JFK Videos

[David Von Pein]

New 5-Part Series....
WLW-Radio in Cincinnati, OH. (Nov. 22 & 23 Coverage)(33+ Hours):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqINoVDIEsnoZvorXVcc8MRSF

All of JFK's Press Conferences:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIOOpmfrurZtkYeYEL-onugx

Marathons:
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2020/05/jfk-marathon-videos.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 19:50:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>New 5-Part Series....
>WLW-Radio in Cincinnati, OH. (Nov. 22 & 23 Coverage)(33+ Hours):

Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-master-video-index.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives ...

[David Von Pein]

A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.

[David Von Pein]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZkFPVKCXw

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfk-archives ...
>> Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
>
>A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.

And of course, Davy proves that my statement is correct. He's

TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer.

And since Chickenshit EXPLICITLY argued that the prosectors dissected
JFK's neck wound - and Davy refuses to say anything - we can presume
that Davy is too stupid to understand the known evidence and holds the
same wacky belief.

WHAT A MORON!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com


Tell everyone Davy - why do you believe that the prosectors dissected
JFK's neck wound?

Did Bugliosi also believe that wacky nonsense?

[David Von Pein]

This thread is for "JFK Videos", Prick Holmes. Stop hijacking it.

[David Von Pein]

My latest YouTube uploads (many, many hours of material):
https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPeinJFK/videos

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:27:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:21:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com
>>
>>
>> Tell everyone Davy - why do you believe that the prosectors dissected
>> JFK's neck wound?
>>
>> Did Bugliosi also believe that wacky nonsense?
>
>This thread is for "JFK Videos", Prick Holmes. Stop hijacking it.

Tell everyone Davy - why are you trying to excuse your inability to
support your belief that the prosectors dissected JFK's neck wound?

If I start a thread SPECIFICALLY on this topic - you simply run away.

Provably.

So I post it here... so you can run again.

Quite the coward, aren't you Davy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://jfk-archives ...
>>>> Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
>>>
>>>A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.
>>
>> And of course, Davy proves that my statement is correct. He's
>> TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer.
>

> Begged.


Nothing 'begged" at all. The FACTS are there, and only Davy can
explain his reasoning... but he's afraid to even offer that much.

>> And since Chickenshit EXPLICITLY argued that the prosectors dissected
>> JFK's neck wound -
>

> And since you refuse to offer anything that conflicts with the dissection I showed I must be correct.


You're lying again, Chickenshit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:32:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I`ll delete mine out soon.


It's here forever now... you can't delete *MY* posts.

Davy Von Peiny refuses to explain why he thinks the prosectors
dissected JFK's throat wound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:27:06 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> He is desperate to get someone, anyone to provide some testimony Finck gave because he is afraid to.


Actually, I'm proving what I've repeatedly said... believers won't
correct other believers when they lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:36:31 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>My latest YouTube uploads (many, many hours of material):
>https://www.youtube.com

But which video is it that explains why you believe that the
prosectors dissected JFK's throat wound?

No cite for that???

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:42:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:40:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://jfk-archives ...
>>>>>> Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
>>>>>
>>>>>A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.
>>>>
>>>> And of course, Davy proves that my statement is correct. He's
>>>> TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer.
>>>
>>> Begged.
>>
>> Nothing 'begged" at all.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> The FACTS are there, and only Davy can
>> explain his reasoning... but he's afraid to even offer that much.

Notice that Chickenshit simply RAN AWAY...

>>>> And since Chickenshit EXPLICITLY argued that the prosectors dissected
>>>> JFK's neck wound -
>>>
>>> And since you refuse to offer anything that conflicts with the dissection I showed I must be correct.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>

> What have you produced?


Lie, and claim I haven't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:43:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Begged.


Nothing begged about the FACT that Davy Von Peiny refuses to explain
why he believes that the prosectors dissected JFK's neck wound.

And refuses to correct you.

Of course, you haven't offered evidence either. Offering your
"medical" opinion isn't evidence, is it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:42:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:40:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://jfk-archives ...
>>>>>>>> Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, Davy proves that my statement is correct. He's
>>>>>> TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Begged.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing 'begged" at all.
>

> Of course it is begged. It assumes what you haven`t shown, that you are right and I am wrong.


The facts do that for me.

>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>>>> The FACTS are there, and only Davy can
>>>> explain his reasoning... but he's afraid to even offer that much.
>>
>> Notice that Chickenshit simply RAN AWAY...

And did so again...

>>>>>> And since Chickenshit EXPLICITLY argued that the prosectors dissected
>>>>>> JFK's neck wound -
>>>>>
>>>>> And since you refuse to offer anything that conflicts with the dissection I showed I must be correct.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>>
>>> What have you produced?
>>
>> Lie, and claim I haven't.
>

> What did you produce in support of the idea that the throat wound wasn`t dissected?


