Proven Lies Of The Warren Commission - (#24)

[Ben Holmes]

From a memorandum written by Albert Jenner to Lee Rankin on April
20th, 1964:

**************************
"Delivered herewith are three preliminary memoranda prepared by John
Ely at my request made in late February or early March.

My purpose was to obtain a chronology based on these existing data in
our files of the background facts -- life, school, places of
residence, etc -- of Mrs Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands
and her three children and, in particular, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the
time she married Edward John Pic, Jr., in the fall of 1929, to the
time Lee Harvey Oswald entered military service in October, 1956.
...
On the whole, Mr. Ely's memoranda present a good over-all picture of
the course of events involving the Oswalds up to the time of Lee
Harvey Oswald's entry into the military service Our depositions and
examination of records and other data disclose that there are details
in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in
some instances, omission."
...
**************************

Let me repeat that last sentence one more time... regarding the
historical details of Oswald and his family: "...THERE ARE DETAILS ...
WHICH WILL REQUIRE MATERIAL ALTERATION AND, IN SOME INSTANCES,
OMISSION."

Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
admit that the Warren Commission lied?

I predict the cowards will all run!

[Bud]

Fringe restart.

> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
> admit that the Warren Commission lied?

Apples and oranges.

> I predict the cowards will all run!

When do the people who can make conspiracy arguments show up?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 07:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

That would imply that an answer was ever given.

Why can't you quote it?

>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
>
> Apples and oranges.

Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.

One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.

>> I predict the cowards will all run!
>
> When do the people who can make conspiracy arguments show up?

And Chickenshit doesn't hesitate to prove me right yet again...

[Bud]

Yes.

> Why can't you quote it?

Why do you say I can`t?

> >> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
> >> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
> >> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.

The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.

> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.

Yes, but you have the two misplaced.

> >> I predict the cowards will all run!
> >
> > When do the people who can make conspiracy arguments show up?
> And Chickenshit doesn't hesitate to prove me right yet again...

Since you can`t make conspiracy arguments you bitch about the WC instead.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 08:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Good of you to admit it.

>> Why can't you quote it?
>
> Why do you say I can`t?

Because it's a fact.

>>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
>>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
>>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
>>>
>>> Apples and oranges.
>>
>> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
>
> The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.

Word salad.

>> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
>
> Yes, but you have the two misplaced.

Dumbass.

[Bud]

Where did I deny that n answer was given?

> >> Why can't you quote it?
> >
> > Why do you say I can`t?
> Because it's a fact.

Show that it is one.

> >>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
> >>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
> >>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
> >>>
> >>> Apples and oranges.
> >>
> >> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
> >
> > The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.
> Word salad.

I`m using words to express ideas, don`t wet your panties.

> >> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
> >
> > Yes, but you have the two misplaced.
> Dumbass.

Non sequitur.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

It's a point that *I* made - you agreed.

>>>> Why can't you quote it?
>>>
>>> Why do you say I can`t?
>>
>> Because it's a fact.
>
> Show that it is one.

You just did.

>>>>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
>>>>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
>>>>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apples and oranges.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
>>>
>>> The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.
>>
>> Word salad.
>>

>>>> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
>>>
>>> Yes, but you have the two misplaced.
>>
>> Dumbass.
>
> Non sequitur.

It's *YOUR* assertion... those who can't support their claims are
"dumbasses" - are you claiming now that you lied?

[Bud]

That it implied an answer was given, yes.

That is what made it a fringe reset.

> >>>> Why can't you quote it?
> >>>
> >>> Why do you say I can`t?
> >>
> >> Because it's a fact.
> >
> > Show that it is one.
> You just did.

How so?

> >>>>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
> >>>>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
> >>>>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apples and oranges.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
> >>>
> >>> The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.
> >>
> >> Word salad.
> >>
> >>>> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but you have the two misplaced.
> >>
> >> Dumbass.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> It's *YOUR* assertion...

Your response was a non sequitur.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 10:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

And yet, you refuse to quote it.

More precisely, you CANNOT quote it.

You're simply lying.

And the proof is right here.

>>>>>> Why can't you quote it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say I can`t?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's a fact.
>>>
>>> Show that it is one.
>>
>> You just did.
>
> How so?

By refueing to quote it, of course.

>>>>>>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
>>>>>>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
>>>>>>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apples and oranges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.
>>>>
>>>> Word salad.
>>>>
>>>>>> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but you have the two misplaced.
>>>>
>>>> Dumbass.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> It's *YOUR* assertion...
>
> Your response was a non sequitur.

How can it be? THEY ARE YOUR ASSERTIONS!

>> those who can't support their claims are
>> "dumbasses" - are you claiming now that you lied?

Dead silence... any honest answer would show Chickenshit to be a liar.

>>>>>>>> I predict the cowards will all run!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When do the people who can make conspiracy arguments show up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Chickenshit doesn't hesitate to prove me right yet again...

Notice folks, that Chickenshit has repeatedly responded to this
thread, and NOT ONCE has address the topic.

That tells the tale.

[Bud]

I refuse to fall for your endless fringe resets.

Do a google search, look through all the points I made and show you addressed them all. Not removed, not talked over, not ignored, but addressed.

> More precisely, you CANNOT quote it.

Empty claim.

> You're simply lying.
>
> And the proof is right here.
> >>>>>> Why can't you quote it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you say I can`t?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because it's a fact.
> >>>
> >>> Show that it is one.
> >>
> >> You just did.
> >
> > How so?
> By refueing to quote it, of course.

That doesn`t show I can`t, stupid, it shows I didn`t.

> >>>>>>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
> >>>>>>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
> >>>>>>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Apples and oranges.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Word salad.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, but you have the two misplaced.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dumbass.
> >>>
> >>> Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> It's *YOUR* assertion...
> >
> > Your response was a non sequitur.
> How can it be?

