David Von Pein - The Coward Who Won't Answer Questions...

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions:

**************************************************
1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?

2.) What other weapons were used?

3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?

4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?

5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?

6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?

7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?

8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
*****************************************

All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to answer the questions I raised in response.

Why are believers such cowards?

Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions, when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?

Why'd you run away, David?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/questions-conspiracists-never-answer.html

All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to answer the questions I raised in response.

Why are believers such cowards?

Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions, when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?

Why'd you run away, David?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben,

Your answers in your post linked below are just exactly the type of speculation, guesswork, and NON-evidence that I have come to expect from conspiracy theorists.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ

You, Ben, have offered absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever in your feeble attempt to reasonably and sensibly answer my eight inquiries. (The key words there, of course, being "reasonably" and "sensibly".)

Anybody can easily pull a pile of half-baked speculation and forever-unprovable theories out of their rear end (as Ben Holmes has done) to try and explain away all the evidence which inexorably leads to the guilt of Lee Oswald. But when it comes to reasonably answering those questions, conspiracists always end up looking silly (and desperate)---as Ben Holmes does in the post linked above, which is a post that contains about as much TRUTH and REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS in it as a Donald Trump campaign speech.

Let's have a gander at just a few of Ben Holmes' laughable answers to my questions concerning JFK's murder (and some of these half-baked theories gushed forth by Holmes contain outright lies):

[Holmes' Quotes On:]

"Any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case."

"Any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared."

"My guess would be [that the two bullets that CTers think entered JFK's upper body but never exited went] into Dr. Humes' pocket."

"The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references."

"Because they only needed a single patsy."

"The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence."

"CE-543...shows alteration in the evidence in this case. David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed."

"He [Lee Oswald] was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent."

"The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far. When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly."

"Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David." [Irony Alert!! LOL.]

[End Laughable Quotes.]

And just think --- Ben thinks his above answers and explanations, which have absolutely NO evidence or foundation in fact to back them up, are MORE reasonable than to just simply believe the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is REALLY pointing toward the guilty assassin named Oswald.

Such is the (strange) mindset of JFK conspiracy theorists.

And Ben's non-answer to my #4 question about the SBT is a typical lame non-response from a CTer who simply HAS NO REASONABLE SHOT-BY-SHOT ALTERNATIVE to the perfectly logical Single-Bullet Theory. And that's because even most CTers probably realize there simply is no reasonable alternative to the single-bullet conclusion, but they refuse to admit it.

For the record, my #4 question was this....

"If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?"

To which Ben Holmes replied....

"Multiple shooters... and more than three shots. Simple. So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered. David's a liar."

Boy, that was a great detailed rebuttal to the SBT, wasn't it? "Multiple shooters" and "More than three shots".

That's it, Ben? A second-grader leafing through a Harold Weisberg book could do better than that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 9:32:27 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

>> David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions:
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/questions-conspiracists-never-answer.html
>>
>> All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to answer the questions I raised in response.
>>
>> Why are believers such cowards?
>>
>> Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions, when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?
>>
>> Why'd you run away, David?

> Ben,

Tut tut tut, David... I asked you why believers are such cowards, AND YOU ONCE AGAIN REFUSE TO ANSWER!!

> Your answers in your post linked below are just exactly the type of speculation, guesswork, and NON-evidence that I have come to expect from conspiracy theorists.

Your *QUESTIONS* called for speculative answers, I gave 'em.

You made the claim that these questions are never answered, YET THE VERY FIRST TIME YOU POST THEM IN MY VIEW I ANSWER EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM.

And so credibly, that you RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY ANSWERS.

> You, Ben, have offered absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever in your feeble attempt to reasonably and sensibly answer my eight inquiries. (The key words there, of course, being "reasonably" and "sensibly".)

You're lying again, David.

Indeed, the FACT that you refuse to address my post point by point as I did with you shows that you understand quite well that you CANNOT!

What's more "reasonable" than for you to do EXACTLY AS I DID, and respond to EACH AND EVERY POINT RAISED?