Finck's testimony is quite explicit on that point. Plus, of course,
there's *NO* evidence that the prosectors ever dissected the neck
wound or the track of the bullet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 7:06:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:43:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:27:06 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:21:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell everyone Davy - why do you believe that the prosectors dissected
>>>>>>> JFK's neck wound?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did Bugliosi also believe that wacky nonsense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread is for "JFK Videos", Prick Holmes. Stop hijacking it.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is desperate to get someone, anyone to provide some testimony Finck gave because he is afraid to.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I'm proving what I've repeatedly said... believers won't
>>>> correct other believers when they lie.
>>>
>>> Begged.
>>
>> Nothing begged about the FACT that Davy Von Peiny refuses to explain
>> why he believes that the prosectors dissected JFK's neck wound.
>

> He also refuses to explain why he doesn`t believe the prosectors

> dissected JFK`s neck wound.

Calling Davy Von Peiny a liar???

He's not going to like that.

>> And refuses to correct you.
>

> Begged.


No stupid, THIS IS A PROVABLE FACT.

Nothing "begged" about it.

>> Of course, you haven't offered evidence either.
>

> Of course, you are simply lying.


Then by all means, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

And if it doesn't say anything about a dissection of the throat wound,
then you've proven yourself a liar.

>> Offering your
>> "medical" opinion isn't evidence, is it?
>

> Quoting Humes is.


Humes said nothing about dissecting the throat wound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 7:09:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:42:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:40:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>>>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://jfk-archives ...
>>>>>>>>>> Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, Davy proves that my statement is correct. He's
>>>>>>>> TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Begged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing 'begged" at all.
>>>
>>> Of course it is begged. It assumes what you haven`t shown, that you are right and I am wrong.
>> The facts do that for me.
>

> Begged.


Not a refutation.

>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>
>>>>>> The FACTS are there, and only Davy can
>>>>>> explain his reasoning... but he's afraid to even offer that much.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that Chickenshit simply RAN AWAY...
>>
>> And did so again...
>

> All hot air, no substance.


Not a refutation.

>>>>>>>> And since Chickenshit EXPLICITLY argued that the prosectors dissected
>>>>>>>> JFK's neck wound -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And since you refuse to offer anything that conflicts with the dissection I showed I must be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> What have you produced?
>>>>
>>>> Lie, and claim I haven't.
>>>
>>> What did you produce in support of the idea that the throat wound wasn`t dissected?
>>
>> Finck's testimony is quite explicit on that point.
>

> Did you produce this?


Not a refutation.

>> Plus, of course, there's *NO* evidence that the prosectors ever
>> dissected the neck wound
>

> Already provided.


You're lying again.

>> or the track of the bullet.
>

> What do you mean by this?


A bullet makes a "track" through the body.

Physical dissection remains a method to lay open a GSW track and allow
direct visualisation of the tissues.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:26:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Molesting children?


Lie, and claim that if Davy doesn't believe what you believe, that
someone isn't lying.

>> He's not going to like that.

I rather expect he doesn't like it right now - being the butt of a
joke he didn't start.

>>>> And refuses to correct you.
>>>
>>> Begged.
>>
>> No stupid, THIS IS A PROVABLE FACT.
>>
>> Nothing "begged" about it.
>

> It is begged that I am the one who is wrong and needs correcting, stupid.


No, that's merely factual. You've either already figured it out, or
you will in the future.

You ABSOLUTELY MUST start calling Dr. Finck a liar - because his sworn
testimony contradicts you explicitly... one of you is provably lying.

>>>> Of course, you haven't offered evidence either.
>>>
>>> Of course, you are simply lying.
>>
>> Then by all means, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.
>

> Did that.


Where did it say dissection of the throat wound?

>> And if it doesn't say anything about a dissection of the throat wound,
>> then you've proven yourself a liar.
>

> How do you dissect an asshole?


Ask your doctor.


> They dissected the neck.


No they didn't.

>>>> Offering your
>>>> "medical" opinion isn't evidence, is it?
>>>
>>> Quoting Humes is.
>>
>> Humes said nothing about dissecting the throat wound.
>

> How do you dissect an asshole?


This question should be directed to your doctor.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I haven`t refuted the evidence you haven`t produced?


Lie, and claim that because I've not quoted Dr. Finck, that his
testimony doesn't exist.

>>>> Plus, of course, there's *NO* evidence that the prosectors ever
>>>> dissected the neck wound
>>>
>>> Already provided.
>>
>> You're lying again.
>

> They dissected the neck. Damage was noted.


