Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #6
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2018, 12:23:39 PM2/9/18
to
From David Von Pein's website:
> 6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
> supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such
> rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N.
> Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
Once again, David asserts something that has *NOTHING* to do with the
"sole guilt" of anyone at all. David has taken to running away, he
answered the first two posts - then has been silent. I expect that
he'll refuse to answer *ANY* of the rest of these refutations.
Can anyone come up with a good dictionary word for someone who makes a
claim, then refuses to defend it against critical review?
Now, moving on to the topic:
Sadly for this outright lie on David's part - we actually have photos
of curtain rods being put up in Oswald's apartment that weekend.
This quite firmly demolishes David's claim, and he knows it. He may
try to claim that they were *replacing* the curtain rods, but this
implies a hurricane struck his room, and simply isn't credible.
Curtain rods **WERE** found, and David can't explain where they were
found, or why the DPD felt it necessary to fingerprint those curtain
rods. This was simply *buried* by the Warren Commission - and David
can't explain *this* fact either.
Nor will David explain the fact that the *only* witnesses to the
"package" described it's length as incompatible with the rifle, and
*PERFECTLY* sized for curtain rods.
If David had his choice, no-one would know about these curtain rods
THAT **WERE** FOUND IN THIS CASE... because *he* certainly won't tell
you about them. Indeed, he strongly implied that there were *NO*
curtain rods involved in this case other than Oswald's "claim."
He carefully qualified his claim about "no rods" as only those "not
found" at the TSBD or his residence.
David is lying.
Watch as David refuses to answer, and the trolls refuse to address the
actual issues I raised in this refutation.
> 6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
> supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such
> rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N.
> Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
Once again, David asserts something that has *NOTHING* to do with the
"sole guilt" of anyone at all. David has taken to running away, he
answered the first two posts - then has been silent. I expect that
he'll refuse to answer *ANY* of the rest of these refutations.
Can anyone come up with a good dictionary word for someone who makes a
claim, then refuses to defend it against critical review?
Now, moving on to the topic:
Sadly for this outright lie on David's part - we actually have photos
of curtain rods being put up in Oswald's apartment that weekend.
This quite firmly demolishes David's claim, and he knows it. He may
try to claim that they were *replacing* the curtain rods, but this
implies a hurricane struck his room, and simply isn't credible.
Curtain rods **WERE** found, and David can't explain where they were
found, or why the DPD felt it necessary to fingerprint those curtain
rods. This was simply *buried* by the Warren Commission - and David
can't explain *this* fact either.
Nor will David explain the fact that the *only* witnesses to the
"package" described it's length as incompatible with the rifle, and
*PERFECTLY* sized for curtain rods.
If David had his choice, no-one would know about these curtain rods
THAT **WERE** FOUND IN THIS CASE... because *he* certainly won't tell
you about them. Indeed, he strongly implied that there were *NO*
curtain rods involved in this case other than Oswald's "claim."
He carefully qualified his claim about "no rods" as only those "not
found" at the TSBD or his residence.
David is lying.
Watch as David refuses to answer, and the trolls refuse to address the
actual issues I raised in this refutation.
Bud
Feb 9, 2018, 2:31:59 PM2/9/18
to
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> From David Von Pein's website:
>
> > 6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
> > supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such
> > rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N.
> > Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
>
> Once again, David asserts something that has *NOTHING* to do with the
> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
Of course it does, lurkers, Oswald lying about what the long package he carried to the murder scene speaks very loudly to Oswald`s sole guilt (especially when a photo of him holding the murder weapon found there surfaces). It certainly doesn`t speak to anyone else`s.
> From David Von Pein's website:
>
> > 6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
> > supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such
> > rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N.
> > Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
>
> Once again, David asserts something that has *NOTHING* to do with the
> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
> David has taken to running away, he
> answered the first two posts - then has been silent. I expect that
> he'll refuse to answer *ANY* of the rest of these refutations.
>
> Can anyone come up with a good dictionary word for someone who makes a
> claim, then refuses to defend it against critical review?
> Now, moving on to the topic:
>
> Sadly for this outright lie on David's part - we actually have photos
> of curtain rods being put up in Oswald's apartment that weekend.
> This quite firmly demolishes David's claim, and he knows it. He may
> try to claim that they were *replacing* the curtain rods, but this
> implies a hurricane struck his room, and simply isn't credible.
> Curtain rods **WERE** found, and David can't explain where they were
> found,
> or why the DPD felt it necessary to fingerprint those curtain
> rods.
> This was simply *buried* by the Warren Commission - and David
> can't explain *this* fact either.
Why does Ben feel the need to lie so much, lurkers? This is why I never feel the need to accede to his demands that it be shown where he has lied. He does it all the time, and I point it out when he does it.
> Nor will David explain the fact that the *only* witnesses to the
> "package" described it's length as incompatible with the rifle, and
> *PERFECTLY* sized for curtain rods.
David Von Pein
Feb 9, 2018, 5:04:23 PM2/9/18
to
David Von Pein
Feb 9, 2018, 5:11:11 PM2/9/18
to
Bottom Line --- If Lee Oswald REALLY had curtain rods in his package on 11/22/63, he would most certainly have TOLD THE POLICE THAT FACT after his arrest.
I need a conspiracy theorist to provide one reasonable explanation for Oswald denying all knowledge of any "curtain rods" after his arrest if, in fact, he REALLY DID carry curtain rods into the Book Depository Building on November 22nd.
Was Lee afraid the police were going to accuse him of shooting the President with a set of curtain rods? And the convenient CTer excuse of "The cops all lied about everything Oswald said while in custody" dodge is just a cop-out, of course.
I need a conspiracy theorist to provide one reasonable explanation for Oswald denying all knowledge of any "curtain rods" after his arrest if, in fact, he REALLY DID carry curtain rods into the Book Depository Building on November 22nd.
Was Lee afraid the police were going to accuse him of shooting the President with a set of curtain rods? And the convenient CTer excuse of "The cops all lied about everything Oswald said while in custody" dodge is just a cop-out, of course.
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2018, 5:44:32 PM2/9/18
to
Are you a coward, David?
Ben Holmes
Feb 9, 2018, 5:51:06 PM2/9/18
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:11:10 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Bottom Line
The "bottom line" is that you're refusing to address the points I've
made that refute your silly nonsense.
You *STILL* refuse to defend the lies you've told. You *STILL* refuse
to name even *ONE* of your twenty points, and show how it supports the
what Oswald would or would not have done? As well as your impressive
knowledge of the actual questioning and answers...
> I need a conspiracy theorist to provide one reasonable explanation
> for Oswald denying all knowledge of any "curtain rods" after his
> arrest if, in fact, he REALLY DID carry curtain rods into the Book
> Depository Building on November 22nd.
