David Von Pein Misleads Everyone Again...

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-06-2016, 02:13 PM

David Von Pein Wrote:The fact that so many JFK conspiracy clowns are *also* 9/11 conspiracy clowns is a pleasant thing for LNers like myself to contemplate and evaluate (at least on a visceral level).

Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population - they'd naturally include kooks of all flavors... But this doesn't actually address the evidence. It's merely a false impression created by not mentioning the overwhelming numbers of the American Population that fails to accept the Warren Commission.

Believers, on the other hand, composing a much smaller percentage of the American people, have one over-riding characteristic - THEY AREN'T HONEST.

If they are ignorant of the evidence, they can be as truthful as the next person... but when it comes to believers, "Knowledgeable" and "Truthful" or "Honest" ... can't be said in the same sentence.

Take, for example, this forum's leading believer, Patrick Collins... who has been denying this:

Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

Instead of denying what is said here, he needs to simply be truthful... he either lied, or he couldn't follow the debate, and got confused about the topic. He needs to SPECIFICALLY address these statements he posted.

And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.

Patrick C · 09-06-2016, 05:35 PM

(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.

Is that supposed to make some logical sense....? It does not.

Your logic implies that because I disagree with you that makes you honest and me not.

And my faith is based on an honest and highly informed opinion that Oswald acted alone - as the evidence suggests very strongly.

(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population

90% of the American population ....!

What a howler.

First of all the vast majority of the US population know very little about the JFK assassination.

However the statistics has invariably hovered around a 70 : 30 split.

However, if one takes a poll of recent years of the 40+ age group which includes the population that lived through those early 60s, the split is quite different.

It is an approx 60 : 40 split in favour of conspiracy.

And I suggest that amid the informed and learned % of the population including academia - the split would be closer to an even split, perhaps more in favour of the lone assassin.

I for one have met only one historian who accept conspiracy. Michael Kurtz is the that one who I have personally met which would include around 20 at universities in the US and UK over a 25 year period.

Kurtz presentations are available on line - and one can see how he manages to conclude there was a conspiracy by distorting the facts, getting his facts in some case plain wrong and ignoring significant evidence that challenges his belief.

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-07-2016, 02:13 PM

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.

Is that supposed to make some logical sense....? It does not.

Your logic implies that because I disagree with you that makes you honest and me not.

And my faith is based on an honest and highly informed opinion that Oswald acted alone - as the evidence suggests very strongly.

There's no "logic" stated or implied... it's merely an observation based on fact. You cannot name a single believer, knowledgeable in the facts of this case, who has not repeatedly lied.

On the opposite side, you don't need lies to support the truth... believers often claim that Mark Lane lied, then ABSOLUTELY FAIL to support their claim. (You, in fact; are an excellent example of this...)

When believers lie, generally all the other believers remain silent.

If a critic misrepresents the evidence, he's quickly corrected by other critics.

This is not about "disagreement" - this is about the facts. For example, when you claimed that Majerus had refuted Mark Lane's point that the first two days of documented witnesses quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll... that's simply a lie on your part - one that you've still refused to acknowledge.

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population

90% of the American population ....!

What a howler.

Merely a factual truth. The last liar who disputed it was David Von Pein... I merely cited the poll.

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: First of all the vast majority of the US population know very little about the JFK assassination.

Again, you're lying.

You're intentionally attempting to imply that knowledgeable people will support the Warren Commission. That's PROVABLY false. People who've seen far more of the actual evidence than either you or I have pronounced quite authoritatively that they accept a conspiracy in this case.

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: However the statistics has invariably hovered around a 70 : 30 split.

However, if one takes a poll of recent years of the 40+ age group which includes the population that lived through those early 60s, the split is quite different.

It is an approx 60 : 40 split in favour of conspiracy.

And I suggest that amid the informed and learned % of the population including academia - the split would be closer to an even split, perhaps more in favour of the lone assassin.

You won't, of course, cite for this claim... because yet again you're certain to be lying.

Indeed, simple math demonstrates that you are. Someone who is 40 today would have been born in 1976 - which means that they NEVER LIVED THROUGH THOSE EARLY 60's - as you just claimed. Nor will you cite a poll that shows 40 year olds & up...

Tell us Patrick - why are you demonstrating such a poor grasp on basic math? (Didn't you claim "I am a far more educated man than you Holmes" ??? Why do you keep demonstrating that this is quite untrue?)

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I for one have met only one historian who accept conspiracy. Michael Kurtz is the that one who I have personally met which would include around 20 at universities in the US and UK over a 25 year period.

