Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 13, 2019 19:59:30 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
Notice To Lurkers:
Ben will deny these very obvious lies by claiming he has given evidence already (a favorite trick of the LNer clan) or that he has quoted me saying something, but do NOT fall for it. Demand him to provide this evidence to you. Demand that he provides my quote IN context as he has a habit of EDITING other people’s words and ignoring clarifications even when they are made BEFORE he responded.
Ben will resort to insults and false accusations like all LNers do so take note of how often he does this.
************************************************************************
Walt likes to insist one of the Backyard photographs (BYP) is authentic. He has insisted this for many years, but he never provides any refutation for the issues concerning CE-133A. The same issues concern this version that involves the other ones (CE-133B, De Mohrenschildt photo (133C) and White photo (133D)) so IF he can't refute the issues in the first one how can he claim it is genuine?
Awhile ago during one of these types of discussions I mentioned researcher Jack White had done extensive photographic tests on these photographs and he noticed 14 points of interest. One of the points was he felt the man in the photo had a watch on his left wrist, and Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was NOT known to wear a watch around the time the alleged BYP photo session took place (3/31/63). I posted this to Tom Rossely in response to a point he made.
Quote on
Tom, I would be interested to see those photos as Jack White was the one who first noticed the watch. Quite a few witnesses were asked about LHO wearing one (those that came into contact with him regularly) and they could NOT remember him wearing one. -- 12:22 PM (Original Post)
Quote off
Since this was NOT clear on the time period I was referring to I made a clarification JUST FOUR MINUTES LATER!
Quote on
I should also clarify I believe they are talking about 1963, **he may have had a watch on in earlier times but the focus was around the time the picture was allegedly taken to the assassination.** -- 12:26
PM (Clarification)
groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2b4c08aa65089708
Quote off
So we see my time period was 3/31/63 (alleged BY photo session) to the time of the assassination (11/22/63) and NOT his entire life! This was posted within four minutes of my first post and it was there long BEFORE Ben responded.
Ben chose the dishonest path and argued I lied because there are photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) wearing a watch YEARS BEFORE the time period in question! Why would an honest man IGNORE a posted clarification that made the exact time period known and lie by saying I was lying because LHO was known to wear a watch in 1960? He would say this.
Quote on
And yet, you can't supply even a *hint* of evidence for your claim that **Oswald wasn't known to wear a watch**, or that a watch wasn't found among his possessions - and despite abundant evidence contrary to your assertions, **you STILL refuse to admit that Oswald both owned and wore a watch.** (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
We see his game of accusing people of lying perfectly here as where did I say LHO was NEVER known to wear a watch at anytime in his whole life again? I made the time period clear upfront before he responded, but he lied and ignored it to save his pal Walt again. Could/can he quote me saying "LHO never owned and wore a watch at any time"? NO. Thus, he lied again.
This turned into a long, drawn out discussion of Ben calling me a liar ALL BECAUSE he was lying and ignoring a clarification POSTED LONG BEFORE HE RESPONDED FIRST! Along the way he gave us a cite from Marina Oswald as "proof" of his claim, but all it did was show he was a liar. Why? Because it said LHO's watch BROKE in 10/62 and he purchased the "Lee" bracelet (he would have this on when arrested) INSTEAD of having the watch fixed. It would seem odd for LHO to wear a watch in the BY photograph IF it was broken, thus, this made the claim of Jack White's even stronger in my mind.
What did Ben do? He lied and used circular logic like ALL LNers do. He said it was fixed between the time it broke (10/62) and the time of the alleged BY photo session (3/31/63). Fair enough. I said where is your evidence for it? He then used circular reasoning for his claim/lie by saying this.
Quote on
I am USING THE QUOTE you gave us! She said he purchased a bracelet INSTEAD of having the watch fixed!” (Robert)
“Yep... it wasn't fixed *THEN*. You have ZERO evidence that the watch was never fixed. You're a liar, Rob. A gutless yellowbellied liar.” (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
So we see Ben makes a claim by stating it was fixed, and when asked for evidence of this claim he states it was fixed JUST BECAUSE I CAN'T PROVE IT WASN'T! I'm a "gutless yellowbellied liar" to boot because I can't DISPROVE HIS claim he CAN'T SUPPORT WITH EVIDENCE!
HOW about more circular reasoning? This one tops them all. Ben,like his fellow WC shill Walt, insists CE-133A is authentic. OF course getting him to discuss the anomalies in all the photographs, including the one he calls genuine, is akin to getting him to discuss "astrology". He has NEVER offered a lick of evidence or proof that this one photograph is genuine. JUST like Walt. But here comes the kicker!