They specifically DID NOT dissect the neck.

>>>> or the track of the bullet.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by this?
>> A bullet makes a "track" through the body.
>

> And?

Read directly below:

>> Physical dissection remains a method to lay open a GSW track and allow
>> direct visualisation of the tissues.
>

> Of course when you open the body damage to the tissue can be
> noted. Is that what you mean, they track the path of the bullet by
> noting damage? This was done.


No, it was not. It was stated under oath that this was not done.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I don`t know what he believes on the issue and your logic doesn`t follow.


He believes as you do - that the prosectors dissected the throat
wound.

>>>> He's not going to like that.
>>
>> I rather expect he doesn't like it right now - being the butt of a
>> joke he didn't start.
>>
>>>>>> And refuses to correct you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Begged.
>>>>
>>>> No stupid, THIS IS A PROVABLE FACT.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing "begged" about it.
>>>
>>> It is begged that I am the one who is wrong and needs correcting, stupid.
>>
>> No, that's merely factual.
>>
>>You've either already figured it out, or
>> you will in the future.
>

> You are never going to produce anything, how can I lose?


You are never going to deny anything, how can I lose?

>> You ABSOLUTELY MUST start calling Dr. Finck a liar - because his sworn
>> testimony contradicts you explicitly... one of you is provably lying.

Obscenities removed.

>>>>>> Of course, you haven't offered evidence either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, you are simply lying.
>>>>
>>>> Then by all means, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>> Did that.
>>
>> Where did it say dissection of the throat wound?
>

> Dissection of the neck. That was where the wound was.


Quote any prosector stating that they dissected the throat wound in
the neck.

>>>> And if it doesn't say anything about a dissection of the throat wound,
>>>> then you've proven yourself a liar.
>>>
>>> How do you dissect an asshole?
>>
>>
>> Ask your doctor.
>>
>>
>>> They dissected the neck.
>>
>>
>> No they didn't.
>

> Humes said he did.


No, he did **NOT** say that. And you can't quote him doing so.

[Bud]

It`s existence doesn`t speak to who is right or wrong on this issue at all.

> >>>> Plus, of course, there's *NO* evidence that the prosectors ever
> >>>> dissected the neck wound
> >>>
> >>> Already provided.
> >>
> >> You're lying again.
> >
> > They dissected the neck. Damage was noted.
> They specifically DID NOT dissect the neck.

"To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest."

I`m seeing neck, and I`m seeing dissection.

> >>>> or the track of the bullet.
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean by this?
> >> A bullet makes a "track" through the body.
> >
> > And?
> Read directly below:
> >> Physical dissection remains a method to lay open a GSW track and allow
> >> direct visualisation of the tissues.
> >
> > Of course when you open the body damage to the tissue can be
> > noted. Is that what you mean, they track the path of the bullet by
> > noting damage? This was done.
> No, it was not.

Then how did they know about the damage to the tip of the lung?

[Bud]

So you say.

> >>>> He's not going to like that.
> >>
> >> I rather expect he doesn't like it right now - being the butt of a
> >> joke he didn't start.
> >>
> >>>>>> And refuses to correct you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Begged.
> >>>>
> >>>> No stupid, THIS IS A PROVABLE FACT.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing "begged" about it.
> >>>
> >>> It is begged that I am the one who is wrong and needs correcting, stupid.
> >>
> >> No, that's merely factual.
> >>
> >>You've either already figured it out, or
> >> you will in the future.
> >
> > You are never going to produce anything, how can I lose?
> You are never going to deny anything, how can I lose?

You lose when you only blow hot air without providing any support.

> >> You ABSOLUTELY MUST start calling Dr. Finck a liar - because his sworn
> >> testimony contradicts you explicitly... one of you is provably lying.
> Obscenities removed.
> >>>>>> Of course, you haven't offered evidence either.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, you are simply lying.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then by all means, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.
> >>>
> >>> Did that.
> >>
> >> Where did it say dissection of the throat wound?
> >
> > Dissection of the neck. That was where the wound was.
> Quote any prosector stating that they dissected the throat wound in
> the neck.

How do you dissect a hole?

You open up the body and you look for damage. That was done.

> >>>> And if it doesn't say anything about a dissection of the throat wound,
> >>>> then you've proven yourself a liar.
> >>>
> >>> How do you dissect an asshole?
> >>
> >>
> >> Ask your doctor.
> >>
> >>
> >>> They dissected the neck.
> >>
> >>
> >> No they didn't.
> >
> > Humes said he did.
> No, he did **NOT** say that. And you can't quote him doing so.

