[Ben Holmes]

(05-31-2016, 09:23 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

David Von Pein Wrote:The irony of ironies is that the critics KNOW the evidence - ALL of it - points irrevocably to poor patsy Lee - so they spend time and energy trying to prove it is all tainted, planted or defective.

Actually, it doesn't... David is lying.

Some evidence (as I mention below) never did support the "Oswald did it" theory, and much of the other evidence would, if the evidence didn't have every earmark of a frameup.

The uncashed Money Order, for example - that has yet to be explained... the outright lying about the evidence in this case by the Warren Commission & HSCA, for another. David knows this, and has no explanation for it.

Lies aren't needed if the truth is sufficient to prove your case.

The investigation very quickly closed down on anything that didn't support the "LHO did it" theory. David knows this, and has no explanation for it.

One of the very EARLIEST bits of evidence, in fact; could not possibly have been used against Oswald - the frontal shot to JFK's throat. So it had to be manipulated away - as was done.

The unknown fingerprint in the Sniper's Nest - likewise couldn't help their case against Oswald - so the Warren Commission, in a massive report, and 27 volumes of evidence, couldn't bring themselves to mention it. (Indeed, just this one counter-example makes David's assertion a lie)

David Von Pein Wrote:Josiah Thompson stated it very well to Hank at a conference many years ago when he referred to 'the weakness of our position" If only the arrogant critics in this forum had such honesty and integrity.

I've asked many times for a citation for this claim, and I suspect that I'll be long in the grave before I ever see any such attempt to support it. I can equally mention the conversation I had with Vincent Bugliosi shortly before he died (LA's just a hop, skip, and jump from Oxnard Ca.) where he laughingly told me that he didn't believe most of what he put in his book - and knew it was a conspiracy.

Of course, any such statement by me would hold equal evidentiary value.

P.S. David Von Pein has pointed out an error here - but ironically, he refuses to post here. I don't blame him - believers always tend to end up in censored forums where they can safely post lies. I'll correct the error should David dare to post it here.

And for those familiar with the Internet, he managed to post a link to this post without providing any link that Google could follow. Quite intentional, I'd say.

Dead silence from the believers side of the tracks.

Yet we critics are labeled as the dumb ones...

But until the evidence is addressed and explained by believers - they will be demonstrating their faith in speculation, and not able to give a theory based on the evidence.

Such as the mere fact that Oswald was not seen by one particular witness to be reading a newspaper on 11/22 shows his guilt...

Or that he was provably drinking a beverage during his lunch hour...

Believers stoop to the silliest things...