[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:McAdams shows clearly the witness statement and the corresponding location such as Knoll or TSBD or could not say.

This is where the totals come from. There is no deception. The statements are accurate and so is the determination of the opinion on the source.

Once again:
Now, I'm guessing that you're referencing McAdam's listing of earwitnesses.

But unless you're willing to defend that list against my critical cross-examination - then you literally have nothing.

Because your opinion isn't worth anything if you can't defend it.

So tell us Patrick - WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO DEFEND MCADAMS EARWITNESS LIST???

Ben Holmes Wrote:The simple fact is that the vast majority of witness by some considerable magnitude, thought there were three, two or three or just two shots.

And cannot be explained by you other than by arguing that half the witnesses were mistaken.

Patrick C Wrote:It would be no surprise to me if there were only 2 shots, IMO had there been three or more shots, it seems logical to deduce that there might have been far more reports of 4, 5 or even 6 shots given the composite sound of gunfire and echoes in the plaza.

Yet you still refuse to admit that all these years, critics have been absolutely correct when they point out that only two shots came from the TSBD, and that the earliest evidence (and CE543) shows this.

Why do you refuse to admit that critics have been right, Patrick?

Patrick C Wrote:One of the reasons I rate Phantom Shot so highly is that it looks at all the alternative theories around a second shooter (or third) and their locations and expertly dismisses most alternatives as what they are - delusional or as I prefer to say politely "fairy tales".

Yet you can't provide any such refutation... you can only allude to it... why is that, Patrick?

Is it because you know that such generality cannot be decisively demolished? (as would happen if you actually tried to refute multiple locations...)

Patrick C Wrote:Less politely one might describe them as wishful thinking by those of the conspiratorial mind set.

Less politely, I'd refer to it as cowardice on the part of anyone posting such generalities, and refusing to CITE THE EVIDENCE that shows only a single location for a shooter.

Patrick C Wrote:Of course we can never rule out a second shooter from the rear making a missed shot - and that bullet disintegrating, but of course we know of no evidence for that shooter.

Of course we do. Any number of witnesses referred to a bullet striking the street. You know this. Why deny it?

Patrick C Wrote:Do you mean the 6.5mm black object?

It is obviously a photographic anomaly. One shot struck JFK in the head and the bullet exited, leaving several small particles in a trail from rear to front.

ROTFLMAO!!!

A "photographic anomaly" that just happens to be 6.5mm in diameter!!! Tell us Patrick, what are the odds?

And that the experts on the Clark Panel and HSCA all stated was a bullet fragment...

It's amusing that believers whine when critics disregard what "experts" say, then do it themselves when they don't want to accept what is right in front of them...

But tell us Patrick... what credible explanation can you give for this "photographic anomaly" to be completely hidden from the prosectors?

On what basis did THEY judge it to be a "photographic anomaly" and totally forget about it?

(All rhetorical questions... as usual, you'll be "too busy" to answer them...)