Quote on
The "proof" that it was fixed is simple - he's wearing it in CE-133A, according to you. (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
Let's count the lies, okay? First of all, I never said LHO was in CE-133A as my contention is ALL the BY photographs are faked! Can he quote me saying LHO is in CE-133A? NO! Lie number two is obvious, he is using a suspect photograph allegedly of LHO to SUPPORT his lie of it having been fixed in the first place! This is NOT evidence since there is NO proof LHO is in the BY photographs and that is who we were discussing.
This shows the dishonesty of this man to the fullest. We also got into the issue of a watch being found "among" his possessions. Ben waffled a lot on this one as he was NOT sure if the watch allegedly found "among" LHO's possessions was OWNED by him or not so he waffled on this point. Initially he said this.
Quote on
Tell us about your "proof" that the watch found in a garage NOT owned by LHO, and accessed by many others, was his.” (Robert)
“Didn't say it was his. The presumption is certainly there.” (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
Who's presumption? The WC's? The DPD's? Ben's? Presumption is NOT evidence or proof. Ben also likes to ignore the illegal nature of these searches in the Paine's garage as well. He likes to act like everything the DPD listed was 100% correct. Later on when he found this inventory sheet he was okay with pronouncing it as LHO's exclusively. Of course this was AFTER he blatantly lied and tried to use Jack Ruby's arrest item inventory sheet as proof with his fancy watch listed on it!
Quote on
One has DEFINITIVE evidence - an inventory sheet (of LHO's alleged possessions), the other is subjective. (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
So we see Ben believes the DPD fully here, despite them doing an illegal search prior to the one that allegedly found most of this stuff. Finally, I asked him to tell me where LHO kept his possessions in the garage as he used one main item for this and Ben couldn't even tell me this and tried to act like it was NOT relevant. So I ask again, how can one claim an item was found "among" someone's possessions when they do NOT know where that person's possessions were kept? See, the garage BELONGED to the Paine's, NOT LHO. IT was their house, NOT LHO's. Ruth Paine didn't like LHO but we are to believe she gave him full permission to scatter his stuff all over her garage, huh?
So we see Ben lied about my time period given, he lied that the watch was fixed, and he lied when he said a watch that belonged to LHO was found in the garage. He never could prove this was LHO's watch by simply showing us evidence to this effect. All we got was, "It was on the DPD's inventory list, and that is definitive, so it has to be LHO's watch!"
Will he retract his many lies?
Notice To Lurkers:
Ben will deny these very obvious lies by claiming he has given evidence already (a favorite trick of the LNer clan) or that he has quoted me saying something, but do NOT fall for it. Demand him to provide this evidence to you. Demand that he provides my quote IN context as he has a habit of EDITING other people’s words and ignoring clarifications even when they are made BEFORE he responded.
Ben will resort to insults and false accusations like all LNers do so take note of how often he does this.
************************************************************************
Walt likes to insist one of the Backyard photographs (BYP) is authentic. He has insisted this for many years, but he never provides any refutation for the issues concerning CE-133A. The same issues concern this version that involves the other ones (CE-133B, De Mohrenschildt photo (133C) and White photo (133D)) so IF he can't refute the issues in the first one how can he claim it is genuine?
Awhile ago during one of these types of discussions I mentioned researcher Jack White had done extensive photographic tests on these photographs and he noticed 14 points of interest. One of the points was he felt the man in the photo had a watch on his left wrist, and Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was NOT known to wear a watch around the time the alleged BYP photo session took place (3/31/63). I posted this to Tom Rossely in response to a point he made.
Quote on
Tom, I would be interested to see those photos as Jack White was the one who first noticed the watch. Quite a few witnesses were asked about LHO wearing one (those that came into contact with him regularly) and they could NOT remember him wearing one. -- 12:22 PM (Original Post)
Quote off
Since this was NOT clear on the time period I was referring to I made a clarification JUST FOUR MINUTES LATER!
Quote on
I should also clarify I believe they are talking about 1963, **he may have had a watch on in earlier times but the focus was around the time the picture was allegedly taken to the assassination.** -- 12:26
PM (Clarification)
groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2b4c08aa65089708
Quote off
So we see my time period was 3/31/63 (alleged BY photo session) to the time of the assassination (11/22/63) and NOT his entire life! This was posted within four minutes of my first post and it was there long BEFORE Ben responded.
Ben chose the dishonest path and argued I lied because there are photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) wearing a watch YEARS BEFORE the time period in question! Why would an honest man IGNORE a posted clarification that made the exact time period known and lie by saying I was lying because LHO was known to wear a watch in 1960? He would say this.