And I need just one believer to provide the word that the dictionary
contains that best describes someone who makes claims, then refuses to
support those claims.
Or asks questions with built in assumptions?
> Was Lee afraid the police were going to accuse him of shooting the
> President with a set of curtain rods? And the convenient CTer excuse
> of "The cops all lied about everything Oswald said while in custody"
> dodge is just a cop-out, of course.
Why did Oswald deny owning a pink elephant? Did Lee think that the
police were going to accuse him of ordering his pink elephant to sit
on, and crush the President?
What is it called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support
them, or address reasonable refutations?
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Bottom Line
The "bottom line" is that you're refusing to address the points I've
made that refute your silly nonsense.
You *STILL* refuse to defend the lies you've told. You *STILL* refuse
to name even *ONE* of your twenty points, and show how it supports the
"sole guilt" of anyone at all.
> --- If Lee Oswald REALLY had curtain rods in his package on 11/22/63,
> he would most certainly have TOLD THE POLICE THAT FACT after his
> arrest.
Oh? And how do you justify this magical ability of yours to determine
> he would most certainly have TOLD THE POLICE THAT FACT after his
> arrest.
what Oswald would or would not have done? As well as your impressive
knowledge of the actual questioning and answers...
> I need a conspiracy theorist to provide one reasonable explanation
> for Oswald denying all knowledge of any "curtain rods" after his
> arrest if, in fact, he REALLY DID carry curtain rods into the Book
> Depository Building on November 22nd.
contains that best describes someone who makes claims, then refuses to
support those claims.
Or asks questions with built in assumptions?
> Was Lee afraid the police were going to accuse him of shooting the
> President with a set of curtain rods? And the convenient CTer excuse
> of "The cops all lied about everything Oswald said while in custody"
> dodge is just a cop-out, of course.
police were going to accuse him of ordering his pink elephant to sit
on, and crush the President?
What is it called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support
them, or address reasonable refutations?
Bud
Feb 9, 2018, 6:22:56 PM2/9/18
to
David Von Pein
Feb 9, 2018, 9:48:45 PM2/9/18
to
You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about them here in this book passage....
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of '64?
Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own garage?
And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure. But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
Right, Ben?
Jason Burke
Feb 9, 2018, 11:39:36 PM2/9/18
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 10, 2018, 3:09:06 PM2/10/18
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
otherwise.
If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
That fact tells the true story.
> once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
> rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
> Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
> to apparently ignore...or twist).
You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
You're equating what you cannot show.
> You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
> two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
> them here in this book passage....
Actually, no I don't.
I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
>
> Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
> about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
> '64?
I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
*YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
possession showing this.
Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
critics!)
> Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
> they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
> happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
> case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
> garage?
You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
> And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
> But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
> prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
> assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
> to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
> same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
were fingerprinted.
Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
> I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
> prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
> rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>
>Right, Ben?
That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
critics would say.
It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
Yet they didn't.
(Careful now... think before you reply!)
>> Are you a coward, David?
I can understand why you don't want to answer this question... and
even more so, I can understand why you don't want to answer my
refutations of your OUTRIGHT LIES.
Coward... aren't you?
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
>> >
>> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
>>
>> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
>>
>
>Your points become invalid
The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
>On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
>> >
>> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
>>
>> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
>>
>
>Your points become invalid
otherwise.
If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
That fact tells the true story.
> once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
> rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
> Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
> to apparently ignore...or twist).
You're equating what you cannot show.
> You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
> two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
> them here in this book passage....
I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
>
> Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
> about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
> '64?
*YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
possession showing this.
Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
critics!)
> Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
> they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
> happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
> case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
> garage?
> And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
> But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
> prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
> assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
> to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
> same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
were fingerprinted.
Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
> I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
> prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
> rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>
>Right, Ben?
critics would say.
It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
Yet they didn't.
(Careful now... think before you reply!)
>> Are you a coward, David?
even more so, I can understand why you don't want to answer my
refutations of your OUTRIGHT LIES.
Coward... aren't you?
Bud
Feb 10, 2018, 4:16:04 PM2/10/18
to
On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:09:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
> >> >
> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
> >>
> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
> >>
> >
> >Your points become invalid
>
> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
> otherwise.
>
> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
If it was valid Ben wouldn`t be forced to run from the points Davis is making, lurkers.
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
> >> >
> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
> >>
> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
> >>
> >
> >Your points become invalid
>
> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
> otherwise.
>
> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
> That fact tells the true story.
>
>
> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
>
> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
>
> You're equating what you cannot show.
> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
> > them here in this book passage....
>
> Actually, no I don't.
> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>
> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
> >
> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
> > '64?
>
>
> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
>
> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
> possession showing this.
> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
> critics!)
> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
> > garage?
>
>
> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
>
>
> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
>
>
> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
>
> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
> were fingerprinted.
>
> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
>
> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
> >
> >Right, Ben?
>
>
> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
> critics would say.
>
> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
> Yet they didn't.
>
> (Careful now... think before you reply!)
>
>
> >> Are you a coward, David?
>
> I can understand why you don't want to answer this question... and
> even more so, I can understand why you don't want to answer my
> refutations of your OUTRIGHT LIES.
> Coward... aren't you?
Ben Holmes
Feb 12, 2018, 9:16:34 AM2/12/18
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 15:22:55 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You presume what someone is supposed to "figure out"... but by your
standards, most of America is composed of "stumps."
The possibility that *FRAZIER* was lying never occurred to you. You've
*certainly* not addressed that possibility.
Now, back to the original question that you ran from: what is it
EVERY.
SINGLE.
TIME.
And you will this time too...
wrote:
standards, most of America is composed of "stumps."
The possibility that *FRAZIER* was lying never occurred to you. You've
*certainly* not addressed that possibility.
Now, back to the original question that you ran from: what is it
called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support them, or
address reasonable refutations?
Of course, you run...
address reasonable refutations?
EVERY.
SINGLE.
TIME.
And you will this time too...
Ben Holmes
Feb 12, 2018, 9:17:51 AM2/12/18
to
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:09:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
>> >> >
>> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
>> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
>> >>
>> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Your points become invalid
>>
>> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
>> otherwise.
>>
>> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
>> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
>
> If it was valid Ben wouldn`t be forced to run from the points Davis is making, lurkers.
You're lying again Dufus. You cannot quote a SINGLE "point" that I've
not answered.
Ditto with Jean.
Why do you think you can win a debate with lies?
>> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>
> Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
> An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
> person.
You're lying again, Dufus.
>> That fact tells the true story.
>>
>>
>> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
>> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
>> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
>> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
>>
>> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
>>
>> You're equating what you cannot show.
>
> Ben just showed that he was willing to ignore the curtain rods found in the Paine`s garage, confirming what David said.
