WCR;
>Page #646*
>
>* = This COMPLETE "Finding" is followed by a footnote number (#"33"),
>which, via the index indicates: "See supra, pp. 315-318."
>
>~~~~~~~~~
Note that all of the above - I AGREE WITH!!! I said exactly the same thing -
that it could not have been either Oswald or his rifle. Yet Davey-boy has
manufactured a "lie" out of that somewhere... Silly of him, I know...
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Therefore, we can easily see that the WC didn't "lie" in any way,
>shape, or form on Page #646 of the WR.
Sure they did. Bud says they did. And *YOU* admit that they did. (...and, in
fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate 'THREE HOLES
BORED'.")
This really isn't rocket science... you claim that the WCR didn't lie in "any
way, shape, or form"... and yet, since I was merely passing along their
information, how can Bud or you claim *I* was lying? What statement did I make
THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT THE WCR SAID? (You're too yellow to answer this, of
course...)
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>The WC, based on other evidence,
>had reason to believe that the repair tag brought to their attention
>via Ryder was NOT AUTHENTIC.
Yep... who "forged" it? And for what purpose?
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Ben has been caught red-handed (again), and something that he cannot
>tolerate in others (i.e., "snipping"),
Actually, I snipped nothing. Davey-boy's ignorance of what the word means is
amusing, really!
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>is something that he himself has
>engaged in here. Because via just the "snipped" portion of the WC
>Finding that Ben presented, an argument could be made that the Warren
>Commission DID, in fact, believe Ryder and accepted the repair tag as a
>valid and worthwhile piece of evidence.
You can make that argument if you wish... it's in DIRECT CONFLICT with what I
stated. So that makes you a liar if you try asserting that it was an intent on
my part to leave anyone with that impression.
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>But when the last part of that WC Finding is added in -- it's obvious
>that the WC did NOT think the "second rifle" rumor had any validity to
>it whatsoever....and the WC tells us why in black and white.
Yep... that's what I said as well...
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>Now, Ben, of course, can continue from here and say that the WC is
>STILL "lying" when they said that they (the WC) felt the tag was not
>authentic.
Why would I? Bud has already pointed out that the WCR has lied about the
ticket.
>And Ben no doubt does think that that was just a convenient
>excuse used by the WC to get themselves off the hook re. this matter
>concerning a "second Oswald rifle".
I'm quite convinced that the Warren Commission was exactly right in dismissing
the possibility of any work being performed on the MC. What they *should* have
done was dig deeper... they didn't.
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>But that's not the real point here -- because the "snipping" cat (i.e.,
>deception on Ben's part by not posting that ENTIRE WC Finding)
What deception was there? What I didn't post had *NOTHING* to do with what Bud
was asserting, did it?
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
>is already out of the bag. And Ben-Kook will just have to live with the
>fact that he will "snip"
You keep illustrating your ignorance, don't you?
(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?)
> vital info if it serves his CT-Kook purpose.
>
>In the final analysis -- Ben H. is a liar. Period.
And yet, you can't quote a single statement of mine that is a "lie", along with
the citation that makes it so.
I appreciate your help, David, but the reason why what Ben said is a
lie is found in Ben`s words, not the WC`s. He said the tag specified
something it did not. Nothing the WC had to say or not say impacts on
that. He said the tag contained information it did not contain. Period.
> I've taken the time to dig into the Warren Report, and look up the WCR
> passage in question on Page #646. And it's very interesting (but not
> surprising, given Ben-Kook's motives here) that Ben chose to truncate a
> very important portion of that particular "Commission Finding" found on
> page 646....because by being selective and by "snipping" the last
> (approx.) two-thirds of that WC "Finding" re. this rifle-scope matter,
> Ben can make it look like the WC has lied.
>
> Although, actually, in point of fact, even via ONLY the snipped "WC
> Finding" that Ben provided, it's doubtful you can claim the WC "lied",
> per se -- because the WC merely was stating information that was given
> to them by Dial D. Ryder...which is info that COULD be wrong...and, in
> fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate
> "THREE HOLES BORED". Which is no doubt one of the reasons that the WC
> ultimately considered this information from Ryder to be invalid and not
> accurate (as I'll quote below).
