LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT
(PART 2)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Here's the start of the series that I promised a while back, and that David Von Pein and "Dud" [Bud] are anxiously hoping that I never post...


BUD SAID:

I could hardly wait, lurkers. If he didn't start it soon, I was going to start badgering him.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

David Von Pein claims to show "Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt" by the following points... (interested readers can find his website easily, no need to offer a link to his site.)


BUD SAID:

OMG, he is already starting this shit. Post the material you are supposed to be refuting, moron.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's my site that Holmes didn't want to provide a link to....




BEN HOLMES SAID:

I'm going to deal with every single one of the 20 points, one by one. Interestingly, NOT ONE SINGLE "FACT" THAT DAVID POSTS SUPPORTS A LONE ASSASSIN VICE [sic ???] A CONSPIRACY!

Not *ONE*.

So David's first error is to claim that he's showing "sole guilt" when HE NEVER EVEN ADDRESSES IT!


BUD SAID:

But even DVP's poor choice of words isn't going to help Ben, lurkers, you watch and see.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

In this respect, his argument already fails, and has been refuted on the basis of his claimed "sole" guilt.


BUD SAID:

Not really. Because after each of Ben's so-called "refutations", the possibility of Oswald's lone guilt will still remain untouched.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Now... on to each "point," one by one:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963.

The earliest and most credible evidence is that he did *not* own a rifle.


BUD SAID:

Already with the empty claims, lurkers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I point out on my "Oswald Is Guilty" website (via the link provided below)....


....there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 in March of 1963. The evidence proves that fact beyond any and all REASONABLE doubt.

And the fairly recent (November 2015) discovery made by Lance Payette concerning the File Locator Number on the Postal Money Order that Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods to pay for the rifle that was ultimately used by Oswald to kill President Kennedy is a substantial piece of additional solid evidence which indicates that Oswald's money order was, indeed, processed and stamped by the Federal Reserve Bank AFTER the money order was cashed and handled by other banking institutions.

So that File Locator Number on the money order is just one more thing that conspiracists like Ben Holmes have no choice but to believe was planted or manufactured by conspirators in their non-stop efforts to frame Mr. Oswald. Right, Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

He [Lee Oswald] stated that he didn't [own a rifle]...


BUD SAID:

He also said he hadn't shot anyone. The man lied a lot in custody.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...and his wife [Marina Oswald] originally asserted that he didn't [own a rifle].


BUD SAID:

Yet she led police to where she thought her husband kept one.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There's ZERO evidence that he did [own a rifle] - that cannot be *reasonable* refuted.


BUD SAID:

Little in this world carries less weight than what a conspiracy retard sees as "reasonable".


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There were, for example, none of his prints on the rifle.


BUD SAID:

Yet prints of Oswald taken from the rifle exist in evidence.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The palm print, appearing late, and never being photographed...


BUD SAID:

It appeared when Oswald touched the rifle.

Ben lies, lurkers, I've seen photographs of it.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...despite other prints being photographed, is not credible evidence of Oswald's ownership.


BUD SAID:

Never trust a conspiracy retard to determine what is credible.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Indeed, it's *credible* evidence for a frameup. This explains why Lt. Day didn't want to sign an affidavit on this issue.


BUD SAID:

As do other things. And Day testified under oath that he found the prints on the rifle, how is it worse to sign off on an affidavit?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The paperwork fails to support his ownership as well - the money order just TERRIFIES believers...


BUD SAID:

The file locator number on the money order scares Ben so much he is afraid to comment on it. It shows the money order passed through the system, and is devastating to the silly games these retards play.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...even to the point of the less honest believers asserting that the Klein stamp was the only endorsement needed. (!!?)

(David Von Pein is one of these less than honest people who make this claim!)


BUD SAID:

The payee endorses a money order.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

If Oswald actually *had* owned a rifle, he surely would have had among his possessions other items that would demonstrate this... such as additional ammo and cleaning supplies.


BUD SAID:

Shown to be false by the fact that he didn't.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

I have quite a few friends who are gun owners, and you could remove every weapon from their house, and there would *STILL* be plenty of evidence for gun ownership.