>
>> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
>> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
>> > them here in this book passage....
>>
>> Actually, no I don't.
>
> So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and
> it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were
> fingerprinted. But it really doesn`t matter, the curtain rods in
> evidence have an unknown provenance and the unknown doesn`t really
> take you anywhere, even if a retard wants to make the meaningless
> claim that it does. The fact is, we have no ideas that require this
> evidence.
You can whine that it "doesn't matter"... but it clearly mattered
enough to David to force him to run from my post.
The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>
> But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
> He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
> making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
You've just *acknowledged* the "unknown provenance" of these curtain
rods.
You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
>> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
>> >
>> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
>> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
>> > '64?
>>
>>
>> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
>>
>> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
>
> It fits the evidence, lurkers.
No... it doesn't.
Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
>> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
>> possession showing this.
>
> Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
Dufus doesn't even seem embarrassed that he can't establish a chain of
possession for this critical evidence.
>> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
>> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
>> critics!)
>
> Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
> get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
> might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
Publicly state that you are totally ignorant of the dates, and I'll be
happy to go into explicit detail.
David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
them for people who can't read.
But I will if you publicly acknowledge your ignorance.
>> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
>> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
>> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
>> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
>> > garage?
>>
>>
>> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
>>
>>
>> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
>> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
>> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
>> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
>> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
>> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
>>
>> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
>> were fingerprinted.
>>
>> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
>
> Ben likes to pretend he is making an argument but can`t muster the
> balls to actually make it, lurkers.
The argument was so decisive that Dufus refuses to answer just as
David refuses to answer.
>> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
>> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
>> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>> >
>> >Right, Ben?
>>
>>
>> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
>> critics would say.
>>
>> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
>> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
>
> Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
Then simply *CITE* anything that shows that the DPD fingerprinted the
rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
But you won't.
You're lying again.
>> Yet they didn't.
>>
>> (Careful now... think before you reply!)
Dufus refused to take my advice, he's now caught in a lie that he
won't retract.
>> >> Are you a coward, David?
>>
>> I can understand why you don't want to answer this question... and
>> even more so, I can understand why you don't want to answer my
>> refutations of your OUTRIGHT LIES.
>
> Ben ran from every point DVP made, lurkers.
You can't quote even *ONE* example.
You're a liar, Dufus.
>> Coward... aren't you?
wrote:
>On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:09:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
>> >> >
>> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
>> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
>> >>
>> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Your points become invalid
>>
>> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
>> otherwise.
>>
>> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
>> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
>
> If it was valid Ben wouldn`t be forced to run from the points Davis is making, lurkers.
not answered.
Ditto with Jean.
Why do you think you can win a debate with lies?
>> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>
> Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
> An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
> person.
>> That fact tells the true story.
>>
>>
>> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
>> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
>> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
>> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
>>
>> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
>>
>> You're equating what you cannot show.
>
> Ben just showed that he was willing to ignore the curtain rods found in the Paine`s garage, confirming what David said.
>
>> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
>> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
>> > them here in this book passage....
>>
>> Actually, no I don't.
>
> So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and
> it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were
> fingerprinted. But it really doesn`t matter, the curtain rods in
> evidence have an unknown provenance and the unknown doesn`t really
> take you anywhere, even if a retard wants to make the meaningless
> claim that it does. The fact is, we have no ideas that require this
> evidence.
enough to David to force him to run from my post.
The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>
> But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
> He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
> making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
rods.
You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
>> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
>> >
>> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
>> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
>> > '64?
>>
>>
>> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
>>
>> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
>
> It fits the evidence, lurkers.
Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
>> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
>> possession showing this.
>
> Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
possession for this critical evidence.
>> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
>> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
>> critics!)
>
> Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
> get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
> might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
happy to go into explicit detail.
David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
them for people who can't read.
But I will if you publicly acknowledge your ignorance.
>> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
>> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
>> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
>> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
>> > garage?
>>
>>
>> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
>>
>>
>> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
>> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
>> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
>> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
>> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
>> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
>>
>>
>> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
>>
>> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
>> were fingerprinted.
>>
>> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
>
> Ben likes to pretend he is making an argument but can`t muster the
> balls to actually make it, lurkers.
David refuses to answer.
>> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
>> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
>> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>> >
>> >Right, Ben?
>>
>>
>> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
>> critics would say.
>>
>> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
>> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
>
> Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
But you won't.
You're lying again.
>> Yet they didn't.
>>
>> (Careful now... think before you reply!)
won't retract.
>> >> Are you a coward, David?
>>
>> I can understand why you don't want to answer this question... and
>> even more so, I can understand why you don't want to answer my
>> refutations of your OUTRIGHT LIES.
>
> Ben ran from every point DVP made, lurkers.
You're a liar, Dufus.
>> Coward... aren't you?
Ben Holmes
Feb 12, 2018, 9:17:54 AM2/12/18
to
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 11:31:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> From David Von Pein's website:
>>
>> > 6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
>> > supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such
>> > rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N.
>> > Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
>>
>> Once again, David asserts something that has *NOTHING* to do with the
>> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>
> Of course it does, lurkers, Oswald lying about what the long
> package he carried to the murder scene speaks very loudly to Oswald`s
> sole guilt (especially when a photo of him holding the murder weapon
> found there surfaces). It certainly doesn`t speak to anyone else`s.
There you go lying again, Dufus. Oswald could stand at the podium, and
announce to the world that he shot JFK - AND SUCH A STATEMENT WOULD
SAY NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT OTHER CONSPIRATORS.
Nor have you proven that Oswald lied. You can't produce his
statements, all you have is hearsay.
Lied, didn't you?
>> David has taken to running away, he
>> answered the first two posts - then has been silent. I expect that
>> he'll refuse to answer *ANY* of the rest of these refutations.
Interestingly, although David provided two "responses" - neither one
of them dealt with anything I posted.
>> Can anyone come up with a good dictionary word for someone who makes a
>> claim, then refuses to defend it against critical review?
>
> Reasonable, when that "review" consists of the blathering of a
> stump, a person without the slightest shred of credibility, lurkers.
An empty claim that you can't cite for.
>> Now, moving on to the topic:
>>
>> Sadly for this outright lie on David's part - we actually have photos
>> of curtain rods being put up in Oswald's apartment that weekend.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying about what those photos show.
Then you'll be happy to cite the evidence that shows this, right?
(Nope... you run... EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.)
>> This quite firmly demolishes David's claim, and he knows it. He may
>> try to claim that they were *replacing* the curtain rods, but this
>> implies a hurricane struck his room, and simply isn't credible.
>
> This is what is known as a strawman argument, lurkers.
And yet, you've COMPLETELY REFUSED to give any credible explanation
for why those curtain rods were being **PUT UP** in Oswald's
apartment.
