info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lee Harvey Oswald On 11/21/63
113 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Mar 23, 2022, 4:01:00 PM3/23/22
to
If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell, and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?
And there surely isn't a conspiracist on the planet who will try and say that Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on November 21st, is there?
So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip to Ruth Paine's home on November 21st. And we also know that that location—Ruth Paine's house—is the place where Oswald's rifle was being stored in the garage.
And unless you are a person who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Lee Harvey Oswald LIED to Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".
Now, via the scenario of Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy" regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day (November 22, 1963), I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a series of reasonable and logical (and believable) answers to these questions:
1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on 11/21/63?
2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact that no curtain rods were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the fact that if there had been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have said so to the police; but, instead, he denied he ever mentioned anything about curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)
3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on November 22nd? (Which is a package, as I just mentioned, that we know for a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)
Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.
Because unless Oswald was trying to set himself up as a patsy, it's rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee Oswald was completely innocent in the events that took place in Dallas on November 22nd. Particularly when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder, e.g., the Carcano rifle, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, etc.
In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, provide some extremely powerful circumstantial evidence to indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald was anything but an innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
More here....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html
Did the conspirators somehow put Oswald under some kind of a spell, and then they told him to go to Irving on Thursday and tell a lie about wanting to retrieve curtain rods?
And there surely isn't a conspiracist on the planet who will try and say that Lee Oswald really DIDN'T go to Irving with Buell Wesley Frazier on November 21st, is there?
So, we know for a fact that Oswald did make an unusual trip to Ruth Paine's home on November 21st. And we also know that that location—Ruth Paine's house—is the place where Oswald's rifle was being stored in the garage.
And unless you are a person who is buried a mile deep in conspiracy nonsense, then another fact becomes crystal clear -- Lee Harvey Oswald LIED to Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".
Now, via the scenario of Oswald being a totally innocent "patsy" regarding everything that happened in Dallas the following day (November 22, 1963), I'm just wondering how the conspiracy theorists can provide a series of reasonable and logical (and believable) answers to these questions:
1.) How did those amazing plotters get Oswald to go to Irving on 11/21/63?
2.) And how did those very efficient plotters get Oswald to tell the lie about the curtain rods? (Because all reasonable people know that LHO's "curtain rod" tale was, indeed, a lie....mainly due to the fact that no curtain rods were ever found in the Book Depository; plus the fact that if there had been any curtain rods at all, Oswald would have said so to the police; but, instead, he denied he ever mentioned anything about curtain rods to Buell Frazier.)
3.) And then how did those conspirators who were framing their patsy get Mr. Oswald to take a bulky brown package into the Depository on November 22nd? (Which is a package, as I just mentioned, that we know for a fact did NOT contain curtain rods.)
Those three questions are very important questions to answer in a reasonable manner if you're a conspiracist who truly thinks Oswald was just an unwitting patsy in the assassination of the President.
Because unless Oswald was trying to set himself up as a patsy, it's rather difficult to find any logical or reasonable answers to those three questions I just posed that would lead to a conclusion that Lee Oswald was completely innocent in the events that took place in Dallas on November 22nd. Particularly when those three questions are evaluated and assessed in conjunction with all of the OTHER things that incriminate Oswald in JFK's murder, e.g., the Carcano rifle, the shells, the paper bag on the sixth floor, LHO's prints being all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, etc.
In short -- Oswald's OWN ACTIONS on November 21, 1963, provide some extremely powerful circumstantial evidence to indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald was anything but an innocent patsy when it comes to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
More here....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html
John Corbett
Mar 23, 2022, 11:03:26 PM3/23/22
to
The curtain rod story makes no sense. Why would Oswald make a special trip to Irving on THURSDAY when his normal routine was to go to Irving on FRIDAY. If he planned to spend the weekend with his family which was his normal routine, he wouldn't be getting back to
rooming house until the following Monday anyway. There was absolutely no reason for him to fetch the curtain rods before the weekend.
Ben Holmes
Mar 25, 2022, 11:26:33 AM3/25/22
to
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
the question.
You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
someone to shoot JFK.
P.S. Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about
Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
Hank Sienzant
Mar 27, 2022, 8:07:29 PM3/27/22
to
On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> > murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> > wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> > unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> > Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
> the question.
>
> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
> someone to shoot JFK.
Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> > murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> > wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> > unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> > Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
> the question.
>
> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
> someone to shoot JFK.