BUD SAID:

If they took their rifle to store it at another person's house, there wouldn't be.

And this highlights the desperation of these retards, they contrive reasons to disregard what is in evidence and give weight to things that are not.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Believers actually put forth Marina "pointing" to where she "thought" a rifle **HAD BEEN** as evidence for a rifle!! :)


BUD SAID:

She took police to where she thought her husband kept his rifle. It wasn't there, because her husband had taken it to work and used it to kill Kennedy. These retards will be stumped by these simple things for all eternity because they insist on looking at the wrong things, and looking at those wrong things incorrectly.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

This is the sort of sad sad "evidence" that believers must demean themselves by posting as their evidence. When you don't have *real* evidence, anything will do. (This explains Bugliosi's use of Oswald "not reading a newspaper" as evidence that he murdered someone.)


BUD SAID:

Ben is too much of a stump to ever grasp the point, which is the change in Oswald's routine that day.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It's interesting to note that most of the paperwork that allegedly tied Oswald to the rifle no longer exists in originals. This is quite an important point, since handwriting analysis really doesn't work on copies. So many features of writing that analysts use to make a determination simply aren't there on copies, and it's simply not possible to accurately determine that Oswald wrote anything "incriminating" in this case - since the originals don't exist.


BUD SAID:

Isn't that great, lurkers, now the retards can pretend it is all faked. They have no interest in the truth and are only playing silly games with the deaths of these men anyway.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Nor is some of this "evidence" even logical... for example, the envelope containing the money order was postmarked March 12th, 1963 - yet the money order was allegedly deposited on March 13th, 1963. David can't explain how a money order was shipped 700 miles to Chicago, sorted there and routed to the delivery route carrier, opened and resorted at Klein's, and deposited all in 24 hours. It simply beggars belief...


BUD SAID:

That isn't what happened. [See this document.]


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Also see this discussion.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Then we have the problem that the rifle could never have been delivered to that post office box... since the 'Part 3' of the Post Office Box application which states who else is allowed to accept mail - DID NOT GIVE ANY OTHER NAME - according to the FBI (CE 2585, p.4)...


BUD SAID:

The photograph of Oswald holding the rifle shows he did.

Ben is lying, the FBI did not state they had part three of the Post Office Box application.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Also see:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Post Office Box Applications


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...this was *before* the 'Part 3' disappeared from the evidence.


BUD SAID:

First Ben would need to show it existed in evidence.

But note the hypocrisy, lurkers. Something that Ben has never seen is given weight on the FBI's say-so. If the FBI asserted something that couldn't be produced that did harm to his silly ideas, he would never accept it. Another way you can tell he is a game-playing hobbyist.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

And just like the interior photo of JFK's chest that could have supported the SBT (or proven it false), this 'Part 3' that PROVED Oswald unable to pick up something addressed to "Alek Hidell" disappeared - but not before we found out what it said.

Why did the Warren Commission bury this fact?


BUD SAID:

Loaded question.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Why did they blatantly *LIE* about 'Part 3?'


BUD SAID:

Another loaded question.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Quoting from The Warren Report, Page 644...]

"Speculation.--The post office box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of A. Hidell.

Commission finding.--It is not known whether Oswald's application listed the name A. Hidell as one entitled to receive mail at the box. In accordance with U.S. Post Office regulations, the portion of the application listing the names of persons other than the applicant entitled to receive mail was discarded after the box was closed on May 14, 1963."


This is an outright lie - as the previously cited CE 2585 shows on page four that the FBI *HAD* looked at this - and did *NOT* find any other names listed. This was an embarrassment for the Warren Commission - SO THEY SIMPLY LIED ABOUT IT.


BUD SAID:

Ben is *assuming* part three was on the application when the FBI examined it.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Another problem David has is the fact that of only roughly 300 people who fell under the secret CIA 'HTLingual' program, Lee Harvey Oswald was one of them. This program intercepted and read mail... it's rather inconceivable that they missed a RIFLE going to a post office box... yet clearly either they missed it, or a rifle was never shipped to the post office box.


BUD SAID:

It is clear that it was shipped and Oswald received it.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Watch as David refuses to address these issues. (Indeed, watch as *NO* believer does anything other than deny the facts I've posted!)


