Huckster & Davey Von Peiny Are Cowards!!!

[Ben Holmes]

I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"
on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
is dead silence.

Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.

This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...

They aren't interested in the truth.

And this is all you need to know to know the truth about the JFK
assassination...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"

You refuse to show that I am incorrect. you mumbled something about Finck, but you cowardly refuse to produce this support you claim to have. everyone by now must have figured out that the only reason you haven`t produced it is because it will show you were lying about it.

> on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
> track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
> is dead silence.
>
> Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
> place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.

Clearly the neck was dissected.

> This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...

You only show yourself to be a hypocrite. I can quote Walt, Boris or Gil saying all kinds of things you can`t support, I`ve never heard a peep out of you.

> They aren't interested in the truth.

You aren`t interested in support anything you say.

> And this is all you need to know to know the truth about the JFK
> assassination...

You have to try to make it about something else since you have nothing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"
>
> You refuse to show that I am incorrect.

You keep lying. I've already, and repeatedly referenced the evidence
that you're simply wrong. (and, in this case, simply lying.)

> you mumbled something about Finck, but you cowardly refuse to produce
> this support you claim to have.

I stated that he testified in court describing why he did *NOT*
dissect the track of the bullet or the neck wound.

You refuse to deny this - so there's no reason to produce it.

How many more times are you going to lie?

> everyone by now must have figured out that the only reason you
> haven`t produced it is because it will show you were lying about it.

Deny the testimony exists, and I'll be happy to both quote it and cite
it.

But you know already that I'm telling the truth - hence your ABJECT
FEAR of stating that I'm lying about it.

Come on coward... DENY THAT I'VE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT FINCK TESTIFYING
CONTRARY TO YOUR WACKY BELIEFS...

>> on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
>> track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
>> is dead silence.
>>
>> Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
>> place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.
>
> Clearly the neck was dissected.

Clearly you can't produce any evidence supporting this.

And just as clearly, you can't explain why Huckster & Davey refuse to
address this issue.

>> This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...

LFD.

>> They aren't interested in the truth.

LFD.

>> And this is all you need to know to know the truth about the JFK
>> assassination...

LFD.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:35:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"
> >
> > You refuse to show that I am incorrect.
> You keep lying. I've already, and repeatedly referenced the evidence
> that you're simply wrong. (and, in this case, simply lying.)

Saying support for your position exists somewhere is not supporting your position.

That you haven`t produced this evidence despite me badgering you about it numerous times can only mean you are lying about it`s existance.

> > you mumbled something about Finck, but you cowardly refuse to produce
> > this support you claim to have.
> I stated that he testified in court describing why he did *NOT*
> dissect the track of the bullet or the neck wound.

You say things, you show nothing.

> You refuse to deny this - so there's no reason to produce it.

There is a process. First you produce. *Then* I evaluate, and see if what you produced satisfies your claims.

> How many more times are you going to lie?

You show that you are lying about this issue when you refuse to produce your support.

> > everyone by now must have figured out that the only reason you
> > haven`t produced it is because it will show you were lying about it.
> Deny the testimony exists, and I'll be happy to both quote it and cite
> it.

I can I know whether it meets the claims you`ve made about it until you produce it?

> But you know already that I'm telling the truth -

You given no reason for anyone to believe you are, and every reason for people to believe you aren`t.

>hence your ABJECT
> FEAR of stating that I'm lying about it.

produce it, i`ll let you know whether your claims about it were valid or not.

> Come on coward... DENY THAT I'VE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT FINCK TESTIFYING
> CONTRARY TO YOUR WACKY BELIEFS...

If it supported your position you would have produced them long ago. The only reason not to is that you are lying.

> >> on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
> >> track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
> >> is dead silence.
> >>
> >> Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
> >> place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.
> >
> > Clearly the neck was dissected.
> Clearly you can't produce any evidence supporting this.

Already have.

> And just as clearly, you can't explain why Huckster & Davey refuse to
> address this issue.

I can explain why you want to involve them. You aren`t man enough to make your own arguments. You hope they will produce something from Finck, and then you can`t be held accountable for it. You`re yellow.

> >> This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...
> LFD.

You seem unwilling to call out any of the lies told by your fellow CTers, Why is that, hypocrite?

> >> They aren't interested in the truth.

If you have the truth on your side why can`t you support anything you say?

