Government Supplied Evidence

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-05-2016, 02:04 PM

Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.

Actually, there is...

The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example.

Another is CE 748.

As Mark Lane pointed out:

Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued:

Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows.

Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed.

And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.

So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And believers can do nothing about these facts... they refuse to debate such topics... and then complain that critics won't engage in debate.

Quite funny, actually!

Patrick C · 10-06-2016, 06:35 PM

(10-05-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.

Actually, there is...

The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example.

Another is CE 748.

As Mark Lane pointed out:

Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued:

Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows.

Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed.

And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.

So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And believers can do nothing about these facts... they refuse to debate such topics... and then complain that critics won't engage in debate.

Quite funny, actually!

Yes I agree very funny, because Marina said she took the backyard pics and we have the hand writing match....enough said....the pics were not forged.

Lane's argument is lame.

Who cares about the backyard pics.......they prove nothing other than that Oswald had those weapons and we know that anyway! And if there was a conspiracy......why would you need the backyard photos, which faked, would only lead to a trail of forgery - the last things conspirators would want?

What a load of hogwash!

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-06-2016, 07:31 PM

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(10-05-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.

Actually, there is...

The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example.

Another is CE 748.

As Mark Lane pointed out:

Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued:

Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows.

Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed.

And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.

So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And believers can do nothing about these facts... they refuse to debate such topics... and then complain that critics won't engage in debate.

Quite funny, actually!

Yes I agree very funny, because Marina said she took the backyard pics and we have the hand writing match....enough said....the pics were not forged.

Lane's argument is lame.

Then by all means, REFUTE IT!

Merely labeling it "lame" doesn't do the trick.

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Who cares about the backyard pics.......they prove nothing other than that Oswald had those weapons and we know that anyway!

No, actually that's far from proven. For example, simply produce the evidence that Oswald PAID for the rifle.

You can't do it.

You KNOW you can't do it.

So you simply presume what you need to demonstrate.

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: And if there was a conspiracy......why would you need the backyard photos, which faked, would only lead to a trail of forgery - the last things conspirators would want?

What a load of hogwash!

Speculation can never refute the evidence, Patrick.

You really should know this, I shouldn't have to keep reminding you.

You said not a single word on the 6.5mm object, as I rather predicted you wouldn't...

And the only evidence you can bring to the table is Marina and speculation...

You lose!

Patrick C · 10-07-2016, 02:30 PM

(10-06-2016, 07:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(10-05-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.

Actually, there is...

The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example.

Another is CE 748.

As Mark Lane pointed out:

Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued:

Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows.

Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed.

And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.

So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And believers can do nothing about these facts... they refuse to debate such topics... and then complain that critics won't engage in debate.

Quite funny, actually!

Yes I agree very funny, because Marina said she took the backyard pics and we have the hand writing match....enough said....the pics were not forged.

Lane's argument is lame.

Then by all means, REFUTE IT!

Merely labeling it "lame" doesn't do the trick.

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Who cares about the backyard pics.......they prove nothing other than that Oswald had those weapons and we know that anyway!

No, actually that's far from proven. For example, simply produce the evidence that Oswald PAID for the rifle.

You can't do it.

You KNOW you can't do it.

So you simply presume what you need to demonstrate.

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: And if there was a conspiracy......why would you need the backyard photos, which faked, would only lead to a trail of forgery - the last things conspirators would want?

What a load of hogwash!

Speculation can never refute the evidence, Patrick.

You really should know this, I shouldn't have to keep reminding you.

You said not a single word on the 6.5mm object, as I rather predicted you wouldn't...

And the only evidence you can bring to the table is Marina and speculation...

You lose!

Actually that Marina said she took the photos and that the hand writing is confirmed as Oswald's IS evidence....and it is YOU who are speculating. Your arguments are contradictory - you are guilty of exactly what you have stated I have done.

DVP sums up the whole "the backyard photos are faked" joke admirably on his web site

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.co.uk/2010/...hotos.html

Quote DVP

Many JFK conspiracy theorists firmly believe that all of these
black-and-white photographs have been faked in some manner (with a
picture of Oswald's head pasted onto the body of an unknown
"conspirator"), in an effort to implicate Oswald in President Kennedy's
November 1963 assassination.

However, such conspiratorial notions are utter nonsense for a variety
of different reasons....and it's quite easy to prove why the "Faked
Photos" theory is full of more holes than a Swiss Cheese factory.