Why is that, Dufus?
>> Curtain rods **WERE** found, and David can't explain where they were
>> found,
>
> Neither can Ben, lurkers. In fact, he can show no significance to
> those curtain rods at all.
Tell us Dufus... what happened to the pink elephant?
Where was it found?
What happened to it?
>> or why the DPD felt it necessary to fingerprint those curtain
>> rods.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying. The reason is clear by what is written
> on the photo of the curtain rods.
It's self-evidently clear that the DPD fingerprinted the curtain
rods... Dufus is complaining that they merely did it on a lark.
>> This was simply *buried* by the Warren Commission - and David
>> can't explain *this* fact either.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying, and a photo of these curtain rods was
> published by the Warren Commission.
Were they?
Can you *CITE* for this claim of yours?
Be sure that it's the *FINGERPRINTED* curtain rods you cite...
> Why does Ben feel the need to lie so much, lurkers? This is why I
> never feel the need to accede to his demands that it be shown where he
> has lied. He does it all the time, and I point it out when he does it.
Giving excuses for why you can't support your claim?
>> Nor will David explain the fact that the *only* witnesses to the
>> "package" described it's length as incompatible with the rifle, and
>> *PERFECTLY* sized for curtain rods.
>
> It is easy to explain, lurkers. They didn`t measure the package.
> They provided estimates from brief observations.
So your "credible explanation" is only 'they were mistaken.'
Unfortunately, this doesn't account for the way in which it was
described that the package was carried.
Dufus thinks Oswald had the arms of a gorilla.
>> If David had his choice, no-one would know about these curtain rods
>> THAT **WERE** FOUND IN THIS CASE... because *he* certainly won't tell
>> you about them. Indeed, he strongly implied that there were *NO*
>> curtain rods involved in this case other than Oswald's "claim."
>>
>> He carefully qualified his claim about "no rods" as only those "not
>> found" at the TSBD or his residence.
>>
>> David is lying.
>>
>> Watch as David refuses to answer, and the trolls refuse to address the
>> actual issues I raised in this refutation.
Another prediction that has thus far been right on the money.
wrote:
>On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> From David Von Pein's website:
>>
>> > 6.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
>> > supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and no such
>> > rods were ever found in the TSBD or at his residence at 1026 N.
>> > Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
>>
>> Once again, David asserts something that has *NOTHING* to do with the
>> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>
> Of course it does, lurkers, Oswald lying about what the long
> package he carried to the murder scene speaks very loudly to Oswald`s
> sole guilt (especially when a photo of him holding the murder weapon
> found there surfaces). It certainly doesn`t speak to anyone else`s.
announce to the world that he shot JFK - AND SUCH A STATEMENT WOULD
SAY NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT OTHER CONSPIRATORS.
Nor have you proven that Oswald lied. You can't produce his
statements, all you have is hearsay.
Lied, didn't you?
>> David has taken to running away, he
>> answered the first two posts - then has been silent. I expect that
>> he'll refuse to answer *ANY* of the rest of these refutations.
of them dealt with anything I posted.
>> Can anyone come up with a good dictionary word for someone who makes a
>> claim, then refuses to defend it against critical review?
>
> Reasonable, when that "review" consists of the blathering of a
> stump, a person without the slightest shred of credibility, lurkers.
>> Now, moving on to the topic:
>>
>> Sadly for this outright lie on David's part - we actually have photos
>> of curtain rods being put up in Oswald's apartment that weekend.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying about what those photos show.
(Nope... you run... EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.)
>> This quite firmly demolishes David's claim, and he knows it. He may
>> try to claim that they were *replacing* the curtain rods, but this
>> implies a hurricane struck his room, and simply isn't credible.
>
> This is what is known as a strawman argument, lurkers.
for why those curtain rods were being **PUT UP** in Oswald's
apartment.
Why is that, Dufus?
>> Curtain rods **WERE** found, and David can't explain where they were
>> found,
>
> Neither can Ben, lurkers. In fact, he can show no significance to
> those curtain rods at all.
Where was it found?
What happened to it?
>> or why the DPD felt it necessary to fingerprint those curtain
>> rods.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying. The reason is clear by what is written
> on the photo of the curtain rods.
rods... Dufus is complaining that they merely did it on a lark.
>> This was simply *buried* by the Warren Commission - and David
>> can't explain *this* fact either.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying, and a photo of these curtain rods was
> published by the Warren Commission.
Can you *CITE* for this claim of yours?
Be sure that it's the *FINGERPRINTED* curtain rods you cite...
> Why does Ben feel the need to lie so much, lurkers? This is why I
> never feel the need to accede to his demands that it be shown where he
> has lied. He does it all the time, and I point it out when he does it.
>> Nor will David explain the fact that the *only* witnesses to the
>> "package" described it's length as incompatible with the rifle, and
>> *PERFECTLY* sized for curtain rods.
>
> It is easy to explain, lurkers. They didn`t measure the package.
> They provided estimates from brief observations.
Unfortunately, this doesn't account for the way in which it was
described that the package was carried.
Dufus thinks Oswald had the arms of a gorilla.
>> If David had his choice, no-one would know about these curtain rods
>> THAT **WERE** FOUND IN THIS CASE... because *he* certainly won't tell
>> you about them. Indeed, he strongly implied that there were *NO*
>> curtain rods involved in this case other than Oswald's "claim."
>>
>> He carefully qualified his claim about "no rods" as only those "not
>> found" at the TSBD or his residence.
>>
>> David is lying.
>>
>> Watch as David refuses to answer, and the trolls refuse to address the
>> actual issues I raised in this refutation.
Bud
Feb 12, 2018, 9:03:57 PM2/12/18
to
> The possibility that *FRAZIER* was lying never occurred to you. You've
> *certainly* not addressed that possibility.
> Now, back to the original question that you ran from: what is it
> called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support them, or
> address reasonable refutations?
Bud
Feb 12, 2018, 9:28:37 PM2/12/18
to
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:17:51 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:09:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
> >> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
> >> >>
> >> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Your points become invalid
> >>
> >> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
> >> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
> >
> > If it was valid Ben wouldn`t be forced to run from the points Davis is making, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again Dufus. You cannot quote a SINGLE "point" that I've
> not answered.
>
> Ditto with Jean.
>
> Why do you think you can win a debate with lies?
Ben refuses to admit that he is lying when he says he answered Jean`s argument, lurkers. He never has and he never will.
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:09:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:48:43 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:22 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
> >> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Curtain Rods (Part 2):
> >> >> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
> >> >>
> >> >> You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Your points become invalid
> >>
> >> The fact that you refuse to address them proves... PROVES...
> >> otherwise.
> >>
> >> If my refutation were "invalid" - then it would be a simple matter to
> >> use citation and logical argument to show everyone that you are right.