Kurtz presentations are available on line - and one can see how he manages to conclude there was a conspiracy by distorting the facts, getting his facts in some case plain wrong and ignoring significant evidence that challenges his belief.

You're lying again, Patrick. YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

And every single time you make these uncited and unsupported charges, I'll simply skip asking you for the cites that you invariably refuse to give... and just label you a liar.

Patrick C · 09-08-2016, 01:25 PM

(09-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.

Is that supposed to make some logical sense....? It does not.

Your logic implies that because I disagree with you that makes you honest and me not.

And my faith is based on an honest and highly informed opinion that Oswald acted alone - as the evidence suggests very strongly.

There's no "logic" stated or implied... it's merely an observation based on fact. You cannot name a single believer, knowledgeable in the facts of this case, who has not repeatedly lied.

On the opposite side, you don't need lies to support the truth... believers often claim that Mark Lane lied, then ABSOLUTELY FAIL to support their claim. (You, in fact; are an excellent example of this...)

When believers lie, generally all the other believers remain silent.

If a critic misrepresents the evidence, he's quickly corrected by other critics.

This is not about "disagreement" - this is about the facts. For example, when you claimed that Majerus had refuted Mark Lane's point that the first two days of documented witnesses quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll... that's simply a lie on your part - one that you've still refused to acknowledge.

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population

90% of the American population ....!

What a howler.

Merely a factual truth. The last liar who disputed it was David Von Pein... I merely cited the poll.

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: First of all the vast majority of the US population know very little about the JFK assassination.

Again, you're lying.

You're intentionally attempting to imply that knowledgeable people will support the Warren Commission. That's PROVABLY false. People who've seen far more of the actual evidence than either you or I have pronounced quite authoritatively that they accept a conspiracy in this case.

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: However the statistics has invariably hovered around a 70 : 30 split.

However, if one takes a poll of recent years of the 40+ age group which includes the population that lived through those early 60s, the split is quite different.

It is an approx 60 : 40 split in favour of conspiracy.

And I suggest that amid the informed and learned % of the population including academia - the split would be closer to an even split, perhaps more in favour of the lone assassin.

You won't, of course, cite for this claim... because yet again you're certain to be lying.

Indeed, simple math demonstrates that you are. Someone who is 40 today would have been born in 1976 - which means that they NEVER LIVED THROUGH THOSE EARLY 60's - as you just claimed. Nor will you cite a poll that shows 40 year olds & up...

Tell us Patrick - why are you demonstrating such a poor grasp on basic math? (Didn't you claim "I am a far more educated man than you Holmes" ??? Why do you keep demonstrating that this is quite untrue?)

(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I for one have met only one historian who accept conspiracy. Michael Kurtz is the that one who I have personally met which would include around 20 at universities in the US and UK over a 25 year period.

Kurtz presentations are available on line - and one can see how he manages to conclude there was a conspiracy by distorting the facts, getting his facts in some case plain wrong and ignoring significant evidence that challenges his belief.

You're lying again, Patrick. YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

And every single time you make these uncited and unsupported charges, I'll simply skip asking you for the cites that you invariably refuse to give... and just label you a liar.

(09-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, simple math demonstrates that you are. Someone who is 40 today would have been born in 1976 - which means that they NEVER LIVED THROUGH THOSE EARLY 60's - as you just claimed. Nor will you cite a poll that shows 40 year olds & up...

Yes obviously a 40 year old in 2013 would not have lived through the 1960s! The poll elected to use that age group because it includes people who did live through that period of the assassination and people who were born to parents who lived through it.

Clearly the majority of young people today eg 25 years and less will know very little about the assassination.

I am not saying for one moment that all the people in the poll lived through the assassination! DUH !!!

(09-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Tell us Patrick - why are you demonstrating such a poor grasp on basic math? (Didn't you claim "I am a far more educated man than you Holmes" ??? Why do you keep demonstrating that this is quite untrue?

No, you keep demonstrating your lack of English comprehension - you consistantly mis-understand points. Your logic is often appalling.

And yes I am almost certainly far better educated than you Holmes unless you have a couple of degrees from Ivy league universities.

Your written word indicates to me (as a fomer teacher) that you did not gain a college (university) education if you did, your writing belies that.

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-08-2016, 02:20 PM

(09-08-2016, 01:25 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Indeed, simple math demonstrates that you are. Someone who is 40 today would have been born in 1976 - which means that they NEVER LIVED THROUGH THOSE EARLY 60's - as you just claimed. Nor will you cite a poll that shows 40 year olds & up...

Yes obviously a 40 year old in 2013 would not have lived through the 1960s! The poll elected to use that age group because it includes people who did live through that period of the assassination and people who were born to parents who lived through it.