The main questions that conspiracy theorists need to answer if
they think the photos have been faked are:

1.) How did the plotters/photo-fakers get Marina Oswald to ADMIT to
having taken the photos?

2.) How in the world did these clever plotters get Lee Oswald HIMSELF
to SIGN one of the photographs?*

* = It was proven to be Lee Oswald's own signature on the photo in
which the words "Hunter of Fascists" were also written (in Russian; and
probably via Marina Oswald's own hand). This fact re. the Oswald
signature, all by itself, proves Oswald knew of the existence of the
photographs and proves that they are not forgeries.

Plus, there's the inscription "To my friend George" (De Mohrenschildt)
preceding Oswald's signature on the photo (and the date "5/IV/63"),
matching Oswald's handwriting.

Oswald's statement to the police after his arrest on November 22, 1963
-- when he claimed that the backyard photo he was shown was a composite
forgery -- is just one more lie to add to Oswald's lengthy tome of
untruths that he told the authorities following JFK's assassination.

3.) Why in the wide, wide world of "Presidential Assassination Patsy
Conspiracy Plots" would the perpetrators of this photo-faking scheme
feel there was any need whatsoever to "fake" MULTIPLE pictures that, in
essence, depicted the EXACT same thing (i.e., Oswald with guns and
Russian newspapers)?

In other words, if we're to buy into the idea of the pictures being
fakes, why wouldn't just ONE single snapshot of Oswald holding the
assassination rifle have met the photo-forging requirements of this
band of Patsy-Framers?

Plus, given many CT beliefs re. the matter, why would these plotters
decide to use the EXACT SAME HEAD of Oswald in ALL of the various
"fake" photos? Did these crooks WANT to get caught red-handed? Or were
they just overly cautious (fearing that one or two of the pics might
get "lost" before November 22nd, so they wanted a few back-ups)?

(See how stupid some of this stuff sounds from the "pro-conspiracy"
mindset?)

What does all of this suggest to a reasonable person looking
objectively at the evidence? --- It indicates that each of the March
1963 Neely Street "Backyard Photos" contains a separately-exposed image
of Lee Harvey Oswald, and were photos that he, himself, KNEW existed.

End of Quote

Courtesy of DVP

I should also take the opportunity to add - "the back yard photos are faked theory" is great ammuntion for the lone gunman supporter because it is such an idiotic theory as DVP admirably showed on his web site.

It gives we pro lonegunman supporters something to chuckle about when we see you "conspiracy buff - loons" absorb and soak up this nonsense.

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-08-2016, 03:32 PM

(10-07-2016, 02:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(10-06-2016, 07:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(10-05-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.

Actually, there is...

The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example.

Another is CE 748.

As Mark Lane pointed out:

Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued:

Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?

Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.

One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows.

Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed.

And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.

So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And believers can do nothing about these facts... they refuse to debate such topics... and then complain that critics won't engage in debate.

Quite funny, actually!

Yes I agree very funny, because Marina said she took the backyard pics and we have the hand writing match....enough said....the pics were not forged.

Lane's argument is lame.

Then by all means, REFUTE IT!

Merely labeling it "lame" doesn't do the trick.

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Who cares about the backyard pics.......they prove nothing other than that Oswald had those weapons and we know that anyway!

No, actually that's far from proven. For example, simply produce the evidence that Oswald PAID for the rifle.

You can't do it.

You KNOW you can't do it.

So you simply presume what you need to demonstrate.

(10-06-2016, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: And if there was a conspiracy......why would you need the backyard photos, which faked, would only lead to a trail of forgery - the last things conspirators would want?

What a load of hogwash!

Speculation can never refute the evidence, Patrick.

You really should know this, I shouldn't have to keep reminding you.

You said not a single word on the 6.5mm object, as I rather predicted you wouldn't...

And the only evidence you can bring to the table is Marina and speculation...

You lose!

Actually that Marina said she took the photos and that the hand writing is confirmed as Oswald's IS evidence....and it is YOU who are speculating. Your arguments are contradictory - you are guilty of exactly what you have stated I have done.

Actually, and you well know this fact; what she testified to would have been impossible. The way that the camera was held... the number of photos taken... You know that it was recognized that she lied repeatedly on a number of issues, and indeed, the HSCA actually compiled a long list of her lies.

Yet you still keep relying on her to "prove" something.

This simply illustrates the depth of your belief and dishonesty, nothing more.

You've not addressed the FBI photo at all - and it's easy to see why.