> >
> > If it was valid Ben wouldn`t be forced to run from the points Davis is making, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again Dufus. You cannot quote a SINGLE "point" that I've
> not answered.
>
> Ditto with Jean.
>
> Why do you think you can win a debate with lies?
>
> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
> >
> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
> > person.
>
> You're lying again, Dufus.
>
> >> That fact tells the true story.
> >>
> >>
> >> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
> >> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
> >> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
> >> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
> >>
> >> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
> >>
> >> You're equating what you cannot show.
> >
> > Ben just showed that he was willing to ignore the curtain rods found in the Paine`s garage, confirming what David said.
> >
> >> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
> >> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
> >> > them here in this book passage....
> >>
> >> Actually, no I don't.
> >
> > So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and
> > it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were
> > fingerprinted. But it really doesn`t matter, the curtain rods in
> > evidence have an unknown provenance and the unknown doesn`t really
> > take you anywhere, even if a retard wants to make the meaningless
> > claim that it does. The fact is, we have no ideas that require this
> > evidence.
>
>
> You can whine that it "doesn't matter"... but it clearly mattered
> enough to David to force him to run from my post.
> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>
> >> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
> >
> > But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
> > He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
> > making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
>
> You've just *acknowledged* the "unknown provenance" of these curtain
> rods.
>
> You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
>
> >> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
> >> >
> >> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
> >> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
> >> > '64?
> >>
> >>
> >> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
> >>
> >> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
> >
> > It fits the evidence, lurkers.
>
>
> No... it doesn't.
>
> Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
> You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
>
>
> >> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
> >> possession showing this.
> >
> > Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
>
>
> Dufus doesn't even seem embarrassed that he can't establish a chain of
> possession for this critical evidence.
> >> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
> >> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
> >> critics!)
> >
> > Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
> > get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
> > might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
>
> Publicly state that you are totally ignorant of the dates, and I'll be
> happy to go into explicit detail.
> David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
> them for people who can't read.
> But I will if you publicly acknowledge your ignorance.
>
>
> >> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
> >> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
> >> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
> >> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
> >> > garage?
> >>
> >>
> >> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
> >>
> >>
> >> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
> >> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
> >> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
> >> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
> >> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
> >> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
> >>
> >> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
> >> were fingerprinted.
> >>
> >> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
> >
> > Ben likes to pretend he is making an argument but can`t muster the
> > balls to actually make it, lurkers.
>
> The argument was so decisive that Dufus refuses to answer just as
> David refuses to answer.
> >> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
> >> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
> >> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
> >> >
> >> >Right, Ben?
> >>
> >>
> >> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
> >> critics would say.
> >>
> >> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
> >> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
> >
> > Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
>
>
> Then simply *CITE* anything that shows that the DPD fingerprinted the
> rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
> But you won't.
>
> You're lying again.
>
>
>
> >> Yet they didn't.
> >>
> >> (Careful now... think before you reply!)
>
> Dufus refused to take my advice, he's now caught in a lie that he
> won't retract.
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2018, 11:58:38 AM2/27/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:03:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
It's a simple fact that the majority of America accepts a conspiracy
in this case.
Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
>> The possibility that *FRAZIER* was lying never occurred to you. You've
>> *certainly* not addressed that possibility.
>
> I don`t entertain generally fantastic ideas for no reason,
> lurkers. I especially don`t see any reason to keep heaping one
> fantastic idea on top of another in order to make this event seem like
> some sort of mystery. Seems like retarded game playing to me.
Here we have Dufus proclaiming that the mere *idea* that a witness may
have lied is a "fantastic idea."
Yet he doesn't believe everything Frazier testified to.
Or for that matter, what *ANYONE* testified to.
>> Now, back to the original question that you ran from: what is it
>> called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support them, or
>> address reasonable refutations?
>
> I call usually call such a person a conspiracy retard, lurkers.
An admission that you lost.
>> Of course, you run...
>>
>> EVERY.
>>
>> SINGLE.
>>
>> TIME.
>>
>> And you will this time too...
And did.
in this case.
Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
>> The possibility that *FRAZIER* was lying never occurred to you. You've
>> *certainly* not addressed that possibility.
>
> I don`t entertain generally fantastic ideas for no reason,
> lurkers. I especially don`t see any reason to keep heaping one
> fantastic idea on top of another in order to make this event seem like
> some sort of mystery. Seems like retarded game playing to me.
have lied is a "fantastic idea."
Yet he doesn't believe everything Frazier testified to.
Or for that matter, what *ANYONE* testified to.
>> Now, back to the original question that you ran from: what is it
>> called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support them, or
>> address reasonable refutations?
>
> I call usually call such a person a conspiracy retard, lurkers.
>> Of course, you run...
>>
>> EVERY.
>>
>> SINGLE.
>>
>> TIME.
>>
>> And you will this time too...
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2018, 11:58:39 AM2/27/18
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:28:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Stump Dufus refuses to cite a *SINGLE* statement that wasn't answered.
There can be only one reason why he refuses to do so...
>> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>> >
>> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
>> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
>> > person.
>>
>> You're lying again, Dufus.
>
> Ben calls for debate then he runs from every point David made,
> lurkers.
Once again, Stump Dufus refuses to cite a *SINGLE* statement David
made that wasn't addressed.
There can be only one reason for that abject refusal...
>> >> That fact tells the true story.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
>> >> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
>> >> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
>> >> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
>> >>
>> >> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
>> >>
>> >> You're equating what you cannot show.
>> >
>> > Ben just showed that he was willing to ignore the curtain rods found in the Paine`s garage, confirming what David said.
>> >
>> >> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
>> >> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
>> >> > them here in this book passage....
>> >>
>> >> Actually, no I don't.
>> >
>> > So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and
>> > it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were
>> > fingerprinted. But it really doesn`t matter, the curtain rods in
>> > evidence have an unknown provenance and the unknown doesn`t really
>> > take you anywhere, even if a retard wants to make the meaningless
>> > claim that it does. The fact is, we have no ideas that require this
>> > evidence.
>>
>>
>> You can whine that it "doesn't matter"... but it clearly mattered
>> enough to David to force him to run from my post.
>
> Why would he stay after Ben cut and ran from his arguments,
> lurkers?
Stump Dufus cannot quote a *SINGLE* statement of David's that was not
addressed.
There can only be one reason why he refuses to do so...
>> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
>> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>
> I don`t have any ideas that require that evidence, lurkers.
You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
>> >> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>> >
>> > But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
>> > He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
>> > making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
>>
>> You've just *acknowledged* the "unknown provenance" of these curtain
>> rods.
>>
>> You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
>
> Ben seems to be agreeing with me that they are nothing, lurkers.