BUD SAID:

And note that exactly as I predicted, Ben did nothing to refute the idea that Oswald owned this rifle. He misdirected to all the wrong things when all the right things make it clear that Oswald did indeed own and use this rifle.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Notice that "Dud" [Bud] didn't bother to defend David.

IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT DAVID EVEN *TRIED* TO PROVE **SOLE** GUILT - he never even addressed that topic.

David too runs from this.

An *honest* man would either retract such a claim, or make the attempt to defend it.

Neither "Dud" nor David are honest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

An honest man would admit that every scrap of evidence I presented in my "Oswald Is Guilty" blogspot presentation points to ONE single individual named Lee H. Oswald as the culprit in the two murders that were committed in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The totality of evidence in the case indicates there was ONE killer—Oswald.

Ergo, it's not inaccurate or deceitful or a "poor choice of words" (as Bud implied) for me to place the words "Sole Guilt" in the title of my blog page. And that's because the vast wealth of evidence (minus the imaginary theories invented by conspiracy theorists, of course) fully supports the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the "Sole" assassin in Dallas.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

No, you're lying again David. This would be like me listing all the victims of Clyde Barrow, detailing the forensic evidence, never once mentioning Bonnie Parker, and then claiming to have proven the "SOLE GUILT" of Clyde.

You said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even *HINTS* at the "SOLE GUILT" of anyone. Not **ONE SINGLE STATEMENT** was directed toward proving that only *one* person committed the murder. YOU DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE TOPIC. Yet you claimed to have done so.

An honest man would include this response on his website. And explain how ANYTHING in those 20 items even *STARTS* to address anyone's "SOLE GUILT."

But you won't.

You're a coward.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Since ALL TWENTY items lead inexorably to the guilt of ONE single person—Lee Oswald—what conclusion should a reasonable person come to? Should I conclude, based on all this evidence that points only to Oswald, that someone ELSE must have been involved with Oswald? Please tell me why I—or anyone—would feel compelled to do that? (Especially when confronted with the large number of things that are screaming "THIS WAS ONLY LEE OSWALD!")

Can Ben Holmes really be so dense as to not understand the simple point I just made? (It appears that he is.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There are no bank endorsements, and there MUST HAVE BEEN, had this been a legitimate M.O. [Money Order].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

An empty claim which you have not proven to be true. Nor has anyone else on the planet. But keep pretending that you have proven it.

More on "The Money Order" (lots more) can be found here.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

This isn't my issue to prove. It's *YOURS*.

It's simply not my burden.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you've got it backwards (as usual), Ben. YOU are the one (among many other conspiracy crackpots on this Earth) who is making the EXTRAORDINARY claim that Oswald's money order is a fake and a fraud. So it is YOU who needs to go about the task of PROVING that your extraordinary claim of fakery is true. Have you done that? I say you haven't. Not even close.

Here's what I asked the conspiracists at The Education Forum in early 2016:

"How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? I also have little doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly framing Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP; January 9, 2016


BEN HOLMES SAID:

All you have to do is produce a money order from 1963 that has been cashed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, conversely, why don't YOU come up with a money order that's been cashed, in order to prove YOUR extraordinary claim about the M.O. being a fraud? Why is it up to ONLY the LNers of the world to "produce a money order from 1963 [other than CE788] that has been cashed"?

I have, indeed, attempted to locate a cashed 1963 U.S. Postal Money Order, and so have some other people, but with no success. But it was actually the discovery online by Tim Nickerson of this UNCASHED money order which eventually prompted Lance Payette to dig up the document that explains what the number means that is stamped in the upper-left corner of Oswald's money order.

But I would, indeed, love to be able to locate a cashed Postal Money Order from circa '63—because that discovery would very likely support the idea that the M.O. Lee Oswald mailed to Klein's was a perfectly legitimate document that was handled the same way thousands of other Postal Money Orders were handled in the year 1963.