> LFD.
> >> And this is all you need to know to know the truth about the JFK
> >> assassination...

It does, conspiracy folk like Ben have nothing to offer.


> LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:35:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"
>>>
>>> You refuse to show that I am incorrect.
>> You keep lying. I've already, and repeatedly referenced the evidence
>> that you're simply wrong. (and, in this case, simply lying.)
>
> Saying support for your position exists somewhere is not supporting your position.

Don't need to "support" it. You already accept it as the truth. Your
REPEATED refusal to deny it shows you know I'd instantly produce it if
you were stupid enough to directly lie.

> That you haven`t produced this evidence despite me badgering you
> about it numerous times can only mean you are lying about it`s
> existance.

That you can continue to refuse to label what I stated about Finck's
testimony shows that you know you lost.

>>> you mumbled something about Finck, but you cowardly refuse to produce
>>> this support you claim to have.
>>
>> I stated that he testified in court describing why he did *NOT*
>> dissect the track of the bullet or the neck wound.
>
> You say things, you show nothing.

You say things, you show cowardice.

>> You refuse to deny this - so there's no reason to produce it.
>
> There is a process. First you produce. *Then* I evaluate, and see
> if what you produced satisfies your claims.

ROTFLMAO!!!

>> How many more times are you going to lie?
>
> You show that you are lying about this issue when you refuse to produce your support.

You show that you're a coward on this issue when you refuse to assert
that the facts I mentioned aren't true.

Why are you so terrified of asserting that I lied about Finck
testifying in court about why he *DID NOT* dissect as you claim he
did?

You know I'm *not* lying - and you're TERRIFIED of me producing quotes
and citations proving you a liar.

>>> everyone by now must have figured out that the only reason you
>>> haven`t produced it is because it will show you were lying about it.
>> Deny the testimony exists, and I'll be happy to both quote it and cite
>> it.
>
> I can I know whether it meets the claims you`ve made about it
> until you produce it?

You already know.

This is why you refuse to state that I'm lying on this issue.

Never a need to "prove" something that you already accept as true.

>> But you know already that I'm telling the truth -
>
> You given no reason for anyone to believe you are, and every
> reason for people to believe you aren`t.

Support that.

>> hence your ABJECT
>> FEAR of stating that I'm lying about it.
>
> produce it, i`ll let you know whether your claims about it were valid or not.

Run coward... RUN!!!

>> Come on coward... DENY THAT I'VE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT FINCK TESTIFYING
>> CONTRARY TO YOUR WACKY BELIEFS...
>
> If it supported your position you would have produced them long
> ago. The only reason not to is that you are lying.

Actually, I've stated the reason many times now. There's never a need
to "prove" what you already know is true.

So you're lying, your asserted reason is provably *NOT* the only
reason.

>>>> on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
>>>> track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
>>>> is dead silence.
>>>>
>>>> Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
>>>> place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.
>>>
>>> Clearly the neck was dissected.
>>
>> Clearly you can't produce any evidence supporting this.
>
> Already have.

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

Run coward... RUN!

>> And just as clearly, you can't explain why Huckster & Davey refuse to
>> address this issue.
>

> I can explain ...


No you can't. You can only commit another logical fallacy.

>>>> This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...
>>
>> LFD.
>
> You seem unwilling to call out any of the lies told by your fellow CTers, Why is that, hypocrite?

Name the "lie."

Quote it... then cite for it.

>>>> They aren't interested in the truth.
>

> If you have the truth on your side ...


I do.

Indeed, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that I don't. You know just as
well as I do what Finck testified to under oath.

>> LFD.
>>>> And this is all you need to know to know the truth about the JFK
>>>> assassination...

>> LFD.

[Bud]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 10:11:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:35:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"
> >>>
> >>> You refuse to show that I am incorrect.
> >> You keep lying. I've already, and repeatedly referenced the evidence
> >> that you're simply wrong. (and, in this case, simply lying.)
> >
> > Saying support for your position exists somewhere is not supporting your position.
> Don't need to "support" it.

Convenient for you since you are too big a pussy to do so.

>You already accept it as the truth. Your
> REPEATED refusal to deny it shows you know I'd instantly produce it if
> you were stupid enough to directly lie.
> > That you haven`t produced this evidence despite me badgering you
> > about it numerous times can only mean you are lying about it`s
> > existance.
> That you can continue to refuse to label what I stated about Finck's
> testimony shows that you know you lost.