You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
>> >> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
>> >> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
>> >> > '64?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
>> >>
>> >> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
>> >
>> > It fits the evidence, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> No... it doesn't.
>>
>> Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
>
> I did above, lurkers.
Anyone notice Stump Dufus running away again?
>> You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
>>
>>
>> >> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
>> >> possession showing this.
>> >
>> > Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
>>
>>
>> Dufus doesn't even seem embarrassed that he can't establish a chain of
>> possession for this critical evidence.
>
> Can Ben support that it is critical evidence, lurkers. Hell no.
If it's not "critical evidence" - then every single time believers
said the words "curtain rods" - they were lying.
>> >> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
>> >> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
>> >> critics!)
>> >
>> > Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
>> > get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
>> > might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
>>
>> Publicly state that you are totally ignorant of the dates, and I'll be
>> happy to go into explicit detail.
>
> Will Ben ever be man enough to support his own words or make his
> own arguments, lurkers. Doesn`t seem like it will ever happen.
There's only one reason that Stump Dufus refuses to justify his
"questions."
>> David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
>> them for people who can't read.
>
> Ben seems to have an idea concerning these dates that he is afraid
> to give voice to. Typically when he doesn`t want to say what his idea
> is it means it is either stupid or unsupportable.
Stump Dufus is DESPERATE for something to whine about...
>> But I will if you publicly acknowledge your ignorance.
>>
>>
>> >> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
>> >> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
>> >> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
>> >> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
>> >> > garage?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
>> >> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
>> >> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
>> >> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
>> >> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
>> >> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
>> >>
>> >> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
>> >> were fingerprinted.
>> >>
>> >> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
>> >
>> > Ben likes to pretend he is making an argument but can`t muster the
>> > balls to actually make it, lurkers.
>>
>> The argument was so decisive that Dufus refuses to answer just as
>> David refuses to answer.
>
> Ben still refuses to make an argument about these dates, but
> claims victory on a point he never made. Strange.
An admission on your part that I *DID* win!
ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
>> >> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
>> >> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>> >> >
>> >> >Right, Ben?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
>> >> critics would say.
>> >>
>> >> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
>> >> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
>> >
>> > Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Then simply *CITE* anything that shows that the DPD fingerprinted the
>> rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
>
> Did I say they did...
Yes.
You're a liar, Stump Dufus.
There can be only one reason why he refuses to do so...
>> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>> >
>> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
>> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
>> > person.
>>
>> You're lying again, Dufus.
>
> Ben calls for debate then he runs from every point David made,
> lurkers.
made that wasn't addressed.
There can be only one reason for that abject refusal...
>> >> That fact tells the true story.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > once we examine the facts regarding the "curtain rod" story and the
>> >> > rods that were entered into evidence in this case as Ruth Paine
>> >> > Exhibits Nos. 275 & 276 (which you are surely aware of, but just want
>> >> > to apparently ignore...or twist).
>> >>
>> >> You are, of course, already making a huge error of fact.
>> >>
>> >> You're equating what you cannot show.
>> >
>> > Ben just showed that he was willing to ignore the curtain rods found in the Paine`s garage, confirming what David said.
>> >
>> >> > You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the
>> >> > two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about
>> >> > them here in this book passage....
>> >>
>> >> Actually, no I don't.
>> >
>> > So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and
>> > it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were
>> > fingerprinted. But it really doesn`t matter, the curtain rods in
>> > evidence have an unknown provenance and the unknown doesn`t really
>> > take you anywhere, even if a retard wants to make the meaningless
>> > claim that it does. The fact is, we have no ideas that require this
>> > evidence.
>>
>>
>> You can whine that it "doesn't matter"... but it clearly mattered
>> enough to David to force him to run from my post.
>
> Why would he stay after Ben cut and ran from his arguments,
> lurkers?
addressed.
There can only be one reason why he refuses to do so...
>> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
>> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>
> I don`t have any ideas that require that evidence, lurkers.
>> >> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
>> >
>> > But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
>> > He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
>> > making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
>>
>> You've just *acknowledged* the "unknown provenance" of these curtain
>> rods.
>>
>> You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
>
> Ben seems to be agreeing with me that they are nothing, lurkers.
>> >> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
>> >> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
>> >> > '64?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
>> >>
>> >> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
>> >
>> > It fits the evidence, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> No... it doesn't.
>>
>> Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
>
> I did above, lurkers.
>> You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
>>
>>
>> >> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
>> >> possession showing this.
>> >
>> > Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
>>
>>
>> Dufus doesn't even seem embarrassed that he can't establish a chain of
>> possession for this critical evidence.
>
> Can Ben support that it is critical evidence, lurkers. Hell no.
said the words "curtain rods" - they were lying.
>> >> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
>> >> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
>> >> critics!)
>> >
>> > Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
>> > get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
>> > might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
>>
>> Publicly state that you are totally ignorant of the dates, and I'll be
>> happy to go into explicit detail.
>
> Will Ben ever be man enough to support his own words or make his
> own arguments, lurkers. Doesn`t seem like it will ever happen.
"questions."
>> David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
>> them for people who can't read.
>
> Ben seems to have an idea concerning these dates that he is afraid
> to give voice to. Typically when he doesn`t want to say what his idea
> is it means it is either stupid or unsupportable.
>> But I will if you publicly acknowledge your ignorance.
>>
>>
>> >> > Do you think the cops smuggled Oswald's "rods" into Ruth's garage so
>> >> > they could be unwrapped during Ruth's WC testimony? Was that what
>> >> > happened? Or could it be that those rods had nothing to do with this
>> >> > case and were merely items being stored by Ruth herself in her own
>> >> > garage?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You can beat your strawman all you want. Don't let me stop you!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And, yes, the police did check those Paine rods for prints, sure.
>> >> > But given the fact that a witness had told police that Oswald (the
>> >> > prime suspect) had mentioned "curtain rods" on the day of the
>> >> > assassination, it seems perfectly logical that the police would want
>> >> > to check the rods for prints, since those rods were located in the
>> >> > same house WHERE OSWALD STAYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRIME.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, it's not "perfectly logical" at all.
>> >>
>> >> And the simple hammer that drives that nail is when the curtain rods
>> >> were fingerprinted.
>> >>
>> >> Would you dare to announce publicly when they were fingerprinted?
>> >
>> > Ben likes to pretend he is making an argument but can`t muster the
>> > balls to actually make it, lurkers.
>>
>> The argument was so decisive that Dufus refuses to answer just as
>> David refuses to answer.
>
> Ben still refuses to make an argument about these dates, but
> claims victory on a point he never made. Strange.
ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
>> >> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
>> >> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
>> >> >
>> >> >Right, Ben?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
>> >> critics would say.
