DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists .... Click Here.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
That's simply untrue. I can EASILY answer any evidential question in this case with credible answers... David will run from these answers, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show that they aren't reasonable and credible.
Believers [in Lee Oswald's lone guilt], on the other hand, simply cannot answer questions on the evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
This is what happens, folks, when a desperate CTer tries to explain away all the evidence that points to Oswald (which, of course, is ALL the evidence). The CTer ends up looking very silly when attempting to square away everything into a nice little "Conspiracy" package (with Oswald being featured as the make-believe "Patsy" in the conspiracy theorist's imaginary plot).
My favorite gut-buster delivered by desperate Mr. Holmes in this 3/5/2017 forum post is this little gem below (in which Holmes was answering my question "Where did those two bullets go [that entered JFK's body but never exited]?"....
"My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- B. Holmes
Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got enough evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in the imaginary conspiracy and cover-up. Needless to say, Holmes has ZERO evidence to make such an outrageous accusation against Dr. Humes.
But "ZERO evidence" never stopped a determined JFK conspiracy theorist. Just ask Ben Holmes.
BORIS SAID:
David Von Pein,
One would think that if you were capable of being ashamed, you would be WHOLLY EMBARRASSED--or possibly wholly stupid--by daring to start a thread called "Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists" when you are the number one violator of answering to nothing.
Apart from the fact that you are the only person here with vested MONETARY GAIN to support the lone assassin theory, you just presented a series of questions that any CTer would be scared to answer. Which were promptly answered. Then you doubled down by cherry picking only one of those answers, briefly mocking it, and ignoring everything else.
You're a total fraud, David Von Pein. And here's why...
In the JFK Forum on Amazon, we discussed witnesses whose stories kept changing, and I asked you to produce ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a witness whose story changed in a way which absolved Oswald. Your response to me was that you could not think of one offhand, but that you BET THE FARM there was one, and that you would find it. Do you remember that? I bet you do, buddy boy. You remember saying that perfectly well.
Remember? It occurred just before you DISAPPEARED.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you are totally nuts, "Boris", if you really think that ANY of these eight questions have truly been answered in a reasonable and believable fashion by any conspiracy theorist. Not one of my 8 inquiries has been satisfactorily answered by anybody in the Conspiracy Fantasy Camp. (And certainly not by "Boris".)
BORIS SAID:
Your "kook" and "nuts" and "whackjob" charges are totally boring, you waste. I thought you were a writer. Come up with some new shit.
Do I really think your questions were answered? Yes, in triplicate. By definition, they were answered. What you mean is, they were not answered to your liking. Which is fine. But to say they weren't is a lie. Which isn't fine. The title of this thread is a lie. This thread is manifest of what a dishonest person you are. You made a mistake by starting this thread. You should hope it dies and slowly slinks away into obscurity. Just like you asshole lone nutters.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And Question #7 particularly stands out as a question I've asked CTers dozens of times in the last 15 years, and I've yet to hear any kind of a sensible answer. And the reason that no conspiracy theorist can reasonably answer Question #7 is because: There is no reasonable and sensible answer to that inquiry. Here's #7 again....
7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?
Good luck answering that one in a reasonable and believable fashion, "Boris".
BORIS SAID:
Simple. Because they didn't give a fuck what the public saw, they were going to sell the story anyway. And they did, at least to idiots like yourself. Not hard to do in 1963, in the days before Internet and back when trust in government was high. Operation Mockingbird helped as well. Or will you deny the existence of the Mighty Wurlitzer? Your refusing to address it will signal to me I'm right.
Yes. The frontal shooters were insurance, in case the target still was not down before exiting the triangular kill zone.
No. They didn't have to be retarded idiots. Only the people they sold their story to had to be.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're really rotten at this "Reasonable & Believable" thing, "Boris". Because any plot that requires a "Lone Patsy Named Oswald" would not have included ANY FRONTAL SHOOTERS. And all reasonable people know why this is so. But since you're a loon from the Anybody-But-Oswald Club, you have to (somehow) come up with some sorry-ass excuse for why those two wholly incompatible things—
"A Patsy In The TSBD" and "Frontal Gunshots"—can (somehow) fit together in this JFK case.
And your answer—"Because they didn't give a fuck what the public saw, they were going to sell the story anyway"—reeks of sorry-ass desperation for sure.*
* And I'm guessing that your above laughable response is the first time you've ever written down those sorry-ass words in your whole life. And it's understandable why you wouldn't want to type out those words previously—
because who wants to deliberately embarrass themselves with such goofy and obviously-made-up dreck from the bottom of the conspiracy barrel? I sure wouldn't. You should have kept your yap shut this time too, because your desperate/lame-ass response is now available for everyone to read from this day forward.
Now take a crack at Question #4, "Boris". I'm sure your answer to that inquiry will even exceed your last answer in the "lame-ass" department. (BTW, I forget your real name from our Amazon discussions, which have now been wiped out from existence forever by Amazon.com due to the discontinuation of their "Discussion Boards". But I'm pretty sure I have never conversed with anyone named "Boris" before.)
David Von Pein
March 5, 2017—April 8, 2018