Already have.

[David Von Pein]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QquALPRhQU

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:16:18 AM UTC, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QquALPRhQU

The Maggot Penis Von David keeps munching on the corpse of JFK! Yummy yummy JFK!

[Tim Brennan]

Well what TF are YOU doing, 19e?!

DVP is providing links to high quality and rare JFK videos, as opposed to the abject GARBAGE that you are providing, pal!

Those ridiculous JFK-CT vids that YOU produce, introed in that quavering REEDY voice and proposing quite simply LUDICROUS scenarios are the absolute NADIR of JFK assassination research, mate.

Even a *tomnln* standard video would positively SHINE in comparison to YOUR output of PUTRID audio visual bilge, champ.

LOVEY DOVEY DO is it, pal?

No WONDER you skulk behind a screenname! Just like Benny *Yellow Pants* Holmes SKULKS behind his cowardly TWO BIT killfilter!

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

ps You are quite simply and plainly RIDICULOUS, 19e. Necrophilia is it? Well it was the JFK-CT who dug up the corpse of LHO back in 1981, not the OTHER way around, ya lying hypocrite! TB

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

So says the Penis Maggot Down Under!

[David Von Pein]

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:06:23 AM UTC-7, Tim Brennan wrote:
> On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 16:50:13 UTC+10, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:16:18 AM UTC, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QquALPRhQU
> >
> > The Maggot Penis Von David keeps munching on the corpse of JFK! Yummy yummy JFK!
> Well what TF are YOU doing, 19e?!
>
> DVP is providing links to high quality and rare JFK videos, as opposed to the abject GARBAGE that you are providing, pal!
>
> Those ridiculous JFK-CT vids that YOU produce, introed in that quavering REEDY voice and proposing quite simply LUDICROUS scenarios are the absolute NADIR of JFK assassination research, mate.
>
> Even a *tomnln* standard video would positively SHINE in comparison to YOUR output of PUTRID audio visual bilge, champ.
>
> LOVEY DOVEY DO is it, pal?
>
> No WONDER you skulk behind a screenname! Just like Benny *Yellow Pants* Holmes SKULKS behind his cowardly TWO BIT killfilter!

[...]
rare? you dumb fuck!

[BT George]

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 5:05:12 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://jfk-archives ...
> > Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
> A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.

Thank you. bebs proves on a regular basis he doesn't deserve the dignity of a proper name. Considering my feelings toward a lot of other CTs his special place in my heart should be obvious.

[John Corbett]

Benny is the biggest liar of the bunch. Toilet Seat is the craziest. I used to think that was McClung but the Toilet Seat has proved to be even nuttier. Scrummy is probably the dumbest of the group. healy the most obnoxious and inebriated. Each is special in his own way.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

Revised Webpage....
http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com/2012/03/wlw-radio.html

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 8:31:39 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com

I believe it was on either the 30th or 40th anniversary of the assassination that the History Channel replayed NBC's entire coverage of the assassination from the first bulletin to final service at Arlington and the lighting of the eternal flame. That began on Friday afternoon at the very minute the first bulletin came in and synced it so that everything happened at the very minute of the day that the original events took place. I thought about recording it but I realized it would have taken a whole lot of VCR cassettes to record the entire weekend. I don't think NBC stayed on the air all night so it wouldn't have require 72 hours of recording but it would still have require more blank cassettes than I had available. Were you aware of that presentation and do you know if there is any way to access that?

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 6:49:51 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:





Scrummy is probably the dumbest of the group. healy the most obnoxious and inebriated. Each is special in his own way.

If you think your demented lies and trolling false sincerity is "smart" you're only fooling yourself...


I have to admit though I am pretty stupid to take you seriously or give any response to your obvious denial trolling...


Meanwhile your posts are full of clues that you don't have any inkling of the evidence and simply rely on a prescripted denial formula laid out by McAdams...

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 8:46:11 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> I believe it was on either the 30th or 40th anniversary of the assassination that the History Channel replayed NBC's entire coverage of the assassination from the first bulletin to final service at Arlington and the lighting of the eternal flame. That began on Friday afternoon at the very minute the first bulletin came in and synced it so that everything happened at the very minute of the day that the original events took place. I thought about recording it but I realized it would have taken a whole lot of VCR cassettes to record the entire weekend. I don't think NBC stayed on the air all night so it wouldn't have require 72 hours of recording but it would still have require more blank cassettes than I had available. Were you aware of that presentation and do you know if there is any way to access that?

Yes, I am aware of that NBC-TV re-broadcast. As I recall, it was done for the 40th anniversary in 2003, which was five years before I myself started getting excited about recording and saving (digitally) a lot of JFK-related audio and video.