>> >>
>> >> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
>> >> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
>> >
>> > Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Then simply *CITE* anything that shows that the DPD fingerprinted the
>> rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
>
Yes.
You're a liar, Stump Dufus.
Bud
Mar 1, 2018, 8:51:14 PM3/1/18
to
Ben has used this weak tactic of trying to blend in with the crowd before. The fact is that Ben is probably unique in his beliefs about this event. Bob Harris probably unique in his beliefs. Likewise Don Willis. When it gets down to specifics and details, each retard treats this as a creative writing exercise, painting his own picture in accordance with his own whims and preferences.
> Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
Polls indicate that most Americans accept that Oswald killed Kennedy, making them more astute than the conspiracy retards that frequent these kinds of newsgroups.
And if you want to apply real logic to Ben`s position, it would be lumping all the Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Christians into the same group because they all believe in a higher power. But if I said look at these God-believers and their suicide bombing Ben would say "Thats not my religion, thats the Muslims".
> >> The possibility that *FRAZIER* was lying never occurred to you. You've
> >> *certainly* not addressed that possibility.
> >
> > I don`t entertain generally fantastic ideas for no reason,
> > lurkers. I especially don`t see any reason to keep heaping one
> > fantastic idea on top of another in order to make this event seem like
> > some sort of mystery. Seems like retarded game playing to me.
>
>
> Here we have Dufus proclaiming that the mere *idea* that a witness may
> have lied is a "fantastic idea."
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/sniper-witness-busted-cops-misled-new-shell-casing-probed-article-1.496249
And of course Frazier lying about the bag might not be too fantastic, if that were the only fantastic thing your ideas require. Ben`s ideas require hundreds, maybe thousands of them.
> Yet he doesn't believe everything Frazier testified to.
> Or for that matter, what *ANYONE* testified to.
>
> >> Now, back to the original question that you ran from: what is it
> >> called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support them, or
> >> address reasonable refutations?
> >
> > I call usually call such a person a conspiracy retard, lurkers.
>
>
> An admission that you lost.
Bud
Mar 1, 2018, 9:11:57 PM3/1/18
to
> >> >> I've seen no evidence for this, and the facts argue otherwise...
> >> >
> >> > But Ben refuses to offer these facts for consideration, lurkers.
> >> > He wants to pretend he has made a counter point without actually
> >> > making one. It is all bluff and bluster with this guy.
> >>
> >> You've just *acknowledged* the "unknown provenance" of these curtain
> >> rods.
> >>
> >> You're *agreeeing with me* - yet can't seem to figure that out.
> >
> > Ben seems to be agreeing with me that they are nothing, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
>
>
> >> >> >https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s2000-h/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy
> >> >> > about those 2 rods that were unwrapped in Ruth's garage in March of
> >> >> > '64?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I could care less about curtain rods owned by the Paines.
> >> >>
> >> >> *YOU* think that they are the ones found and fingerprinted.
> >> >
> >> > It fits the evidence, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> No... it doesn't.
> >>
> >> Nor will you *DARE* to try to make that argument.
> >
> > I did above, lurkers.
>
>
> Anyone notice Stump Dufus running away again?
"So there are curtain rods in evidence that are fingerprinted and it is mentioned in evidence about some curtain rods that were fingerprinted."
> >> You know how quickly I can shoot it down.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Yet you know... YOU KNOW ... that you cannot establish a chain of
> >> >> possession showing this.
> >> >
> >> > Or the ones in evidence. It is a non-issue, the kind the conspiracy retards love.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dufus doesn't even seem embarrassed that he can't establish a chain of
> >> possession for this critical evidence.
> >
> > Can Ben support that it is critical evidence, lurkers. Hell no.
>
>
> If it's not "critical evidence" -
> then every single time believers
> said the words "curtain rods" - they were lying.
> >> >> Even your lying hero Bugliosi couldn't explain the dates. (and yes,
> >> >> there's a very credible and easy explanation for those dates from
> >> >> critics!)
> >> >
> >> > Notice he doesn`t give them, lurkers? Bluff and bluster is all you
> >> > get from this guy. He is afraid if he actually makes an argument he
> >> > might have to defend the empty claims he uses to make it.
> >>
> >> Publicly state that you are totally ignorant of the dates, and I'll be
> >> happy to go into explicit detail.
> >
> > Will Ben ever be man enough to support his own words or make his
> > own arguments, lurkers. Doesn`t seem like it will ever happen.
>
>
> There's only one reason that Stump Dufus refuses to justify his
> "questions."
>
> >> David *ALREADY* cited these dates... I really feel no need to validate
> >> them for people who can't read.
> >
> > Ben seems to have an idea concerning these dates that he is afraid
> > to give voice to. Typically when he doesn`t want to say what his idea
> > is it means it is either stupid or unsupportable.
>
>
> Stump Dufus is DESPERATE for something to whine about...
He seems to have some idea regarding the dates the curtain rods were fingerprinted but just can`t muster the balls to say what that idea is.
> >> >> > I can hear the CTers now if those rods WEREN'T checked for any
> >> >> > prints --- "My God, why didn't those lazy cops check those curtain
> >> >> > rods for any prints?! They might be important!"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Right, Ben?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> That's why you're a stupid man... you can't even figure out what
> >> >> critics would say.
> >> >>
> >> >> It would have been *FAR* more valuable had the police fingerprinted
> >> >> THE RIFLE THAT THEY CONFISCATED ON 11/22/63...
> >> >
> >> > Apparently the police didn`t think so, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then simply *CITE* anything that shows that the DPD fingerprinted the
> >> rifle they confiscated from Frazier...
> >
> > Did I say they did...
>
> Yes.
> You're a liar, Stump Dufus.
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2018, 9:56:04 AM3/8/18
to
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:51:13 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Au contraire, I *DID* answer your question. You ran.
You can't even publicly acknowledge that *MOST* of America accepts a
conspiracy in this case.
What a dishonest coward!
> Ben has used this weak tactic of trying to blend in with the crowd
> before. The fact is that Ben is probably unique in his beliefs about
> this event. Bob Harris probably unique in his beliefs. Likewise Don
> Willis. When it gets down to specifics and details, each retard treats
> this as a creative writing exercise, painting his own picture in
> accordance with his own whims and preferences.
You can rarely find two believers who agree on the SBT.
>> Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
>
> I'm a Retard...
Yep.
You can't even publicly acknowledge that *MOST* of America accepts a
conspiracy in this case.
What a dishonest coward!
> Ben has used this weak tactic of trying to blend in with the crowd
> before. The fact is that Ben is probably unique in his beliefs about
> this event. Bob Harris probably unique in his beliefs. Likewise Don
> Willis. When it gets down to specifics and details, each retard treats
> this as a creative writing exercise, painting his own picture in
> accordance with his own whims and preferences.
>> Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
>
Yep.