>
> P.S. Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about
> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
With sufficient Youtube followers and visits, you can get advertisers, and get paid.
"To enable monetization on YouTube, you need to meet certain requirements and join the YouTube Partner Program (YPP). According to YouTube, to qualify for monetization, you must have: 4,000 watch hours over the last 12 months. at least 1,000 subscribers on your channel."
Sky Throne repeatedly links to the same YouTube videos. It's pretty clear why.
Ben Holmes
Apr 1, 2022, 7:35:26 PM4/1/22
to
On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
>>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
>>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
>>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
>>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>>
>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
>> the question.
>>
>> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
>> someone to shoot JFK.
>
>Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
Begging the question to support begging the question.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
>>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
>>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
>>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
>>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>>
>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
>> the question.
>>
>> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
>> someone to shoot JFK.
>
>Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
As I stated, you'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was
needed for someone to shoot JFK.
>> P.S. Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about
>> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
>
>I'm unaware David is attempting to monetize his website.
There you go again molesting your own mother.
>> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
>
>I'm unaware David is attempting to monetize his website.
I said *NOTHING* about monitizing a website. I spoke about the SAME
THING you have previously posted - driving traffic.
If you can't respond to what I say without blatantly lying about it,
then your mother is the casualty.
Hank Sienzant
Apr 2, 2022, 10:54:38 AM4/2/22
to
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:35:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> >>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> >>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> >>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> >>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
> >>
> >> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
> >> the question.
> >>
> >> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
> >> someone to shoot JFK.
> >
> >Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
> Begging the question to support begging the question.
>
> As I stated, you'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was
> needed for someone to shoot JFK.
The subject matter is Lee Oswald on 11/21/63.
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
> >>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
> >>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
> >>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
> >>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
> >>
> >> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
> >> the question.
> >>
> >> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
> >> someone to shoot JFK.
> >
> >Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
> Begging the question to support begging the question.
>
> As I stated, you'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was
> needed for someone to shoot JFK.
You change the point, creating a straw man argument.
The correct question is:
Did Oswald need to visit the Paine home on 11/21/63 if he is intent is to shoot JFK the next day?
The correct answer is:
Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
> >> P.S. Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about
> >> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
> >
> >I'm unaware David is attempting to monetize his website.
> There you go again molesting your own mother.
And there goes Ben with his bizarre molestation charges anytime he’s stuck.
> >> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
> >
> >I'm unaware David is attempting to monetize his website.
> There you go again molesting your own mother.
>
> I said *NOTHING* about monitizing a website. I spoke about the SAME
> THING you have previously posted - driving traffic.
>
> If you can't respond to what I say without blatantly lying about it,
> then your mother is the casualty.
Doing the dozens is so 1960s Newark.
Your momma so fat a picture of her would fall off the wall.
Christopher Strimbu
Apr 2, 2022, 12:11:17 PM4/2/22
to
David Von Pein
Apr 2, 2022, 5:08:29 PM4/2/22
to
On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:11:17 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hank, David does have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPeinJFK/videos
You bet I have a YouTube channel. And I most certainly have (in the past) made money off of it via their monetization platform. But when YouTube changed the rules regarding what type of content can and cannot be monetized, my ability to monetize my content on YouTube has been disabled most of the time. But the people at YouTube who decide such things really don't have any idea what they're doing, because even with the new 2018 rules in place, they have still decided (on 4 separate occasions!) that my content at all 3 of my YouTube channels *was* indeed within the rules and therefore my monetization was re-enabled for limited periods between 2018 and 2021. (It's a case of the left hand not knowing what YouTube's right hand is doing at any one particular time, I guess. Perhaps that's what happens when a company gets as big as YouTube has become.)
> Hank, David does have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPeinJFK/videos
But while I would definitely like my monetization to stay turned on forever at YouTube (who wouldn't? I'd be an idiot not to want such a thing), I'm grateful for the monetization system that once existed in the past for channels like mine which consist of all "third party" content. It was actually a system of making money that I always thought was "too good to be true". And, as I found out later, it was indeed just that, because in 2018 YouTube completely changed the rules and pulled the plug on thousands of channels like mine which were monetizing for years under the old rules. And, as a result, YouTube itself is throwing many thousands of dollars (probably millions) per year down their own drains, because YouTube itself always gets about 45% of the ad revenue generated from all YT channels. Seems odd to me that a company would willingly flush that much revenue down the toilet. ~shrug~
Anyway, as far as this comment made a while back by Prick Holmes....
"Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website? It's a very common (and logical) thing for anyone to do who has a website that they want people to visit. But Holmes (and other CTers I've encountered over the years) make it sound like an unpardonable sin worthy of the gas chamber. Geesh.
Well, gas chamber, here I come again....
http://www.youtube.com/DavidVonPeinJFK
http://www.youtube.com/DVPOldTimeRadio
http://www.youtube.com/DavidVonPeinChannel3
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
https://www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
Hank Sienzant
Apr 2, 2022, 6:06:33 PM4/2/22
to
On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:11:17 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hank, David does have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPeinJFK/videos
> You bet I have a YouTube channel. And I most certainly have (in the past) made money off of it via their monetization platform. But when YouTube changed the rules regarding what type of content can and cannot be monetized, my ability to monetize my content on YouTube has been disabled most of the time. But the people at YouTube who decide such things really don't have any idea what they're doing, because even with the new 2018 rules in place, they have still decided (on 4 separate occasions!) that my content at all 3 of my YouTube channels *was* indeed within the rules and therefore my monetization was re-enabled for limited periods between 2018 and 2021. (It's a case of the left hand not knowing what YouTube's right hand is doing at any one particular time, I guess. Perhaps that's what happens when a company gets as big as YouTube has become.)
>
> But while I would definitely like my monetization to stay turned on forever at YouTube (who wouldn't? I'd be an idiot not to want such a thing), I'm grateful for the monetization system that once existed in the past for channels like mine which consist of all "third party" content. It was actually a system of making money that I always thought was "too good to be true". And, as I found out later, it was indeed just that, because in 2018 YouTube completely changed the rules and pulled the plug on thousands of channels like mine which were monetizing for years under the old rules. And, as a result, YouTube itself is throwing many thousands of dollars (probably millions) per year down their own drains, because YouTube itself always gets about 45% of the ad revenue generated from all YT channels. Seems odd to me that a company would willingly flush that much revenue down the toilet. ~shrug~
>
> Anyway, as far as this comment made a while back by Prick Holmes....
>
> "Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
>
> ....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website? It's a very common (and logical) thing for anyone to do who has a website that they want people to visit. But Holmes (and other CTers I've encountered over the years) make it sound like an unpardonable sin worthy of the gas chamber. Geesh.
David, to be fair, I pointed out that many of Sky Throne’s repetitive posts seemed to be for the simple reason of driving traffic to his his YouTube channel. Ben then started calling me out for not criticizing you for the same thing, but I hadn’t seen you make those kinds of repetitive posts as click-bait as Sky Throne does.
> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:11:17 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hank, David does have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPeinJFK/videos
> You bet I have a YouTube channel. And I most certainly have (in the past) made money off of it via their monetization platform. But when YouTube changed the rules regarding what type of content can and cannot be monetized, my ability to monetize my content on YouTube has been disabled most of the time. But the people at YouTube who decide such things really don't have any idea what they're doing, because even with the new 2018 rules in place, they have still decided (on 4 separate occasions!) that my content at all 3 of my YouTube channels *was* indeed within the rules and therefore my monetization was re-enabled for limited periods between 2018 and 2021. (It's a case of the left hand not knowing what YouTube's right hand is doing at any one particular time, I guess. Perhaps that's what happens when a company gets as big as YouTube has become.)
>
> But while I would definitely like my monetization to stay turned on forever at YouTube (who wouldn't? I'd be an idiot not to want such a thing), I'm grateful for the monetization system that once existed in the past for channels like mine which consist of all "third party" content. It was actually a system of making money that I always thought was "too good to be true". And, as I found out later, it was indeed just that, because in 2018 YouTube completely changed the rules and pulled the plug on thousands of channels like mine which were monetizing for years under the old rules. And, as a result, YouTube itself is throwing many thousands of dollars (probably millions) per year down their own drains, because YouTube itself always gets about 45% of the ad revenue generated from all YT channels. Seems odd to me that a company would willingly flush that much revenue down the toilet. ~shrug~
>
> Anyway, as far as this comment made a while back by Prick Holmes....
>
> "Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
>
> ....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website? It's a very common (and logical) thing for anyone to do who has a website that they want people to visit. But Holmes (and other CTers I've encountered over the years) make it sound like an unpardonable sin worthy of the gas chamber. Geesh.
Ben Holmes
Apr 4, 2022, 9:29:47 AM4/4/22
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 07:54:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Notice folks, that Huckster simply RAN from the question.