(Nor did you address the fact that the Money Order was never cashed... You lose again!)

(10-07-2016, 02:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: DVP sums up the whole "the backyard photos are faked" joke admirably on his web site

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.co.uk/2010/...hotos.html

One dishonest believer quoting another dishonest believer... But just like DVP himself - YOU WILL REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE REFUTATION OF WHAT HE POSTS...

David Von Pein Wrote:Many JFK conspiracy theorists firmly believe that all of these
black-and-white photographs have been faked in some manner (with a
picture of Oswald's head pasted onto the body of an unknown
"conspirator"), in an effort to implicate Oswald in President Kennedy's
November 1963 assassination.

However, such conspiratorial notions are utter nonsense for a variety
of different reasons....and it's quite easy to prove why the "Faked
Photos" theory is full of more holes than a Swiss Cheese factory.

The main questions that conspiracy theorists need to answer if
they think the photos have been faked are:

1.) How did the plotters/photo-fakers get Marina Oswald to ADMIT to
having taken the photos?

By locking her in a room for months on end with handlers who threatened her with deportation unless 'she got with the program.' Why is this so difficult to understand?

Believers are always happy to accept Marina's later statements, but absolutely refuse to accept her earliest statements. Even if and when I can get you to publicly acknowledge that the generally accepted fact is that earlier statements are to be preferred over later statements, you won't accept Marina's earliest statements... statements she made without the intimidation.

David Von Pein Wrote:2.) How in the world did these clever plotters get Lee Oswald HIMSELF
to SIGN one of the photographs?*

* = It was proven to be Lee Oswald's own signature on the photo in
which the words "Hunter of Fascists" were also written (in Russian; and
probably via Marina Oswald's own hand). This fact re. the Oswald
signature, all by itself, proves Oswald knew of the existence of the
photographs and proves that they are not forgeries.

Plus, there's the inscription "To my friend George" (De Mohrenschildt)
preceding Oswald's signature on the photo (and the date "5/IV/63"),
matching Oswald's handwriting.

Looks like DVP is once again not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... from the HSCA:

Quote:Mr. McNALLY. ... The writing which we have here looks to be a tracing; looks to be copied. It is written very slowly. There is a very hesitant line quality in it and it is very uncertain . The party doing this was trying to make sure what he was doing, so the whole thing has been written very, very, slowly.
Ms. BRADY. Does enough of the original writing remain for you to be able to make any type of analysis of it?
Mr. McNALLY. In the process of actually trying to cover somebody else's writing, it has been effectively disguised. In writing over somebody else's writing, it has effectively obliterated the original writing that was there and makes this whole particular section unidentifiable.

When you have obvious signs of forgery - and that is what this is, then the entire document is suspect. It would be interesting to see what an unbiased expert would make of this photo. Jack White has already commented on this topic, here's what he had to say:

Jack White Wrote:I was at the HSCA offices the day the photo was discovered. Groden and I had the opportunity to handle and examine it carefully for about twenty minutes. Groden later made photocopies. At lunch he and I talked about how much BETTER QUALITY it was than the 133 pix. We did not pay much attention to the writing on the back. But we DID use a magnifying glass, and the type on the newspapers was very legible...could not have been shot by an Imperial Reflex. And it included extra material around the edges, which is impossible according to the official story.

As I recall, HSCA "experts" decided the handwriting had been penciled lightly, traced over in INK, and the penciling erased...therefore unlikely to have been written spontaneously by Marina or anyone else.

Of course, if the photo was of such a quality that it couldn't have come from the same camera - then this throws a huge monkey wrench into the entire BY photos issue. Let me guess, Marina was taking photos with two different cameras, right?

David Von Pein Wrote:Oswald's statement to the police after his arrest on November 22, 1963 -- when he claimed that the backyard photo he was shown was a composite forgery -- is just one more lie to add to Oswald's lengthy tome of untruths that he told the authorities following JFK's assassination.

First you need to prove that he WAS lying. This means that you have to duplicate the shadows - that FBI photo is still there, just laughing at you, Patrick... and laughing at DVP too!

Indeed, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OSWALD SAID TO THE POLICE... it's truly amusing to see the hearsay believers accept as gospel truth.

David Von Pein Wrote:3.) Why in the wide, wide world of "Presidential Assassination Patsy Conspiracy Plots" would the perpetrators of this photo-faking scheme feel there was any need whatsoever to "fake" MULTIPLE pictures that, in essence, depicted the EXACT same thing (i.e., Oswald with guns and Russian newspapers)?