Rabid CTers like Ben, of course, will never accept the "legitimate" truth about Oswald's money order, however. That's become obvious by the way the "Rabid CT" crowd has totally rejected the legitimacy of the File Locator Number on LHO's money order. No matter how many things (like the FLN) that might come to light in the future, the Conspiracy Brigade will continue to pretend that everything about the money order is fraudulent. Isn't that right, Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Or explain why the Warren Commission failed to elicit any testimony on this issue.

But you won't. You don't *DARE* do so...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Ben. The fact is, of course, that the Warren Commission knew without a speck of doubt that Oswald's money order was NOT a fake document—based on all the various things that PROVE that the CE788 money order was in the possession of Lee Oswald and was handled and processed by Klein's in Chicago.

So the Commission didn't NEED to jump through the additional hoops that CTers like Holmes think the WC should have jumped through in order to prove the validity of the money order. They weren't conspiracy kooks (like Ben). They could tell the M.O. was legit based on a variety of things, including Oswald's writing on the document and the Klein's stamp—PROVING that Klein's was IN PHYSICAL POSSESSION of the money order at some point in time. Those two things were certainly enough to prove its validity to the Warren Commission. But a conspiracy theorist ALWAYS requires more—right, Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

ARE YOU STUPID, DAVID???

You're pretending that you never made the ORIGINAL CLAIM that the money order is the way that Oswald paid for the rifle.

IT'S YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's been proven. Oswald's writing is on the thing, for Pete sake. And Klein's stamped it. And the FRB stamped it. You want to believe ALL of that is fake, fine. Believe in stupid shit. OK by me.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The fact that you keep running from this issue shows that *YOU* understand how weak your case is. Why do you keep refusing to address the points I raise?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

YOU raised an extraordinary claim--that the money order is fake. It's up to YOU to "prove" that, don't ya think, Mr. Stump?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Still pretending that it's not *YOUR* burden.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's not me who's claiming extraordinary and outrageous things regarding the money order. It's YOU who is performing that silly act. Now PROVE it. Don't expect me to prove something that only exists in your head.

The M.O. has been "proven" to be legitimate, IMO. If you disagree, PROVE *YOUR* CASE.

You won't, of course. Because you can't. And never will.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You *STILL* refuse to prove your case. And you've STILL refused to name even *ONE* of the 20 items that support the idea that there was only one shooter.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The 20 THINGS COMBINED do the job nicely to indicate (and pretty much prove, in my opinion) a "Sole" assassin. But you're too much of a stump to consider things "IN TOTAL". You prefer to isolate things (like all CTers do).


BUD SAID:

What we are being treated to is the usual contrived excuses conspiracy retards have devised to avoid giving weight to the evidence that indicates Oswald's guilt. The same silly game playing over the deaths of these men that the retards have been engaged in for decades.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

An *honest* man would recognize my legitimate criticism, and would either retract what they said, or attempt to defend it.

David has done neither. David, like yourself [i.e., Bud] - isn't honest.


BUD SAID:

Ben has no business speaking on things he has no understanding of, such as honesty.

If Ben wants to contest that someone was involved with Oswald in ordering the rifle, then let him make that case. DVP has put forth the case that it was Oswald alone who did so.


BUD ALSO SAID:

If Ben writes words in response to DVP's arguments—and after he is done, DVP's argument is unrefuted—then Ben has failed at his stated objective. He is the one who claimed to be able to refute DVP's assertions, and yet after Ben's response, nothing has changed. It still remains possible that Oswald ordered the rifle. Nothing Ben wrote rules that possibility out.


BUD ALSO SAID:

Ben is upset because he was caught using a double standard.

When a knoll witness says they "thought" shots came from the knoll, that is evidence.

When Marina thinks her husband kept a rifle in the Paine's garage, that is imagination.


BUD ALSO SAID:

Ben is using empty claims to support empty claims, lurkers. His retard figuring does not establish facts, it establishes his retardation.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Neither one of you [DVP & Bud] will post even a *SINGLE* one of the 20 items that shows the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Such AMUSING cowardice!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben still has the amusing idea that I even ATTEMPTED to put forth just ONE single piece of evidence to prove Oswald's "Sole Guilt". Of course I never did that. It's the 20 items TOGETHER that implicate Oswald as the one and only assassin.

Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53 Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages 951-969).

Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who WEREN'T COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.