Who cares what you say? What have you produced?

> >>> you mumbled something about Finck, but you cowardly refuse to produce
> >>> this support you claim to have.
> >>
> >> I stated that he testified in court describing why he did *NOT*
> >> dissect the track of the bullet or the neck wound.
> >
> > You say things, you show nothing.
> You say things, you show cowardice.

You claim to have evidence that decides the issue in your favor but haven`t the balls to produce it and that somehow makes me a coward?

> >> You refuse to deny this - so there's no reason to produce it.
> >
> > There is a process. First you produce. *Then* I evaluate, and see
> > if what you produced satisfies your claims.
> ROTFLMAO!!!

I know that isn`t the crooked game you want to play but that is the correct way.

> >> How many more times are you going to lie?
> >
> > You show that you are lying about this issue when you refuse to produce your support.
> You show that you're a coward on this issue when you refuse to assert
> that the facts I mentioned aren't true.

Shift that burden.

> Why are you so terrified of asserting that I lied about Finck
> testifying in court about why he *DID NOT* dissect as you claim he
> did?

I did all I needed to do when I pointed out that you are only blowing hot air that you will never support.

> You know I'm *not* lying -

I`m certain you are. I only need you to produce this evidence you claim to have and I have no doubt I can show any reader that you did.

>and you're TERRIFIED of me producing quotes
> and citations proving you a liar.

You blowing unsupported hot air has nothing to do with me.

> >>> everyone by now must have figured out that the only reason you
> >>> haven`t produced it is because it will show you were lying about it.
> >> Deny the testimony exists, and I'll be happy to both quote it and cite
> >> it.
> >
> > I can I know whether it meets the claims you`ve made about it
> > until you produce it?
> You already know.

You are lying.

> This is why you refuse to state that I'm lying on this issue.

I`m more certain with every passing post.

> Never a need to "prove" something that you already accept as true.

Then you don`t need to prove that you molest children to me.

> >> But you know already that I'm telling the truth -
> >
> > You given no reason for anyone to believe you are, and every
> > reason for people to believe you aren`t.
> Support that.

You already have. Had you evidence that decided the issue in your favor you would have produced it weeks ago.

> >> hence your ABJECT
> >> FEAR of stating that I'm lying about it.
> >
> > produce it, i`ll let you know whether your claims about it were valid or not.
> Run coward... RUN!!!

From what? You`ll never get the balls to produce the evidence you claime dto have. You know you really can`t, I`ll just show how your claims were lies.

> >> Come on coward... DENY THAT I'VE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT FINCK TESTIFYING
> >> CONTRARY TO YOUR WACKY BELIEFS...
> >
> > If it supported your position you would have produced them long
> > ago. The only reason not to is that you are lying.
> Actually, I've stated the reason many times now. There's never a need
> to "prove" what you already know is true.

Then you don`t have to prove to me that you molest children, since I already know it is true.

> So you're lying, your asserted reason is provably *NOT* the only
> reason.

Of course it is. Why else would you allow me to berate you for weeks? The only reason not to is because you lied, and producing the citation will expose your lies.

> >>>> on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
> >>>> track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
> >>>> is dead silence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
> >>>> place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.
> >>>
> >>> Clearly the neck was dissected.
> >>
> >> Clearly you can't produce any evidence supporting this.
> >
> > Already have.
> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

I cited Humes.

> Run coward... RUN!
> >> And just as clearly, you can't explain why Huckster & Davey refuse to
> >> address this issue.
> >
> > I can explain ...
>
>
> No you can't.

Of course I can explain why you are trying to involve Hank or DVP. I`m kicking your ass and you can use them to muddy the water, pretend what one says is in conflict with me.

>You can only commit another logical fallacy.
> >>>> This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...
> >>
> >> LFD.
> >
> > You seem unwilling to call out any of the lies told by your fellow CTers, Why is that, hypocrite?
> Name the "lie."
>
> Quote it... then cite for it.

You are responding to yourself. You can`t remove what I write and respond to it also.

> >>>> They aren't interested in the truth.
> >
> > If you have the truth on your side ...
>
>
> I do.

Empty claim.

> Indeed, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that I don't. You know just as
> well as I do what Finck testified to under oath.