>>>> P.S. Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about
>>>> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
>>>
>>>I'm unaware David is attempting to monetize his website.
>>
>> There you go again molesting your own mother.
>
>And there goes Ben with his bizarre molestation charges anytime he’s stuck.
Anytime you blatantly try to put words in my mouth, I feel quite safe
in letting the world know about what you confided to me.
>> I said *NOTHING* about monitizing a website. I spoke about the SAME
>> THING you have previously posted - driving traffic.
>
>Ben pretends...
No pretence anywhere to be seen.
>> If you can't respond to what I say without blatantly lying about it,
>> then your mother is the casualty.
>
>If you can’t understand what I’m saying, just ask.
Okay... why did you blatantly change the words that I posted?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:35:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
>>>>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
>>>>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
>>>>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
>>>>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>>>>
>>>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
>>>> the question.
>>>>
>>>> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
>>>> someone to shoot JFK.
>>>
>>>Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
>>
>> Begging the question to support begging the question.
>>
>> As I stated, you'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was
>> needed for someone to shoot JFK.
LFD.
>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:35:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" to take the fall for JFK's
>>>>> murder (as so many conspiracy theorists believe was the case), I'm
>>>>> wondering how in the world the plotters conveniently arranged Oswald's
>>>>> unusual Thursday night trip to Irving, Texas, to visit his wife at
>>>>> Ruth Paine's house on 11/21/63?
>>>>
>>>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You are, of course, merely begging
>>>> the question.
>>>>
>>>> You'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was needed for
>>>> someone to shoot JFK.
>>>
>>>Oswald's gun was in the Paine garage. A visit by Oswald was needed for Oswald to shoot JFK.
>>
>> Begging the question to support begging the question.
>>
>> As I stated, you'll be COMPLETELY unable to show how such a visit was
>> needed for someone to shoot JFK.
Notice folks, that Huckster simply RAN from the question.
>>>> P.S. Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about
>>>> Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites...
>>>
>>>I'm unaware David is attempting to monetize his website.
>>
>> There you go again molesting your own mother.
>
>And there goes Ben with his bizarre molestation charges anytime he’s stuck.
in letting the world know about what you confided to me.
>> I said *NOTHING* about monitizing a website. I spoke about the SAME
>> THING you have previously posted - driving traffic.
>
No pretence anywhere to be seen.
>> If you can't respond to what I say without blatantly lying about it,
>> then your mother is the casualty.
>
>If you can’t understand what I’m saying, just ask.
Ben Holmes
Apr 4, 2022, 9:29:49 AM4/4/22
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:06:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
...
>> "Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
>>
>> ....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website? It's a very common (and logical) thing for anyone to do who has a website that they want people to visit. But Holmes (and other CTers I've encountered over the years) make it sound like an unpardonable sin worthy of the gas chamber. Geesh.
>
> David, to be fair, I pointed out that many of Sky Throne’s
> repetitive posts seemed to be for the simple reason of driving traffic
> to his his YouTube channel. Ben then started calling me out for not
> criticizing you for the same thing...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
...
>> "Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
>>
>> ....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website? It's a very common (and logical) thing for anyone to do who has a website that they want people to visit. But Holmes (and other CTers I've encountered over the years) make it sound like an unpardonable sin worthy of the gas chamber. Geesh.
>
> David, to be fair, I pointed out that many of Sky Throne’s
> repetitive posts seemed to be for the simple reason of driving traffic
> to his his YouTube channel. Ben then started calling me out for not
Even Huckster realizes his hypocrisy...
Ben Holmes
Apr 4, 2022, 9:29:49 AM4/4/22
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:08:27 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<dvp.miscel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
>
>....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website?
That was, of course, **NEVER** the question. I'm certainly all in
<dvp.miscel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Watch as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to say a single word about Davey's attempts to drive traffic to his websites." -- B. Holmes; March 25, 2022
>
>....My question would be: What is so terrible about somebody wanting to drive traffic to his own website?
favor of such things...
The question is why Huckster whines when a critic does it, but not
when *YOU* do it.
It's known as hypocrisy.
I merely point it out.
And the fact that **YOU** couldn't figure this out shows why you're on
the wrong side of the issues here.
You can't think.
Ben Holmes
Apr 4, 2022, 9:30:19 AM4/4/22
to
On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hank, David does have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user
How embarrassingly rare! One kook correcting another kook!
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hank, David does have a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user
0 new messages