Ryder said he didn`t remember doing the work. So, of course he can
only guess at what the work done was, given the vague information
supplied on the tag. It`s possible that most of the holes they drill
and tap are for mounting scopes, so he assumed that is what was done in
this case.
> But when we continue from where Ben conveniently left off on page 646,
> here's what we'll find......
>
> "However, Ryder and his employer, Charles W. Greener, had no
> recollection of Oswald, his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, of the
> transaction allegedly represented by the repair tag, or of any person
> for whom such a repair was supposedly made. The rifle found on the
> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had two holes in it
> bored for the installation of a scope prior to shipment to Oswald in
> March 1963.
>
> "The Commission concluded that it is doubtful whether the tag produced
> by Ryder was authentic.
Bad call on their part, I think.
> All of the evidence developed proves that
> Oswald owned only one rifle --- the Mannlicher-Carcano --- and that he
> did not bring it or a second rifle to the Irving Sports Shop." -- WCR;
> Page #646*
They assumed it had to be a different rifle because they assumed it
was holes bored to mount a scope. They made some poor assumptions. Oz
likely had his MC brought to that shop to have holes drilled and tapped
for some other purpose than mounting a scope (possibly sling swivels,
or just enlarging existing holes and retapping them out because of the
thread being buggered in them. There are many reasons besides mounting
a scope to drill and tap holes in metal.)
> * = This COMPLETE "Finding" is followed by a footnote number (#"33"),
> which, via the index indicates: "See supra, pp. 315-318."
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> Therefore, we can easily see that the WC didn't "lie" in any way,
> shape, or form on Page #646 of the WR. The WC, based on other evidence,
> had reason to believe that the repair tag brought to their attention
> via Ryder was NOT AUTHENTIC.
I think it was. I think Oz had work done on his rifle, but not to
have a scope mounted (which isn`t mentioned on the tag). There is a
single screw for assembling and disassembling the M-C, I think. Maybe
that was worked on, reamed out with a tap, along with the two holes for
the scope. Hard to say for sure, but it seems Oz treated the rifle
poorly during the Walker affair, maybe that necessitated work to be
done.
> Ben has been caught red-handed (again), and something that he cannot
> tolerate in others (i.e., "snipping"), is something that he himself has
> engaged in here. Because via just the "snipped" portion of the WC
> Finding that Ben presented, an argument could be made that the Warren
> Commission DID, in fact, believe Ryder and accepted the repair tag as a
> valid and worthwhile piece of evidence.
No reason not to that I can see.
> But when the last part of that WC Finding is added in -- it's obvious
> that the WC did NOT think the "second rifle" rumor had any validity to
> it whatsoever....and the WC tells us why in black and white.
>
> Now, Ben, of course, can continue from here and say that the WC is
> STILL "lying" when they said that they (the WC) felt the tag was not
> authentic. And Ben no doubt does think that that was just a convenient
> excuse used by the WC to get themselves off the hook re. this matter
> concerning a "second Oswald rifle".
>
> But that's not the real point here -- because the "snipping" cat (i.e.,
> deception on Ben's part by not posting that ENTIRE WC Finding) is
> already out of the bag. And Ben-Kook will just have to live with the
> fact that he will "snip" vital info if it serves his CT-Kook purpose.
>
> In the final analysis -- Ben H. is a liar. Period.
No doubt. Ben likes to foist the WC on the LN, as if we must
conclude the same things they did on every aspect of the case. My
beliefs are not synonymous with the WC`s, it`s just another crooked
game Ben plays to say they must be.
But since Ben-Kook evidently AGREES with what the WC has said on Page
646 (the whole "finding"), just exactly HOW did the WC "lie" on that
page, Ben?? What did they say on that page that makes them "liars",
which you said they are (via Page 646)?
Or did you merely lie (again) when you said the WC lied on Page 646?
That'd make #2 on Bud's list if so.
>>> "By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
been ducking?" <<<
Hell no. And why would I start letting a CT-Kook dictate my every move
(or post/reply)?