I know of no one who was successful in recording the 4-day NBC coverage from 2003. So I wouldn't have any idea how you could access it.

I wish NBC (or The History Channel) had done it again for the 50th anniversary in 2013, because by then I probably would have recorded all 4 days of it. Over the years, I've managed to gather together more than 10 hours of the NBC coverage from various sources, the most recent of which came right out of the blue from an anonymous person on the Internet in late 2015. That person performed a bit of a miracle (IMO) by somehow cleaning up and enhancing his old 1988-era VHS videotapes of the NBC assassination material, so that the end result was video quality that is better than I had ever seen before for the NBC coverage. I have no idea how he was able to enhance VHS quality material to a nearly hi-def-looking state. But he did. And he then sent it all to me via DropBox (or some similar file-sharing site):

http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com/2012/03/nbc-tv.html

I wish somebody would do that same type of clean-up and enhancement for the WFAA-TV assassination tapes and the poor-quality ABC-TV coverage too. I'd love that. But I, myself, certainly don't possess the skills to bring those tapes back to a super-high-quality condition. Somebody *has* done it, though, for much of the WFAA-TV tapes, because there's WFAA footage in the 2009 documentary "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America" that looks very close to HD:

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-3-shots-that-changed-america.html

The CBS News website, if you'll recall, streamed all four days of its Nov. '63 coverage for the 50th anniversary in 2013, starting at the precise minute when Walter Cronkite broke into "As The World Turns" with the first CBS bulletin at 1:40 PM (EST). I even saved the ad (logo) that CBS was using in the month before the Live Stream:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bGLWLU2EhBE/YTa7QBh7O3I/AAAAAAABZO4/XmJoAJsYXjcVQPJLsM65w2PGhyTojVU-wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1500/CBS-2013-Web-Stream-Of-JFK-Assassination-Coverage-Logo.png

I tried to record and save the CBS Live Stream in 2013, but I had no luck in doing so. I think, however, that CBS had it fixed so that nobody *could* record the stream. You'd probably have gotten nothing but a scrambled image even you did manage to record anything. CBS was being very strict and possessive about their assassination footage at that time. I know that for a fact, because they started putting in numerous copyright claims on my CBS-TV YouTube videos in the summer of 2013, which resulted in my channel getting terminated by YouTube's Copyright Police in August of '13. So I had to start up with a new channel that month because of CBS' strictness. But if it hadn't been "The 50th Anniversary", CBS wouldn't have cared a whit about my stuff being on YouTube. But since it was "The 50th", CBS wanted the playing field all to themselves for their unique 4-day Live Stream event in November.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 23:16:17 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com

But which video is it that explains why you believe that the
prosectors dissected JFK's throat wound?

No cite for that???

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:05:27 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://DVP

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 17:31:38 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk

But which video is it that explains why you believe that the
prosectors dissected JFK's throat wound?

No cite for that???

Why the cowardice, Davy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 17:36:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Revised Webpage....
>http://jfk

Revised question:

But which video is it that explains why you believe that the

prosectors dissected JFK's throat wound? Why do you refuse to share it
with us?

No cite for that???

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 18:47:12 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


>Yes, I am aware of that NBC-TV re-broadcast.

But are you aware of which video is it that explains why you believe

that the prosectors dissected JFK's throat wound?

[David Von Pein]

http://youtube-playlists.blogspot.com

[Bud]

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:53:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 18:47:12 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, I am aware of that NBC-TV re-broadcast.
> But are you aware of which video is it that explains why you believe
> that the prosectors dissected JFK's throat wound?

Are you ever going to support your belief that it wasn`t dissected?

[John Corbett]

About 30 years ago, somebody sent me a VHS tape of the first 4 hours of CBS coverage. Since I was in school when the announcement was made, I had never seen any of the earliest coverage. The first revelation was that with the very earliest bulletin, it was thought that the shooting might be fatal. When they made that announcement at our school, they only told us that both the President and governor were in serious condition. That at least gave us some hope until our teacher turned on the radio and it seemed like just a few minutes later the announcement was made that he had died.

The other remarkable thing was that after making the initial announcement, CBS returned to its regularly scheduled broadcast which was a soap opera as if nothing had happened. I think it was only after the third bulletin that they stayed on the air. I later learned that with the old vacuum tube cameras, they had to warm up for about 15 minutes before they were operational. TV coverage was so primitive back then and it wasn't conducive to doing live reporting. Somebody would paste a wire service photo on a piece of poster board and Cronkite would hold it up for the camera.