Any honest person would agree...

So clearly, you aren't "reasonable," and you certainly aren't honest.

YOU DEMONSTRATE THIS WITH YOUR ACTIONS!

> Anybody can easily pull a pile of half-baked speculation and forever-unprovable theories out of their rear end (as Ben Holmes has done) to try and explain away all the evidence which inexorably leads to the guilt of Lee Oswald. But when it comes to reasonably answering those questions, conspiracists always end up looking silly (and desperate)---as Ben Holmes does in the post linked above, which is a post that contains about as much TRUTH and REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS in it as a Donald Trump campaign speech.

Ad hominem simply shows that you know you lost.

> Let's have a gander at just a few of Ben Holmes' laughable answers to my questions concerning JFK's murder (and some of these half-baked theories gushed forth by Holmes contain outright lies):

You can't put 'em in context, and then ANSWER THEM - quite the coward, aren't you David?

> "Any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case."

This is simply a fact. I can cite FBI memos to this effect.

> "Any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared."

David can't produce 'em... yet we know they existed.

> "My guess would be [that the two bullets that CTers think entered JFK's upper body but never exited went] into Dr. Humes' pocket."

Would you prefer Boswell's pocket?

> "The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references."

A PROVABLE fact... unless you want to label the Autopsy Report a lie.

> "Because they only needed a single patsy."

Another provable fact... one patsy is certainly all you need.

> "The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence."

Indeed it is... as shown by David's ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to address it. John McAdams lied, then ran away from this very topic.

> "CE-543...shows alteration in the evidence in this case. David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed."

Another fact in this case. Indeed, David certainly knows this very photograph. (Which can be quickly cited if David is brave enough to deny it.)

I thought all these were "laughable answers" - yet a number of these are citable FACT in this case...

> "He [Lee Oswald] was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent."

Yep... another citable statement.

> "The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far. When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly."

Yep... David asks for speculation, then whines when he gets it.

> "Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David." [Irony Alert!! LOL.]

David was too dishonest to put this in context. Why is that, David?


> [End Laughable Quotes.]


A number of which are simply fact.

That makes you a liar, David... you know you can't refute them on the basis of evidence... so you employ ad hominem.

Which is simply an admission on your part that you know you lost the debate.

> And just think --- Ben thinks his above answers and explanations, which have absolutely NO evidence or foundation

YOU'RE A GUTLESS YELLOW LIAR, DAVID!!!

> in fact to back them up, are MORE reasonable than to just simply believe the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is REALLY pointing toward the guilty assassin named Oswald.

What evidence?

Why do you keep refusing to give this mythical evidence and make your case?

> Such is the (strange) mindset of JFK conspiracy theorists.

Which, of course, is simply another ad hominem admission of defeat.

> And Ben's non-answer to my #4 question about the SBT is a typical lame non-response from a CTer who simply HAS NO REASONABLE SHOT-BY-SHOT ALTERNATIVE to the perfectly logical Single-Bullet Theory. And that's because even most CTers probably realize there simply is no reasonable alternative to the single-bullet conclusion, but they refuse to admit it.

You're lying again, David.

> For the record, my #4 question was this....
>
> "If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?"
>
> To which Ben Holmes replied....
>
> "Multiple shooters... and more than three shots. Simple. So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered. David's a liar."
>
> Boy, that was a great detailed rebuttal to the SBT, wasn't it? "Multiple shooters" and "More than three shots".

Indeed... so perfect THAT YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER IT.

And David *KNOWS* that this answer has been given many times before - yet refuses to acknowledge it.

> That's it, Ben? A second-grader leafing through a Harold Weisberg book could do better than that.

That's all that's needed. It's **PERFECTLY** reasonable, it explains the known facts better than the SBT, and you understand this - BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS.

Now, answer the original question - why are believers cowards?

You've REPEATEDLY refuses to respond to my post point by point as I did to your post.

And when are you going to correct the lie you told on your website that these questions of yours are never answered by critics?

Are you PROUD of telling blatant lies on your website, David?