[Patrick C]

The pigeons of course heard the bangs from inside the 6th floor and were startled......

If only they has been asked, we would know if there were just 2 shots or just 3 shots....

Bad joke by the way.....

[Ray Mitcham]

I suppose the pigeons on the TSBD would have remained perched there if the shots had come from any other of the surrounding buildings?

[Patrick C]

What is that supposed to mean...? Are you trying to be funny...perhaps?

I certainly don't think they would have heard the phantom and invisible Grassy Knoll gunman though, that is a given.

[Ray Mitcham]

You said they heard the bangs from inside the sixth floor and were startled. I was just pointing out that they would have been startled wherever in Dealey Plaza the shots came from.

[Patrick C]

The only bangs that day came from inside the TSBD, the question is....were there two or three....and that as far as I am concerned is the mystery....

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:The only bangs that day came from inside the TSBD, the question is....were there two or three....and that as far as I am concerned is the mystery....

Unfortunately, that puts you contrary to many, if not most witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza that day...

I think that they are more credible...

[Patrick C]

Tripe, most people though there were 2 or 3 shots from the rear. I cannot see how you can dispute that. Are you living in cloud cuckoo land Ben...?

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Tripe, most people though there were 2 or 3 shots from the rear. I cannot see how you can dispute that. Are you living in cloud cuckoo land Ben...?

I dispute it because unlike you, I'M WILLING TO BACK UP WHAT I SAY WITH THE EVIDENCE.

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.

P.S. You still refuse to name the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray... It's amusing to see how believers suddenly take their cue from monkeys when this topic comes around:

[Patrick C]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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


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.

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.

[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...)