It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time, still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP" concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in "Reclaiming History".

And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website. It's not just one thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole" assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that trick.

Why does this simple fact of life even need to be uttered, Ben? Isn't it as obvious as the orange hue of Donald Trump's cheeks?

Such AMUSING ignorance!


BEN HOLMES SAID:

No, I'm amused that you listed 20 items, yet NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM shows the "sole guilt" of Oswald, or anyone else for that matter.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course "NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM", individually, shows the "sole guilt" of the assassin, you Super Stump! As I just got through explaining above---it's the SUM TOTAL of all the items of evidence that proves Oswald's guilt (in 2 murders).


BEN HOLMES SAID:

If *none* of them support someone's "sole guilt" - then where is this idea coming from other than the fevered imagination of your nutty brain?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's like a jigsaw puzzle. If you take just one single piece of that puzzle and isolate it separately, you don't see any picture at all. But what happens when all of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are put together?

(Get the "picture"? Or do you want to continue being a dumb stump?)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

No...Your analogy fails...A jigsaw puzzle has at least *PARTS* of the picture in every single piece.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So does the "Oswald Did It (Alone)" jigsaw puzzle (of course).

What a stump.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Nor will you be able to find any *intelligent* person who thinks that the whole is stronger than the weak links it's composed of.

So I merely mesh with the average intelligent person.

Circumstantial evidence is indeed very powerful - but the nonsense that Bugliosi spouted made believers simply look stupid.

Did you read the newspaper today?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

For some odd reason I cannot fathom, you're just too much of a stump to understand the "Sum Total" philosophy. And to think (as you do) that EACH AND EVERY item within that "Sum Total" can be classified as "weak links" to Oswald's participation in the 11/22/63 murders, is just plain ridiculous.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You can't produce even a *SINGLE* item that supports—note that I didn't say "prove", I said JUST SUPPORTS—the idea of anyone's "sole guilt."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In actuality, EVERY single item on my list—individually—"SUPPORTS" (not "proves", but supports) the conclusion that Oswald was the "Sole Assassin". And that's because there is nothing ELSE on the table (evidence-wise) for consideration that knocks the "Oswald Alone" theory out of contention. So, of course, each item "supports" the overall notion that LHO was the ONLY killer. (What else could such an array of "Oswald Did It" evidence "support"? His complete INNOCENCE? LOL)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're a rather STUPID liar, David.


BUD SAID:

Ben is a bit of a stump, lurkers. He addressed the first one, where David lays out the evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle. Does any of that information point to anyone other than the individual Lee Harvey Oswald? Unless you think Hidell was [a] different person, it all leads to Oswald, so it [is] all supportive of his lone guilt. No other person is necessary to explain the evidence in the case.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

David's cowardice is on full display here, folks!


BUD SAID:

Retards look at the wrong things and then look at those wrong things incorrectly. What Bugliosi wrote years after Oswald killed Kennedy has never been the point.

But since these retards cannot put a reasonable, feasible, supportable outline of what they believe happened that day on the table for consideration, they are forced [to] criticize what others have done. But if [it] weren't for the retard conspiracy mongering associated with this event, Bugliosi's book would not have a purpose.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Quoting from DVP's site:]

2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle. The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it extremely likely that he owned it.


BUD SAID:

Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers. Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.


BUD SAID:

Ben can see no connection to this murder and the assassination, lurkers. He is a first class stump.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Helen Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed the murder happening at 1:15.


BUD SAID:

The same Helen Markham who said she saw Oswald kill Tippit.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Let the running begin...

David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it was shown to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with David's posts... watch for it!


BUD SAID:

The retards are willing to believe the shells found at the scene were switched, what could matter less? They think the DPD was conspiring to allow the murderer of one of their own get away with that murder. What they are offering can't begin to support this most incredible and fantastic idea.

For the most part, Ben has made a bunch of empty claims. There isn't much there that even needs rebuttal, just hot air.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) ordered a .38 revolver for $29.95. And Seaport Traders mailed him a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver worth that exact amount -- $29.95. And Michaelis Exhibit No. 2 proves this fact.