I was glued to the TV that whole weekend. I can remember taking two breaks. One was to watch the Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, one of the few played that weekend. It wasn't a network broadcast. It was covered by the PBS station in Lincoln and we could barely get the broadcast in Omaha. The picture was very snowy but you could follow the action. Nebraska needed to win the game to go to the Orange Bowl which they did. The other was when I went to the neighbors' yard to play a game of touch football Sunday morning. I remember my younger sister bolting out of the neighbors back door and running toward our house saying, "Mom, somebody shot Oswald". It's one of my regrets that I didn't get to see that live. It would have done my heart good.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 14:12:38 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://youtube

When are you going to cite for your belief that the doctors dissected
the neck wound, Davy?

Why the cowardice?

Do you think that no-one notices your abject fear of answering?

[Tim Brennan]

When are YOU, Holmes, going to account for your abject LIE about the matter of *The Lady In Yellow Pants* Benny?

Why the COWARDICE, Benny?

The REPOSTING of your LIE can be easily arranged for your LYING and COWARDLY approval, Yellow Pants.

Helpful Regards,

[Bud]

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:06:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 14:12:38 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://youtube
>
> When are you going to cite for your belief that the doctors dissected
> the neck wound, Davy?

When are you going to cite for your contention that they didn`t?

> Why the cowardice?

Because you are a coward.

> Do you think that no-one notices your abject fear of answering?

Ironic.

[David Von Pein]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIMUXlOqDYq423XHJbygpllj

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:27:21 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIMUXlOqDYq423XHJbygpllj

I'm looking forward to The Making of a President. A few years ago I saw a program about the Wisconsin primary. I didn't realize it was just an excerpt from this longer documentary. Since tonight is the start of the NFL season, it's going to have to wait until at least tomorrow.
I watched the first ten minutes. I was surprised to learn that only Nixon and Rockefeller were running on the Republican side. I've always been under the impression Goldwater had run too. I thought I remembered seeing him give a concession speech at the convention. Maybe he got in the race later. I'll find out when I watch the whole program.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com


Still spouting videos... but never supporting your claim that the
prosectors dissected the throat wound.

[Bud]

What have you offered that they didn`t?

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-press-conferences.blogspot.com/2012/06/press-conference-1-january-25-1961.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-press

Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
JFK's throat wound.

Indeed, nothing but silence from you.

What a coward!

[Bud]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://jfk-press
>
> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
> JFK's throat wound.

Still nothing from you supporting your position that it wasn`t dissected.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 16:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfk-press
>>
>> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
>> JFK's throat wound.
>
> Still nothing from you supporting your position that it wasn`t dissected.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

[Bud]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:57:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 16:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://jfk-press
> >>
> >> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
> >> JFK's throat wound.
> >
> > Still nothing from you supporting your position that it wasn`t dissected.
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

What did you produce?

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://jfk-press
>
> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
> JFK's throat wound.

I have never made any such claim---ever. You're lying---again (as per usual).

> Indeed, nothing but silence from you.

Oh, if only we could say the same thing about Benny Holmes. "Silence" would, indeed, be golden if it were to come from Super Prick Holmes. But instead we're treated to thousands of worthless posts, day after day, from the Super Prick.


> What a coward!

What a prick.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-press-conferences.blogspot.com/2012/06/press-conference-2-february-1-1961.html

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-press-conferences.blogspot.com/2012/06/press-conference-3-february-8-1961.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfk-press
>>
>> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
>> JFK's throat wound.
>
> I have never made any such claim---ever.

Yes indeed, you have. I've repeatedly asked you for your evidence for
this claim, and you keep refusing to cite anything.

No evidence.

No testimony.

No video.

No nothing... why is that, coward?

>> Indeed, nothing but silence from you.
>>

>> What a coward!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-press-conferences


If Davy Von Peiny knows Press Conferences, perhaps he can correct
Huckster on his lies about the Wade news conference...

Or support his claim that the prosectors dissected the track of the
bullet or the neck wound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 21:53:06 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-press-conf

[Bud]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://jfk-press-conferences
>
>
> If Davy Von Peiny knows Press Conferences, perhaps he can correct
> Huckster on his lies about the Wade news conference...

Begged.

> Or support his claim that the prosectors dissected the track of the
> bullet or the neck wound.

You refuse to support that they didn`t.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:22:31 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://jfk-press-conferences
> >
> >
> > If Davy Von Peiny knows Press Conferences, perhaps he can correct
> > Huckster on his lies about the Wade news conference...
> Begged.

old Budster is fartin' in church again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:32:11 -0700 (PDT), "healyd...@gmail.com"
<healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:22:31 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:40 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://jfk-press-conferences
>>>
>>>
>>> If Davy Von Peiny knows Press Conferences, perhaps he can correct
>>> Huckster on his lies about the Wade news conference...
>>
>> Begged.
>
>old Budster is fartin' in church again...