What was it, and how does it support your claims?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:41:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 10:11:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:35:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> I've repeatedly challenged them to correct their fellow believer "Bud"
>>>>>
>>>>> You refuse to show that I am incorrect.
>>>> You keep lying. I've already, and repeatedly referenced the evidence
>>>> that you're simply wrong. (and, in this case, simply lying.)
>>>
>>> Saying support for your position exists somewhere is not supporting your position.
>>

>> Don't need to "support" it. You already accept it as the truth. Your

>> REPEATED refusal to deny it shows you know I'd instantly produce it if
>> you were stupid enough to directly lie.

Dead silence...

>>> That you haven`t produced this evidence despite me badgering you
>>> about it numerous times can only mean you are lying about it`s
>>> existance.
>>
>> That you can continue to refuse to label what I stated about Finck's
>> testimony shows that you know you lost.
>>

>>>>> you mumbled something about Finck, but you cowardly refuse to produce
>>>>> this support you claim to have.
>>>>
>>>> I stated that he testified in court describing why he did *NOT*
>>>> dissect the track of the bullet or the neck wound.
>>>
>>> You say things, you show nothing.
>>
>> You say things, you show cowardice.
>>

>>>> You refuse to deny this - so there's no reason to produce it.
>>>
>>> There is a process. First you produce. *Then* I evaluate, and see
>>> if what you produced satisfies your claims.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>>

>>>> How many more times are you going to lie?
>>>
>>> You show that you are lying about this issue when you refuse to produce your support.
>> You show that you're a coward on this issue when you refuse to assert
>> that the facts I mentioned aren't true.
>>

>> Why are you so terrified of asserting that I lied about Finck
>> testifying in court about why he *DID NOT* dissect as you claim he
>> did?
>>

>> You know I'm *not* lying -
>>

>>and you're TERRIFIED of me producing quotes
>> and citations proving you a liar.
>>

>>>>> everyone by now must have figured out that the only reason you
>>>>> haven`t produced it is because it will show you were lying about it.
>>>> Deny the testimony exists, and I'll be happy to both quote it and cite
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I can I know whether it meets the claims you`ve made about it
>>> until you produce it?
>>
>> You already know.
>>

>> This is why you refuse to state that I'm lying on this issue.
>>

>> Never a need to "prove" something that you already accept as true.
>>

>>>> But you know already that I'm telling the truth -
>>>
>>> You given no reason for anyone to believe you are, and every
>>> reason for people to believe you aren`t.
>>
>> Support that.
>>

>>>> hence your ABJECT
>>>> FEAR of stating that I'm lying about it.
>>>
>>> produce it, i`ll let you know whether your claims about it were valid or not.
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!!!
>>

>>>> Come on coward... DENY THAT I'VE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT FINCK TESTIFYING
>>>> CONTRARY TO YOUR WACKY BELIEFS...
>>>
>>> If it supported your position you would have produced them long
>>> ago. The only reason not to is that you are lying.
>>
>> Actually, I've stated the reason many times now. There's never a need
>> to "prove" what you already know is true.
>>

>> So you're lying, your asserted reason is provably *NOT* the only
>> reason.
>>

>>>>>> on his nonsense (and flat *lie*) that the prosectors dissected the
>>>>>> track of the bullet, and dissected the throat wound - and all we have
>>>>>> is dead silence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both Huckster & Davey know for a FACT that no such dissection took
>>>>>> place... but they absolutely REFUSE to correct a fellow believer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly the neck was dissected.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly you can't produce any evidence supporting this.
>>>
>>> Already have.
>>
>> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.
>
> I cited Humes.

Humes no-where states that he dissected the track of the bullet, or
the throat wound.

>> Run coward... RUN!
>>
>>>> And just as clearly, you can't explain why Huckster & Davey refuse to
>>>> address this issue.
>>>
>>> I can explain ...
>>
>> No you can't.
>>

>>You can only commit another logical fallacy.
>>>>>> This points out the inherent dishonesty found among WCR believers...
>>>>
>>>> LFD.
>>>
>>> You seem unwilling to call out any of the lies told by your fellow CTers, Why is that, hypocrite?
>>
>> Name the "lie."
>>
>> Quote it... then cite for it.
>>

>>>>>> They aren't interested in the truth.
>>>
>>> If you have the truth on your side ...
>>
>>
>> I do.
>>

>> Indeed, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that I don't. You know just as
>> well as I do what Finck testified to under oath.
>>