Here are two of my Tippit-related articles, providing all kinds of proof showing that Oswald ordered the V510210 revolver and that Oswald murdered Police Officer J.D. Tippit with that exact gun:

Lee Harvey Oswald's Revolver

Helen Markham's Bus


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It would be truly unique if I ever ran into an honest and knowledgeable [Lone Assassin] believer...

I haven't yet...


BUD SAID:

It would be unique if I ran into a conspiracy retard that isn't merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men. For instance, the gun that Oswald was carrying was an unusual one, one that had been rechambered to accept different ammunition. One of the effects of this rechambering is that the bullets fired from it don't leave the clear rifling characteristics that aids in the identification of the weapon used. The fact that Oswald was carrying a gun that fired bullets without easily discernible striations commonly found on most bullets fired from guns is damning to Oswald on its own, and adds validity to the fact these bullets were fired from his gun.

Ben also chooses to ignore that even though this murder was committed in a residential area, with people leaving their house to see what happened immediately after, not one witness comments on seeing bullet casings anywhere near the vicinity they *must* be located if an automatic was used to commit this murder.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

David claimed that he'd be answering these... but he's clearly decided that cowardice is better than being shown a fool.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's yet another lie from the mouth of Ben Holmes. I never once said that I would be "answering" anything. I said I was enjoying seeing Bud (not me) destroy every stupid thing Benny says in his "Sole Guilt" series.

Here's exactly what I said on December 7, 2017, proving that Ben The Stump lied yet again when he said "David claimed that he'd be answering these"....

BEN SAID ON 12/7/2017: "You're clearly in for a very miserable number of weeks, as I post each one of my critical refutations of your nonsense."

DVP SAID ON 12/7/2017: "Miserable?? You're on crack, Mr. Stump. I'm lovin' this. And I'm especially enjoying archiving on my site Bud's always insightful and relevant replies to your pathetic posts, which are posts that only prove--once again--your state of Complete Denial regarding the events of Nov. 22nd. (Maybe I should increase my "Oswald Did It" list to 30 or 40 items to keep this fun alive even longer. Ya think?) So bring on Part 2, Mr. Denial."


BEN HOLMES SAID:

On to the next DVP blunder:

3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44 PM).

Witnesses all agreed that the assassin was wearing a white shirt, and Brennan implies light colored trousers. Oswald couldn't have come close to matching this.


BUD SAID:

Of course he could. He was wearing a white t-shirt.

One of the witnesses said the shooter could have been wearing a white t-shirt. A co-worker said Oswald was working in his white t-shirt that day. Mrs. Reid, who saw Oswald very soon after the shooting, said this...

"...he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you."

So a witness who saw Oswald before the shooting said he was wearing a white t-shirt and witnesses after the shooting said Oswald was wearing a white t-shirt. Conspiracy retards have to call the witnesses liars, what the witnesses relate doesn't support their faith.

[...]

[Eyewitnesses] Fischer and Edwards practically nailed Oswald's age. Some said "slender", a perfect description of Oswald's build. DVP is right, these witnesses did not do a bad job at all of describing Oswald.

[...]

If the evidence strongly suggests Oswald was wearing his t-shirt when shooting, there is no reason to believe he was wearing a dark shirt. The retards want to pretend that such a mundane thing couldn't have happened, while on the other hand entertaining the most insanely fantastic ideas.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

We *KNOW* that Brennan lied. This is something that you cannot get any believer to publicly acknowledge.


BUD SAID:

Brennan admitted to not being truthful at the line-up he viewed. He said he could have honestly chosen Oswald as the man he saw, but chose not to for the reasons he gave, perfectly normal and human reasons---looking out for the safety of his family.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Believers assert that they believe the earliest accounts to be more reliable and credible... but that's simply not true... they'll believe the earliest accounts UNLESS, of course, it contradicts their faith - as it does here.

A man afraid of identifying suspects would not have rushed to the police HIMSELF to do so - as Brennan did. No-one grabbed him and tried to force him to identify a suspect. HE SOUGHT OUT THE POLICE HIMSELF. This contradicts his later statement that he refused to identify Oswald due to fear.