And Davy's afraid to enter...

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://jfk-press
> >>
> >> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
> >> JFK's throat wound.
> >
> > I have never made any such claim---ever.
> Yes indeed, you have. I've repeatedly asked you for your evidence for
> this claim, and you keep refusing to cite anything.
>

I never made such a claim, ever. And you know it. You're a liar---as always.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-press-conferences.blogspot.com/2012/06/press-conference-4-february-15-1961.html

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:05:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://jfk-archives ...
> >> Davy Von Peiny is TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer...
> >
> >A clueless prick is on the loose----and his name is Benny Holmesy.
> And of course, Davy proves that my statement is correct. He's
> TERRIFIED of correcting a fellow believer.

Begged.

> And since Chickenshit EXPLICITLY argued that the prosectors dissected
> JFK's neck wound -

They clearly dissected the neck.

> and Davy refuses to say anything - we can presume
> that Davy is too stupid to understand the known evidence and holds the
> same wacky belief.

You refuse to support your wacky belief that the neck wound was not dissected.

> WHAT A MORON!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:27:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-press-conferences

Don't you think Huckster would appreciate truth about the Wade
conference from a fellow believer who can show it to him

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:27:16 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:46:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:26:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 7:08:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://jfk-press
>>>>
>>>> Still no video supporting your claim that the prosectors dissected
>>>> JFK's throat wound.
>>>
>>> I have never made any such claim---ever.
>> Yes indeed, you have. I've repeatedly asked you for your evidence for
>> this claim, and you keep refusing to cite anything.
>>
>
>I never made such a claim, ever. And you know it. You're a liar---as always.

Amusingly, you cannot deny SPECIFICS. And until you SPECIFICALLY
assert that the prosectors did *NOT* dissect the track of the bullet,
or the neck wound, then that's your stance.

Stop whining about what you said or didn't say.

Until you SPECIFICALLY assert that the prosectors did NOT dissect the
track of the bullet or the throat wound, that *IS* your stance.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:59:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Until you SPECIFICALLY assert that the prosectors did NOT dissect the
> track of the bullet or the throat wound, that *IS* your stance.

Don't ya just love Ben's strange set of rules?

And until I SPECIFICALLY state that I do not think the moon is made out of green cheese, then my stance (per Ben's cockeyed rules) is that I DO believe in the "green cheese" theory.

Ben's in a world all his own.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:59:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Don't you think Huckster would appreciate truth about the Wade

> conference from a fellow believer who can show it to him[?]

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here. If you've been arguing with someone you like to refer to as "Huckster" (??) about something Henry Wade said in one of his news conferences, I haven't been following any such arguments.

I can, however, easily conjure up both of Henry Wade's press conferences (from Nov. 22 and Nov. 24, 1963):

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-conferences.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:23:06 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:59:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Until you SPECIFICALLY assert that the prosectors did NOT dissect the
>> track of the bullet or the throat wound, that *IS* your stance.
>
>Don't ya just love Ben's strange set of rules?

Don't worry, they're the same rules believers have used for critics
for many years.

> And until I SPECIFICALLY state that I do not think the moon is made
> out of green cheese, then my stance (per Ben's cockeyed rules) is that
> I DO believe in the "green cheese" theory.

This is, of course, a false analogy, and Davey knows it. Now, if
Vicent Bugliosi had asserted that the moon was made of green cheese,
THEN your analogy works.

>Ben's in a world all his own.

You know the prosectors didn't dissect the track of the bullet, or the
throat wound - BUT YOU'RE TERRIFIED OF PUBLICLY STATING THAT.

So tell us coward, why?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:40:06 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:59:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Don't you think Huckster would appreciate truth about the Wade
>> conference from a fellow believer who can show it to him[?]
>
>I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here.

I asked a question... you ran from it.

Why is that, coward?


>http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-conferences.html


You must be lying. Huckster didn't describe the news conference like
this.

[Bud]

You are petrified to support your position that it wasn`t dissected. Why is that, Yellowpanties?

> So tell us coward, why?

Tell us, coward, where is this support you claim to have but refuse to produce? Afraid you might have to defend your position?