Ben's not only a kook and a liar....he's also got an exaggerated sense
of what he perceives to be his all-encompassing "CT Knowledge" re. the
JFK case. (Even more "exaggerated" than your standard, run-of-the-mill
conspiracy kook, I mean.)
I'd bet copious quantities of greenbacks that Ben could provide the
same type of fabulously-watertight "CT Case" for the 9/11 attacks being
a "Covert U.S. Govt. Plot".
Most kooks of Ben's advanced Kook Stage can, ya see. Any even
semi-controversial subject (doesn't really matter what it is) can be
twisted by kooks like Benjamin into an AIRTIGHT CASE FOR CONSPIRACY.
Right, Ben?
And Jean Hill's death in November of 2000 was certainly "convenient",
wasn't it? Surely Ben-Kook must think her demise (a mere 37 years after
the assassination) was performed by the proverbial "Rub-Out Squad".
Right? Surely so!
Come on, Ben, you can admit you think Jean's death reeks of conspiracy.
We won't think you're any more of a kook than we already do. So, go
ahead....tell us all about it.
Speaking of liars, heres Nutsack.
By who?
> That makes you the fool's fool.
>
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >Ben Holmes is a liar....AND full of utter shit as well!!
>
>
> And just as Bud, you'll be unable to quote any such "lie", along with the
> citation that makes it so.
You did claim the tag said something it didn`t say. What you said was
untrue, and you knew it was untrue when you said it. That makes you a
liar.
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >Here's why......
> >
> >I've taken the time to dig into the Warren Report, and look up the WCR
> >passage in question on Page #646.
>
>
> Good of you to do so. What did I *say* that is in contradiction to that page?
> (You won't answer this question, of course...)
>
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >And it's very interesting (but not
> >surprising, given Ben-Kook's motives here) that Ben chose to truncate a
> >very important portion of that particular "Commission Finding" found on
> >page 646....because by being selective and by "snipping" the last
> >(approx.) two-thirds of that WC "Finding" re. this rifle-scope matter,
> >Ben can make it look like the WC has lied.
>
> I quoted EXACTLY the portion that Bud was claiming to be a lie. You *do*
> understand what Bud was asserting, don't you?
Apparently, you don`t. I was addressinfg something Ben Holmes said,
not something the WC said. Ben Holmse said...
"...the ticket specifies the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight."
Here is the ticket Ben is refferring to...
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf.WH20/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf
Clearly, theis tag does *not* specify the drilling of three holes to
mount a telescopic sight as Ben claimed. He knew it did not when he
made the claim, making him a fibber.
> I referenced the page number for anyone to look at. Someone who snips as much
> as you, accusing someone of "snipping" (you clearly don't even know what the
> word means) is rather funny!
>
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >Although, actually, in point of fact, even via ONLY the snipped "WC
> >Finding" that Ben provided, it's doubtful you can claim the WC "lied",
>
> Then it's "doubtful" if you can claim *I* lied. I merely provided the
> information that the WARREN COMMISSION DID.
>
> Embarrassing, isn't it?
>
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >per se -- because the WC merely was stating information that was given
> >to them by Dial D. Ryder...which is info that COULD be wrong...and, in
> >fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate
> >"THREE HOLES BORED".
>
>
> The WCR said so. Are *you* admitting that the WCR lied?
No, just you. You made the claim. You told the lie. Will you
retract?
My only claim was that Ben lied when he said that the ticket
specified information it clearly does not.
> And *YOU* admit that they did. (...and, in
> fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate 'THREE HOLES
> BORED'.")
>
> This really isn't rocket science... you claim that the WCR didn't lie in "any
> way, shape, or form"... and yet, since I was merely passing along their
> information, how can Bud or you claim *I* was lying?
I didn`t say it, I proved it. You said the ticket specifed certain
work was done that the ticket doesn`t specify.
Why continue to tell blatent lies like this? What purpose is served?
The WC didn`t write the post I responded to. Ben Holmes did. He was
responsible for his words, not an investigation disolved over forty
years ago.
> >And Ben no doubt does think that that was just a convenient
> >excuse used by the WC to get themselves off the hook re. this matter
> >concerning a "second Oswald rifle".