BUD SAID:

Retard figuring. The situations changed for Brennan every step of the way. It wasn't until later that he became aware of Oswald's possible ties to communist groups, later he became aware of Oswald being the slam dunk suspect in a police killing. Given time to think, he could naturally start to see potential problems for himself getting too involved, and try to limit his involvement.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It's interesting to note that critics have no problems at all accepting the EARLIEST accounts... they generally support conspiracy... and believers will simply deny that fact.


BUD SAID:

You weigh the evidence, lurkers. There is no hard, set rules. Was there a dog in the limo? A witness' earliest report said there was. Later, more reliable information showed there wasn't.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

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.

[...]

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 its 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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Curtain Rods (Part 1)

Curtain Rods (Part 2)


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.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You've evaded EVERY SINGLE POINT I made.

Are you a coward, David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Your points become invalid 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 275 & 276.

You KNOW that the rods in question that were fingerprinted were the two Paine exhibits mentioned above. Vincent Bugliosi talks all about them in this excerpt from his book.

Now, do you want to still suggest that there was something fishy about those two curtain rods that were unwrapped in Ruth Paine'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 Warren Commission 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 hadn't been 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?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

What is it called when someone makes claims, then refuses to support them, or address reasonable refutations?


BUD SAID:

What do you call a person who can't figure out simple things, like Oswald was lying when he told Frazier he had curtain rods in the long bag he carried? I call such a person a stump.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

I'll be waiting for your [DVP's] list of those who worked in the building, and their time of departure along with the reason they gave for leaving.

Not.

[...]

Then you'll have no trouble listing all these people, and documenting where they were at ... say, 12:30, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right. I sure can. Via Commission Document No. 706, here....



73 TSBD employees gave statements in CD706. I challenge you to find ONE other employee who fits into the category Oswald fit into on 11/22/63 --- i.e., the category of:

WAS IN THE BUILDING AT 12:30 PM AND THEN LEFT THE BUILDING WITHIN MINUTES OF THE SHOOTING AND DID NOT RETURN TO THE BUILDING AT ANY TIME ON 11/22/63.

Lee Harvey Oswald is the lone Depository worker who fits into the above category. And if you were really looking for the truth of what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, the fact that Oswald was the only person who fits into that niche should be a very interesting piece of information (especially when we combine that info with the fact that OSWALD'S gun was found up on the 6th floor).

But since Ben The Super Stump never embraces the idea of "adding things up", then he would prefer to leave these facts isolated forever. Right, Benny?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Quoting from DVP's site:]

17.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody wants to believe to the contrary, that three shots could be fired in the allotted timeframe from Oswald's rifle (and with good accuracy).

Actually no.

The *ONLY* test done with the rifle failed to match Oswald's alleged feat. The rifle can be accurate, but is slow. And despite the capability for accuracy, the three NRA rated shooters couldn't match time and accuracy. David fails to cite for this "proven" assertion of his, because he's simply lying.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bullshit Ben strikes again.

See Page 193 and Page 194 and Page 195 of the Warren Report to see the truth of the matter concerning "Accuracy Of Weapon".


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

This discussion has once again provided me with an opportunity to archive the desperate denials and misguided ramblings of a JFK conspiracy theorist (Ben Holmes), along with the sensible replies made by some rational people (Bud and myself) who can easily see that the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination proves his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

So my thanks go out to Ben Holmes for his willingness to once again place on full display his eagerness to disbelieve the legitimacy of virtually every last piece of "Oswald Did It" evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, so that Ben can continue to pretend that Lee Oswald was completely innocent of murdering anyone on November 22, 1963.

Such wholesale blanket denial by a conspiracist concerning the validity of all (or certainly most) of the evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit cases makes it much easier for someone like me to refute such nonsensical notions—and that's because they are imaginary and wholly unprovable notions to begin with.

Some additional light reading:

The Best Of Stump Holmes....



(Make sure you click "Next Posts" when you get to the bottom of the first page. Because there's lots more of Ben's idiocy featured on the next few pages too.)

David Von Pein
December 5, 2017—April 11, 2018


Links To Original Forum Discussions:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15
Part 16
Part 17
Part 18
Part 19
Part 20