[Ben Holmes]

George Joannides is all the proof needed that the CIA had a need to coverup the facts in the assassination of JFK. Joannides was called out of retirement by the CIA to act as the CIA's liason with the HSCA.

There was an excellent reason for this action by the CIA - Joannides knew "where the bodies were buried"... he was heavily involved in the Anti-Castro movement. Joannides directed and financed Directio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), translated as the Student Revolutionary Directorate, that consisted of a group of Cuban exiles whose officers had contact with Oswald in the months before the assassination.

Yet Joannides hid these very pertinent facts from the HSCA.

Believers have no refutation for these facts. Nor can they explain how these facts can be related to their favorite scenario - where simply a lone nut assassinates the President.

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that our forum's resident believer had nothing to say?

Which, of course, merely supported my statement that they have no refutation for the incriminating methodology of the CIA when it came to the HSCA.

[Patrick C]

The CIA is not transparent Ben, but they sure  as hell were not behind the assassination. Oswald did that all by his lonesome.....sure the CIA must havehas tabs on Ozzie - he wasin the USSR for God's sake.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-17-2016, 05:48 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The CIA is not transparent Ben, but they sure  as hell were not behind the assassination. Oswald did that all by his lonesome.....sure the CIA must havehas tabs on Ozzie - he wasin the USSR for God's sake.

As usual, you quite cowardly refused to address the issue of Joannides.

Yet, if the CIA didn't have anything to cover up - this selection of Joannides, pulled from retirement, is completely inexplicable. Joannides had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Russian desk in the CIA...

Patrick's cowardice is expected, of course... there's never yet been a believer willing to address the evidence head on, as critics do routinely.

[Patrick C]

As I stated clearly Ben, it is my perogative to address any questions you ask or points you make - or NOT.

If I do not answer a question it does not mean I cannot. It simply means I don't care to or don't have the inclination or time to.

I have stated that I will aim to spend maybe half an hour per week reading posts here and maybe asnwering some.

There is no point "debating" with you - no one will change your mind on the case and you ar elargely incapable of meaningful debate anyway as you have demonstrated palpably with your ridiculous post calling me a liar when I simply linked you to a comment made by Mac K that indicated Dr Perry was the source of info that JFK had died of a head wound.

Whether he was or not is not a matter of my opinion, it could have been another doctor - who cares. It was obvious it was a gunshot wound to the head.

Anyway I think I have had my 30 minutes for this week. Looking forward to the next bunch of howlers....well sort of. Pip Pip Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-23-2016, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  As I stated clearly Ben, it is my perogative to address any questions you ask or points you make - or NOT.

If I do not answer a question it does not mean I cannot. It simply means I don't care to or don't have the inclination or time to.

And it's my "perogative" to point out your cowardice.
 

(10-23-2016, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I have stated that I will aim to spend maybe half an hour per week reading posts here and maybe asnwering some.

There is no point "debating" with you - no one will change your mind on the case and you ar elargely incapable of meaningful debate anyway as you have demonstrated palpably with your ridiculous post calling me a liar when I simply linked you to a comment made by Mac K that indicated Dr Perry was the source of info that JFK had died of a head wound.

You're LYING again, Patrick!

Tell everyone, Patrick... why is it so difficult for you to tell the truth? The video where Malcolm Kilduff points to his temple is widely available, and he states right there where he got the information.

Why are you and Henry so afraid of it?

(10-23-2016, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Whether he was or not is not a matter of my opinion, it could have been another doctor - who cares. It was obvious it was a gunshot wound to the head.

Anyway I think I have had my 30 minutes for this week. Looking forward to the next bunch of howlers....well sort of. Pip Pip Ben.

Surely you must be trying to rack up a high number of posts where I label you a liar... that's the only explanation I can think of for your nonstop lying.

[Calvin Ye]

(10-17-2016, 05:48 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The CIA is not transparent Ben, but they sure  as hell were not behind the assassination. Oswald did that all by his lonesome.....sure the CIA must havehas tabs on Ozzie - he wasin the USSR for God's sake.

Patrick, you are wrong to think Oswald was the lone-wolf. If he was the lone-wolf, please explain why other people died besides him.