>
> I'm quite convinced that the Warren Commission was exactly right in dismissing
> the possibility of any work being performed on the MC. What they *should* have
> done was dig deeper... they didn't.
<snicker> Ben doesn`t like the job the WC did.
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >But that's not the real point here -- because the "snipping" cat (i.e.,
> >deception on Ben's part by not posting that ENTIRE WC Finding)
>
> What deception was there? What I didn't post had *NOTHING* to do with what Bud
> was asserting, did it?
>
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> >is already out of the bag. And Ben-Kook will just have to live with the
> >fact that he will "snip"
>
> You keep illustrating your ignorance, don't you?
>
> (By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
> been ducking?)
>
>
> > vital info if it serves his CT-Kook purpose.
> >
> >In the final analysis -- Ben H. is a liar. Period.
>
> And yet, you can't quote a single statement of mine that is a "lie", along with
> the citation that makes it so.
I did, to start this thread. I did it again in this post. I intend
to repost this lie Ben told every once in a while, until he retracts
the lie he told.
In article <1153878958.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Note that all of the above - I AGREE WITH! I said exactly the same thing
>> - that it could not have been either Oswald or his rifle. Yet Davey-boy
>> has manufactured a "lie" out of that somewhere.
>
>
>But since Ben-Kook evidently AGREES with what the WC has said on Page
>646 (the whole "finding"), just exactly HOW did the WC "lie" on that
>page, Ben??
This isn't rocket science, Davey-boy. *YOU* assert that I lied. It's clear
(and why you snipped, no doubt), that I didn't say anything that the WCR didn't
assert - therefore, the WCR lied, according to you. You just aren't man enough
to admit it - ditto with Bud.
As you stated, and snipped: "...and, in fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does
NOT specifically indicate 'THREE HOLES BORED'." If the WCR was "wrong", and
they had the true facts, they lied. It's that simple.
>What did they say on that page that makes them "liars",
>which you said they are (via Page 646)?
Nope. *I* didn't call them liars on *this* point, you did. As you stated, and
snipped: "...and, in fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically
indicate 'THREE HOLES BORED'." If the WCR was "wrong", and they had the true
facts, they lied. It's that simple.
>Or did you merely lie (again) when you said the WC lied on Page 646?
It's *YOU* that asserts them liars on this point. As you stated, and snipped:
"...and, in fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate
'THREE HOLES BORED'." If the WCR was "wrong", and they had the true facts, they
lied. It's that simple.
>That'd make #2 on Bud's list if so.
Better find a number 1 first...
The facts I listed that Bud calls "lies" turn out to be merely what the WCR
said. Embarrassing, isn't it? (That is, for most people it would be an
embarrassment.)
>> By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post
>> you've been ducking?
>
>Hell no. And why would I start letting a CT-Kook dictate my every move
>(or post/reply)?
Anyone who can truly consider himself a man understands that he must support his
own words.
You, on the other hand, are a coward.
>Ben's not only a kook and a liar....
Ad hominem attacks, particularly when you can't prove your case, are just silly.
>he's also got an exaggerated sense
>of what he perceives to be his all-encompassing "CT Knowledge" re. the
>JFK case. (Even more "exaggerated" than your standard, run-of-the-mill
>conspiracy kook, I mean.)
Compared to you, I'm a genius.
>I'd bet copious quantities of greenbacks that Ben could provide the
>same type of fabulously-watertight "CT Case" for the 9/11 attacks being
>a "Covert U.S. Govt. Plot".
Fortunately for you, you're too much of a coward to actually make that bet.
9/11 is exactly what it is, an attack on the U.S. by Al Qaeda.
>Most kooks of Ben's advanced Kook Stage can, ya see. Any even
>semi-controversial subject (doesn't really matter what it is) can be
>twisted by kooks like Benjamin into an AIRTIGHT CASE FOR CONSPIRACY.
>
>Right, Ben?
Clearly wrong. You've lost your non-existent bet.
>And Jean Hill's death in November of 2000 was certainly "convenient",
>wasn't it? Surely Ben-Kook must think her demise (a mere 37 years after
>the assassination) was performed by the proverbial "Rub-Out Squad".
>Right? Surely so!