Because it didn`t speak to what you were responding to.

>THEY ARE YOUR ASSERTIONS!
> >> those who can't support their claims are
> >> "dumbasses" - are you claiming now that you lied?
> Dead silence... any honest answer would show Chickenshit to be a liar.
> >>>>>>>> I predict the cowards will all run!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When do the people who can make conspiracy arguments show up?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And Chickenshit doesn't hesitate to prove me right yet again...
> Notice folks, that Chickenshit has repeatedly responded to this
> thread, and NOT ONCE has address the topic.

Fringe reset.

> That tells the tale.

[John Corbett]

These people hardly even deserve a participation trophy for their efforts.

[Ben Holmes]

You see??? *ANOTHER* logical fallacy.

You absolutely CANNOT debate the actual evidence in this case...

You prove it day in and day out...

If Mark Lane "lied by omission" - then PROVABLY THE WARREN COMMISSION
DID!

And you can't debate that fact.

[John Corbett]

Says the asshole who ALWAYS resorts to "Logical fallacy deleted" when faced with arguments
he cannot counter.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

So, what's to counter? Ya move the goal posts ya get smacked. Simple.

And Dude, a good argument isn't within your grasp...

Carry on Lupe...

[BT George]

Snorklraft, deligorfus pusilanimosity. ~Beeeeeelllllch!

[Jason Burke]

But he DOES like little girls.
And little boys.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 18:49:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Amusingly, Monkey Boy resorts to a PROVEABLE logical fallacy... And
he's been caught lying again, because when he asked a question he
thought I'd label a logical fallacy and run from - I simply ANSWERED
IT.

So, Monkey Boy combines several logical fallacies into one statement
complaining about me deleting and not answering logical fallacies.

I'll simply continue deleting them in the future... if Monkey Boy
can't address the case evidence (and he cannot!) then I will merely
continue pointing it out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 10:36:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

>> More precisely, you CANNOT quote it.
>>

>> You're simply lying.
>>
>> And the proof is right here.
>>>>>>>> Why can't you quote it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you say I can`t?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it's a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show that it is one.
>>>>
>>>> You just did.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>

>> By refusing to quote it, of course.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
>>>>>>>>>> based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
>>>>>>>>>> admit that the Warren Commission lied?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apples and oranges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. "Omission" is the same word and same concept in each claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The word is the same, that doesn`t mean the context is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Word salad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One claim is proven, the other merely asserted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but you have the two misplaced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dumbass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>
>>>> It's *YOUR* assertion...
>>>
>>> Your response was a non sequitur.
>>
>> How can it be?
>>

>>THEY ARE YOUR ASSERTIONS!
>>
>>>> those who can't support their claims are
>>>> "dumbasses" - are you claiming now that you lied?
>>
>> Dead silence... any honest answer would show Chickenshit to be a liar.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I predict the cowards will all run!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When do the people who can make conspiracy arguments show up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Chickenshit doesn't hesitate to prove me right yet again...
>>
>> Notice folks, that Chickenshit has repeatedly responded to this
>> thread, and NOT ONCE has address the topic.
>>

>> That tells the tale.


After deleting all the logical fallacies, there's nothing to respond
to.

The Warren Commission provably lied, and Chickenshit has offered
*NOTHING* to refute that fact.

[Bud]

After all your lying there is nothing left to respond to.

> The Warren Commission provably lied, and Chickenshit has offered
> *NOTHING* to refute that fact.

That is merely your worthless opinion.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 10:09:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> From a memorandum written by Albert Jenner to Lee Rankin on April
> 20th, 1964:
>
> **************************
> "Delivered herewith are three preliminary memoranda prepared by John
> Ely at my request made in late February or early March.
>
> My purpose was to obtain a chronology based on these existing data in
> our files of the background facts -- life, school, places of
> residence, etc -- of Mrs Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands
> and her three children and, in particular, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the
> time she married Edward John Pic, Jr., in the fall of 1929, to the
> time Lee Harvey Oswald entered military service in October, 1956.
> ...
> On the whole, Mr. Ely's memoranda present a good over-all picture of
> the course of events involving the Oswalds up to the time of Lee
> Harvey Oswald's entry into the military service Our depositions and
> examination of records and other data disclose that there are details
> in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in
> some instances, omission."
> ...
> **************************
>

Link to the complete memorandum?

Thanks in advance.

[Ben Holmes]

Once again, Huckster has deleted part of the post without
notice...here is what he deleted:

>>Let me repeat that last sentence one more time... regarding the
>>historical details of Oswald and his family: "...THERE ARE DETAILS ...
>>WHICH WILL REQUIRE MATERIAL ALTERATION AND, IN SOME INSTANCES,
>>OMISSION."
>>
>>Now, since believers *FREQUENTLY* claim that Mark Lane is a "liar"
>>based on the claim that he *omitted* something - can believers now
>>admit that the Warren Commission lied?
>>
>>I predict the cowards will all run!

And indeed, Huckster simply runs like the yellow coward he is...

[Hank Sienzant]

Hank asked you to provide a link to what you’re supposedly quoting, so I can verify it. I deleted your editorial comments so there would be no confusion over what I was asking you to provide.

Still awaiting that link, Ben.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 19:21:59 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>Hank asked you...

And *I* asked you to answer a simple question.

So let's simplify it... and turn it into a hypothetical.

**IF** the quote I gave is accurate, does it provide support for the
idea that the WC lied by omission?

Now, an honest man would find no difficulty in answering that
questions, but I suspect that you'll run.

Again.

As you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

>> The Warren Commission provably lied, and Chickenshit has offered
>> *NOTHING* to refute that fact.

Nothing has changed...