Clearly the majority of young people today eg 25 years and less will know very little about the assassination.

I am not saying for one moment that all the people in the poll lived through the assassination! DUH !!!

Good of you to figure that out after I corrected you on it.

(09-08-2016, 01:25 PM)Patrick C Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Tell us Patrick - why are you demonstrating such a poor grasp on basic math? (Didn't you claim "I am a far more educated man than you Holmes" ??? Why do you keep demonstrating that this is quite untrue?

No, you keep demonstrating your lack of English comprehension - you consistantly mis-understand points. Your logic is often appalling.

You're a liar, Patrick.

You'll NEVER produce even a single example, QUOTED; of my "appalling logic". I seem to recall asking you to do so the last time you lied on this topic...

I, on the other hand, am happy to quote your words... such as this self-refuting gem:

Patrick C Wrote:And as I stated, I am not a liar and never have been - what is the point...? There would be zero point - I would be deluding myslef and working on a false premis. I am a far more educated man than you Holmes - that is evident in your posts which frequently show flawed logic an dmisunderstanding - and I do not mean that as a brag. It is simple reality and as a former academic in respect of this subject I would never lie - that is simply not in my DNA.

Keep 'em coming, Patrick... I'll be happy to continue posting your quotes... I'll note for the record that you were able to spell "former" correctly here... I'm proud of you, Patrick!

(09-08-2016, 01:25 PM)Patrick C Wrote: And yes I am almost certainly far better educated than you Holmes unless you have a couple of degrees from Ivy league universities.

Your written word indicates to me (as a fomer teacher) that you did not gain a college (university) education if you did, your writing belies that.

You were a "fomer" teacher? Did your students get marked down for poor spelling?

I think I'll simply allow my words to demonstrate my level of education...

Patrick C · 09-10-2016, 12:21 PM

Ben Holmes Wrote:You'll NEVER produce even a single example, QUOTED; of my "appalling logic". I seem to recall asking you to do so the last time you lied on this topic...

Are you kidding, a significant number of your posts show flawed logic. There are hundreds of them. Can I be bothered to look for them....NOPE.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You were a "fomer" teacher? Did your students get marked down for poor spelling?

Yes I taught biology and chemistry at A Level (UK exams for 18 year olds) and Oxford and Cambridge entrance exams.

Probably not, biochemisty, genetics and natural sciences don't really focus on spelling.

Ben Holmes Wrote:I think I'll simply allow my words to demonstrate my level of education...

Oh yes certainly - your words demosntrate very well your level of education....enough said.

***Ben Holmes*** · 09-10-2016, 03:22 PM

(09-10-2016, 12:21 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:You'll NEVER produce even a single example, QUOTED; of my "appalling logic". I seem to recall asking you to do so the last time you lied on this topic...

Are you kidding, a significant number of your posts show flawed logic. There are hundreds of them. Can I be bothered to look for them....NOPE.

Then you're quite the dishonest yellow coward, aren't you?

Making ad hominem attacks that you cannot support even in the slightest.

You are, in other words, simply spouting your opinion as fact. And refusing anyone the opportunity to debate it.

My opinion, of course, is that you simply fail to understand simple logic, and that failure shows itself in your complaints about my "logic". You dare not offer any examples, because you're afraid that I can show quite easily that the internal logic of my statements is clear and obvious, and you simply don't understand.

And my opinion is supported by the FACT that you refuse to offer any examples of my "appalling logic".

So much for your vaunted education & honesty, eh Patrick?

(09-10-2016, 12:21 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:You were a "fomer" teacher? Did your students get marked down for poor spelling?

Yes I taught biology and chemistry at A Level (UK exams for 18 year olds) and Oxford and Cambridge entrance exams.

Probably not, biochemisty, genetics and natural sciences don't really focus on spelling.

Your near constant problems with spelling are quite amusing from someone claiming an advanced level of education. You're rapidly getting to the point where you can't make even one post without spelling errors.

(09-10-2016, 12:21 PM)Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I think I'll simply allow my words to demonstrate my level of education...

Oh yes certainly - your words demosntrate very well your level of education....enough said.

Your words certainly "demosntrate" very well your level of education... as do mine. You don't even seem embarrassed about your poor spelling.

Something I generally ignore, but when the person with poor spelling is the one making grandiose claims of his higher educational level - then it certainly becomes a fair target.

I really begin to wonder why you post here... you rarely debate the evidence, and when you do, you lie about it.

You prove quite helpless in defending the Warren Commission's theory against anyone as knowledgeable as you in the case evidence, yet you keep pretending to try... why is that, Patrick?