Nut, aren't you?
>Come on, Ben, you can admit you think Jean's death reeks of conspiracy.
>We won't think you're any more of a kook than we already do. So, go
>ahead....tell us all about it.
I'd rather let lurkers know what you *couldn't* respond to:
In article <ea6f6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>In article <1153867923.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>says...
>>> You still haven't shown any "lie" on my part. The best you can do is claim
>>> that the WCR lied, and that I passed it along. .... And yet, Bud the clown
>>> will refuse to admit that the WCR lied, yet he calls me a liar for quoting
>>> their information.
>>
>>Bud is 100% correct! (as usual.)
>
>
>And yet, he's been proven wrong. That makes you the fool's fool.
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>Ben Holmes is a liar....AND full of utter shit as well!!
>
>
>And just as Bud, you'll be unable to quote any such "lie", along with the
>citation that makes it so.
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>Here's why......
>>
>>I've taken the time to dig into the Warren Report, and look up the WCR
>>passage in question on Page #646.
>
>
>Good of you to do so. What did I *say* that is in contradiction to that page?
>(You won't answer this question, of course...)
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>And it's very interesting (but not
>>surprising, given Ben-Kook's motives here) that Ben chose to truncate a
>>very important portion of that particular "Commission Finding" found on
>>page 646....because by being selective and by "snipping" the last
>>(approx.) two-thirds of that WC "Finding" re. this rifle-scope matter,
>>Ben can make it look like the WC has lied.
>
>I quoted EXACTLY the portion that Bud was claiming to be a lie. You *do*
>understand what Bud was asserting, don't you?
>
>I referenced the page number for anyone to look at. Someone who snips as much
>as you, accusing someone of "snipping" (you clearly don't even know what the
>word means) is rather funny!
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>Although, actually, in point of fact, even via ONLY the snipped "WC
>>Finding" that Ben provided, it's doubtful you can claim the WC "lied",
>
>Then it's "doubtful" if you can claim *I* lied. I merely provided the
>information that the WARREN COMMISSION DID.
>
>Embarrassing, isn't it?
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>per se -- because the WC merely was stating information that was given
>>to them by Dial D. Ryder...which is info that COULD be wrong...and, in
>>fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate
>>"THREE HOLES BORED".
>
>
>The WCR said so. Are *you* admitting that the WCR lied?
>
>
>Note that all of the above - I AGREE WITH!!! I said exactly the same thing -
>that it could not have been either Oswald or his rifle. Yet Davey-boy has
>manufactured a "lie" out of that somewhere... Silly of him, I know...
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>Therefore, we can easily see that the WC didn't "lie" in any way,
>>shape, or form on Page #646 of the WR.
>
>
>Sure they did. Bud says they did. And *YOU* admit that they did. (...and, in
>fact, WAS wrong -- because the tag does NOT specifically indicate 'THREE HOLES
>BORED'.")
>
>This really isn't rocket science... you claim that the WCR didn't lie in "any
>way, shape, or form"... and yet, since I was merely passing along their
>information, how can Bud or you claim *I* was lying? What statement did I make
>>And Ben no doubt does think that that was just a convenient
>>excuse used by the WC to get themselves off the hook re. this matter
>>concerning a "second Oswald rifle".
>
>I'm quite convinced that the Warren Commission was exactly right in dismissing
>the possibility of any work being performed on the MC. What they *should* have
>done was dig deeper... they didn't.
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>But that's not the real point here -- because the "snipping" cat (i.e.,
>>deception on Ben's part by not posting that ENTIRE WC Finding)
>
>What deception was there? What I didn't post had *NOTHING* to do with what Bud
>was asserting, did it?
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>>is already out of the bag. And Ben-Kook will just have to live with the
>>fact that he will "snip"
>
>You keep illustrating your ignorance, don't you?
>
>(By the way, Davey-boy, do you ever plan on answering that previous post you've
>been ducking?)
>
>
>> vital info if it serves his CT-Kook purpose.
>>
>>In the final analysis -- Ben H. is a liar. Period.
>
>And yet, you can't quote a single statement of mine that is a "lie", along with
>the citation that makes it so.
>