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2018, 9:56:05 AM3/8/18
to
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 18:11:51 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Dead silence...
>> >> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
>> >> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
>> >> > person.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Dufus.
>> >
>> > Ben calls for debate then he runs from every point David made,
>> > lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Once again, Stump Dufus refuses to cite a *SINGLE* statement David
>> made that wasn't addressed.
>>
>> There can be only one reason for that abject refusal...
Dead silence...
Dead silence...
>> >> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
>> >> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> >
>> > I don`t have any ideas that require that evidence, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
stump dufus thinks that the "curtain rod story" was a lie designed to
hide the fact that Oswald brought a rifle to the TSBD.
That **IS** an "idea" that requires evidence.
>> >> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
>> >> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
>> >> > person.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Dufus.
>> >
>> > Ben calls for debate then he runs from every point David made,
>> > lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Once again, Stump Dufus refuses to cite a *SINGLE* statement David
>> made that wasn't addressed.
>>
>> There can be only one reason for that abject refusal...
>> >> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
>> >> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> >
>> > I don`t have any ideas that require that evidence, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
hide the fact that Oswald brought a rifle to the TSBD.
That **IS** an "idea" that requires evidence.
Bud
Mar 26, 2018, 6:46:04 PM3/26/18
to
The question I asked, which the coward did not answer, was this...
"...can he show that most Americans don`t accept that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy?"
> You can't even publicly acknowledge that *MOST* of America accepts a
> conspiracy in this case.
> What a dishonest coward!
>
> > Ben has used this weak tactic of trying to blend in with the crowd
> > before. The fact is that Ben is probably unique in his beliefs about
> > this event. Bob Harris probably unique in his beliefs. Likewise Don
> > Willis. When it gets down to specifics and details, each retard treats
> > this as a creative writing exercise, painting his own picture in
> > accordance with his own whims and preferences.
>
>
> You can rarely find two believers who agree on the SBT.
> >> Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
> >
> > I'm a Retard...
> Yep.
Bud
Mar 26, 2018, 6:48:09 PM3/26/18
to
Ben Holmes
Mar 30, 2018, 9:54:34 AM3/30/18
to
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:46:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
And my perfectly credible and complete answer is: It's a simple fact
You REFUSE to publicly acknowledge that what I stated is the simple
truth.
You want to argue what that *means* without acknowledging the truth.
So tell us liar, where's the lie?
>> You can't even publicly acknowledge that *MOST* of America accepts a
>> conspiracy in this case.
>
> Strawman, lurkers. Misdirection to avoid what I *actually* asked him.
You asked me, I answered.
You're running like the coward you are.
If you were to ever actually answer, then yes, there's an obvious
answer to your question too.
But trying to change the topic will simply be laughed at.
>> What a dishonest coward!
>>
>> > Ben has used this weak tactic of trying to blend in with the crowd
>> > before. The fact is that Ben is probably unique in his beliefs about
>> > this event. Bob Harris probably unique in his beliefs. Likewise Don
>> > Willis. When it gets down to specifics and details, each retard treats
>> > this as a creative writing exercise, painting his own picture in
>> > accordance with his own whims and preferences.
>>
>>
>> You can rarely find two believers who agree on the SBT.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
Where's the lie?
Why can't you quote it, then cite the evidence?
Any honest person can quickly figure this out...
>> >> Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
>> >
>> > I'm a Retard...
>>
>> Yep.
>
> I wrote the above, lurkers.
Nope.
wrote:
that the majority of America accepts a conspiracy in this case.
At which point, you ran.
You REFUSE to publicly acknowledge that what I stated is the simple
truth.
You want to argue what that *means* without acknowledging the truth.
So tell us liar, where's the lie?
>> You can't even publicly acknowledge that *MOST* of America accepts a
>> conspiracy in this case.
>
> Strawman, lurkers. Misdirection to avoid what I *actually* asked him.
You're running like the coward you are.
If you were to ever actually answer, then yes, there's an obvious
answer to your question too.
But trying to change the topic will simply be laughed at.
>> What a dishonest coward!
>>
>> > Ben has used this weak tactic of trying to blend in with the crowd
>> > before. The fact is that Ben is probably unique in his beliefs about
>> > this event. Bob Harris probably unique in his beliefs. Likewise Don
>> > Willis. When it gets down to specifics and details, each retard treats
>> > this as a creative writing exercise, painting his own picture in
>> > accordance with his own whims and preferences.
>>
>>
>> You can rarely find two believers who agree on the SBT.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
Why can't you quote it, then cite the evidence?
Any honest person can quickly figure this out...
>> >> Therefore, by Stump Dufus, America is largely composed of "stumps."
>> >
>> > I'm a Retard...
>>
>
> I wrote the above, lurkers.
Nope.
Ben Holmes
Mar 30, 2018, 9:55:55 AM3/30/18
to
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
stump's clearly proven himself a liar.
>> >> >> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
>> >> >> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
>> >> >> > person.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're lying again, Dufus.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben calls for debate then he runs from every point David made,
>> >> > lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Once again, Stump Dufus refuses to cite a *SINGLE* statement David
>> >> made that wasn't addressed.
>> >>
>> >> There can be only one reason for that abject refusal...
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
The reason, of course, is that dufus can't quote ANYTHING in that post
that wasn't answered.
stump's a liar.
Once again stump proves himself a liar.
>> >> >> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
>> >> >> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don`t have any ideas that require that evidence, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
>>
>> stump dufus thinks that the "curtain rod story" was a lie designed to
>> hide the fact that Oswald brought a rifle to the TSBD.
>>
>> That **IS** an "idea" that requires evidence.
>
> Not *that* evidence, lurkers.
stump admits it's an idea that requires support... then runs away...
What a coward!!!
wrote:
>> >> >> >> INSTEAD - YOU RUN AWAY AND REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY POST!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ben just refused to address the counter points DVP made, lurkers.
>> >> >> > An honest discussion on any issue is not possible with this dishonest
>> >> >> > person.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're lying again, Dufus.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben calls for debate then he runs from every point David made,
>> >> > lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Once again, Stump Dufus refuses to cite a *SINGLE* statement David
>> >> made that wasn't addressed.
>> >>
>> >> There can be only one reason for that abject refusal...
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
that wasn't answered.
stump's a liar.
>> >> >> The "unknown provenance" is *YOUR* problem, and until you can solve
>> >> >> that problem, **YOUR** theory fails.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don`t have any ideas that require that evidence, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Stump Dufus.
>>
>> stump dufus thinks that the "curtain rod story" was a lie designed to
>> hide the fact that Oswald brought a rifle to the TSBD.
>>
>> That **IS** an "idea" that requires evidence.
>
> Not *that* evidence, lurkers.
What a coward!!!
0 new messages