[Bud]

According to you. But who cares what you say?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:23:06 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:59:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Until you SPECIFICALLY assert that the prosectors did NOT dissect the
>>>> track of the bullet or the throat wound, that *IS* your stance.
>>>
>>>Don't ya just love Ben's strange set of rules?
>> Don't worry, they're the same rules believers have used for critics
>> for many years.
>>> And until I SPECIFICALLY state that I do not think the moon is made
>>> out of green cheese, then my stance (per Ben's cockeyed rules) is that
>>> I DO believe in the "green cheese" theory.
>> This is, of course, a false analogy, and Davey knows it. Now, if
>> Vicent Bugliosi had asserted that the moon was made of green cheese,
>> THEN your analogy works.
>>>Ben's in a world all his own.
>> You know the prosectors didn't dissect the track of the bullet, or the
>> throat wound - BUT YOU'RE TERRIFIED OF PUBLICLY STATING THAT.
>

> You ...


aren't Davy...

>> So tell us coward, why?
>

> Tell us...

Answer the question, or get out of the way so Davy can.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> According ...

To Huckster.

But he lied.

[Bud]

You are petrified to support your position that it wasn`t dissected.

Why is that, Yellowpanties?

> aren't Davy...
> >> So tell us coward, why?
> >
> > Tell us...

Tell us why you can make demands of other people when you refuse to support your position on the matter?

> Answer the question, or get out of the way so Davy can.

You badger other people yet refuse to do it yourself. Strange.

[Bud]

You twisted reading of what Hank wrote.

> But he lied.

You lie about his position.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> This is, of course, a false analogy, and Davey knows it. Now, if Vicent [sic] Bugliosi had asserted that the moon was made of green cheese, THEN your analogy works.

LOL time.
Benny's screwy rule book rears its ugly head again I see.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:27:21 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0O5WNzrZqIMUXlOqDYq423XHJbygpllj

I finally got around to watching The Making of a President 1960. Fascinating stuff. At the time I was 8 years old going on 9. I was aware of the Kennedy-Nixon race but didn't follow it on a daily basis. I have no memory of any of the debates when they happened and have only seen clips of them since. I found it very interesting how narrowly Kennedy won a first ballot nomination. In recent decades, the outcome has always been a foregone conclusion making the political conventions dreadfully dull. I can't remember the last time I watched one. They use to be great political theater with the frontrunners not always having the nomination sewed up going into the convention. I remember in 1972 McGovern had the delegates needed for the nomination but Humphrey got the rules changed to eliminate winner-take-all primaries which gave him a percentage of the California delegation which would have denied McGovern a majority. McGovern got winner-take-all reinstated through a floor vote and that sewed up the nomination. In 1976, Reagan was still trying to peel delegates away from Ford to prevent his nomination. He went so far as to name liberal Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate in a last ditch effort to appeal to the moderate delegates. It didn't work of course. That was the last time I remember the nomination for either party being in doubt going into the conventions. Ever since they have become informercials for the major parties.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:49:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> I was aware of the Kennedy-Nixon race but didn't follow it on a daily basis. I have no memory of any of the debates when they happened and have only seen clips of them since.

Well, in that case, it's DVP at your service (again).....with all 4 of the 1960 Debates at your digital fingertips, right here:

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/kennedy-nixon-debate-1960.html

[Ben Holmes]

And yet, here we see a moron who doesn't watch his own collected
videos... if he had, he'd know what the question was that Wade was
first asked at the beginning of the Nov 24th news conference.

Huckster knows the question... why doesn't Davy?

[Bud]

The purpose of the press conference was to inform the public about what evidence that had that Oswald killed the President. That was the issue in question, and the reason for the press conference. The authorities inform the media, the media informs the public.

[John Corbett]

Oh, great. You just killed four more of my evenings.

Just kidding. These videos are much appreciated. I wasn't old enough back then to understand the issues. I just knew my parents, both New Deal Democrats, were for Kennedy so I was too. My dad had briefly tutored Eunice Kennedy Shriver in Chicago when Sargent Shriver was running the Merchandise Mart. Most of my classmates at the Catholic school I attended favored Kennedy too. Go figure. I do remember collecting and trading campaign buttons. That was about the extent of my involvement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:28:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 04:35:50 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:49:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> I was aware of the Kennedy-Nixon race but didn't follow it on a daily basis. I have no memory of any of the debates when they happened and have only seen clips of them since.
>>>
>>>Well, in that case, it's DVP at your service (again).....with all 4 of the 1960 Debates at your digital fingertips, right here:
>>>
>>>http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/kennedy-nixon-debate-1960.html
>> And yet, here we see a moron who doesn't watch his own collected
>> videos... if he had, he'd know what the question was that Wade was
>> first asked at the beginning of the Nov 24th news conference.
>>
>> Huckster knows the question... why doesn't Davy?
>

> The purpose of the press conference ...

I've deleted the rest of this obvious logical fallacy. Clearly,
Chickenshit isn't afraid of lying on this issue.

Come on Davy!!! Are you going ot let Chickenshit lie for you?