Quote on
And yet, you can't supply even a *hint* of evidence for your claim that **Oswald wasn't known to wear a watch**, or that a watch wasn't found among his possessions - and despite abundant evidence contrary to your assertions, **you STILL refuse to admit that Oswald both owned and wore a watch.** (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
We see his game of accusing people of lying perfectly here as where did I say LHO was NEVER known to wear a watch at anytime in his whole life again? I made the time period clear upfront before he responded, but he lied and ignored it to save his pal Walt again. Could/can he quote me saying "LHO never owned and wore a watch at any time"? NO. Thus, he lied again.
This turned into a long, drawn out discussion of Ben calling me a liar ALL BECAUSE he was lying and ignoring a clarification POSTED LONG BEFORE HE RESPONDED FIRST! Along the way he gave us a cite from Marina Oswald as "proof" of his claim, but all it did was show he was a liar. Why? Because it said LHO's watch BROKE in 10/62 and he purchased the "Lee" bracelet (he would have this on when arrested) INSTEAD of having the watch fixed. It would seem odd for LHO to wear a watch in the BY photograph IF it was broken, thus, this made the claim of Jack White's even stronger in my mind.
What did Ben do? He lied and used circular logic like ALL LNers do. He said it was fixed between the time it broke (10/62) and the time of the alleged BY photo session (3/31/63). Fair enough. I said where is your evidence for it? He then used circular reasoning for his claim/lie by saying this.
Quote on
I am USING THE QUOTE you gave us! She said he purchased a bracelet INSTEAD of having the watch fixed!” (Robert)
“Yep... it wasn't fixed *THEN*. You have ZERO evidence that the watch was never fixed. You're a liar, Rob. A gutless yellowbellied liar.” (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
So we see Ben makes a claim by stating it was fixed, and when asked for evidence of this claim he states it was fixed JUST BECAUSE I CAN'T PROVE IT WASN'T! I'm a "gutless yellowbellied liar" to boot because I can't DISPROVE HIS claim he CAN'T SUPPORT WITH EVIDENCE!
HOW about more circular reasoning? This one tops them all. Ben,like his fellow WC shill Walt, insists CE-133A is authentic. OF course getting him to discuss the anomalies in all the photographs, including the one he calls genuine, is akin to getting him to discuss "astrology". He has NEVER offered a lick of evidence or proof that this one photograph is genuine. JUST like Walt. But here comes the kicker!
Quote on
The "proof" that it was fixed is simple - he's wearing it in CE-133A, according to you. (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
Let's count the lies, okay? First of all, I never said LHO was in CE-133A as my contention is ALL the BY photographs are faked! Can he quote me saying LHO is in CE-133A? NO! Lie number two is obvious, he is using a suspect photograph allegedly of LHO to SUPPORT his lie of it having been fixed in the first place! This is NOT evidence since there is NO proof LHO is in the BY photographs and that is who we were discussing.
This shows the dishonesty of this man to the fullest. We also got into the issue of a watch being found "among" his possessions. Ben waffled a lot on this one as he was NOT sure if the watch allegedly found "among" LHO's possessions was OWNED by him or not so he waffled on this point. Initially he said this.
Quote on
Tell us about your "proof" that the watch found in a garage NOT owned by LHO, and accessed by many others, was his.” (Robert)
“Didn't say it was his. The presumption is certainly there.” (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
Who's presumption? The WC's? The DPD's? Ben's? Presumption is NOT evidence or proof. Ben also likes to ignore the illegal nature of these searches in the Paine's garage as well. He likes to act like everything the DPD listed was 100% correct. Later on when he found this inventory sheet he was okay with pronouncing it as LHO's exclusively. Of course this was AFTER he blatantly lied and tried to use Jack Ruby's arrest item inventory sheet as proof with his fancy watch listed on it!
Quote on
One has DEFINITIVE evidence - an inventory sheet (of LHO's alleged possessions), the other is subjective. (Ben Holmes)
Quote off
So we see Ben believes the DPD fully here, despite them doing an illegal search prior to the one that allegedly found most of this stuff. Finally, I asked him to tell me where LHO kept his possessions in the garage as he used one main item for this and Ben couldn't even tell me this and tried to act like it was NOT relevant. So I ask again, how can one claim an item was found "among" someone's possessions when they do NOT know where that person's possessions were kept? See, the garage BELONGED to the Paine's, NOT LHO. IT was their house, NOT LHO's. Ruth Paine didn't like LHO but we are to believe she gave him full permission to scatter his stuff all over her garage, huh?
So we see Ben lied about my time period given, he lied that the watch was fixed, and he lied when he said a watch that belonged to LHO was found in the garage. He never could prove this was LHO's watch by simply showing us evidence to this effect. All we got was, "It was on the DPD's inventory list, and that is definitive, so it has to be LHO's watch!"
Will he retract his many lies?