In other words, if we're to buy into the idea of the pictures being fakes, why wouldn't just ONE single snapshot of Oswald holding the assassination rifle have met the photo-forging requirements of this band of Patsy-Framers?

You've unintentionally implied the answer... one single photo is far more likely a 'forgery' than a set of photos. Most people instinctively understand that if the reason is to capture a moment in time, just a single photo is all you need... no-one, for example, would intentionally take the same photo over and over again - unless they had a particular purpose for the photo - and needed to select the best shots. The fact that there are so many photos of essentially the same scene shows that there was an underlying purpose for these photos.

It's amusing how often believers pretend that the facts support their faith - when in fact, they cannot offer reasonable and credible explanations for those facts! [Image: smile.png]

David Von Pein Wrote:Plus, given many CT beliefs re. the matter, why would these plotters decide to use the EXACT SAME HEAD of Oswald in ALL of the various "fake" photos? Did these crooks WANT to get caught red-handed? Or were they just overly cautious (fearing that one or two of the pics might get "lost" before November 22nd, so they wanted a few back-ups)?

(See how stupid some of this stuff sounds from the "pro-conspiracy" mindset?)

The moment you admit that the head is the same, is the precise moment you've admitted knowledge of forgery. I note for the record that you offer no refutation for that CT charge.

David Von Pein Wrote:What does all of this suggest to a reasonable person looking objectively at the evidence? --- It indicates that each of the March 1963 Neely Street "Backyard Photos" contains a separately-exposed image of Lee Harvey Oswald, and were photos that he, himself, KNEW existed.

David offered no refutation of the EVIDENCE for the BY photos being forged, merely speculation. He didn't even address the point I raised of the FBI photo with the head snipped out.

Nor did you, Patrick.

I CHALLENGE you to quote this post (you can take it in sections if you wish) - and ACTUALLY ADDRESS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE POINTS I RAISE... as I routinely do (and just did here), and believers routinely refuse to do.

(10-07-2016, 02:30 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I should also take the opportunity to add - "the back yard photos are faked theory" is great ammuntion for the lone gunman supporter because it is such an idiotic theory as DVP admirably showed on his web site.

It gives we pro lonegunman supporters something to chuckle about when we see you "conspiracy buff - loons" absorb and soak up this nonsense.

If this were true, you'd not be the coward that you are... you'd actually ANSWER the points I raise... you'd actually make an attempt to refute what I post. Instead, you simply lie and run away.

Such amazing cowardice on your part, Patrick!!!

Patrick C · 10-08-2016, 06:20 PM

Ben Holmes Wrote:If this were true, you'd not be the coward that you are... you'd actually ANSWER the points I raise... you'd actually make an attempt to refute what I post. Instead, you simply lie and run away.

Wrong again Ben. I am no coward, nor do I lie.

I choose not to exchange views with you for the most part because you are incapable of adult debate. I have stressed this over and over.

I don't really give a monkeys about your views or posts and I am simply not interested in spending any more than around an hour per week here.

Comprehende.....?

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-09-2016, 04:45 PM

(10-08-2016, 06:20 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:If this were true, you'd not be the coward that you are... you'd actually ANSWER the points I raise... you'd actually make an attempt to refute what I post. Instead, you simply lie and run away.

Wrong again Ben. I am no coward,

And yet, time and time again you absolutely REFUSE to address the points I raise.

You STILL refuse to answer the question on Dr. Baden... a simple yes or no answer, yet you can't give it.

Your cowardice is evidence in many posts... including this one where you've refused to answer ANY of the points I raised.

So on what basis would someone conclude that you're NOT a coward???

(10-08-2016, 06:20 PM)Patrick C Wrote: nor do I lie.

Which is, in itself, a lie.

I've QUOTED your previous lies, and you've never bothered to try to defend them. You've blatantly lied about what I've posted, and resolutely refuse to actually quote me saying what you claimed I'd said.

So yes, Patrick, you're a liar; and a proven one at that.

You can keep denying it if you wish, but I'll just keep pointing out that you've never ONCE refuted any particular lie I've pointed out.

(10-08-2016, 06:20 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I choose not to exchange views with you for the most part because you are incapable of adult debate. I have stressed this over and over.

This is a common claim of believers - as they run away from the evidence in this case. If, for example, there were an answer to the problem of missing bank endorsements on the alleged Money Order that supposedly paid for the Mannlicher Carcano - you've had YEARS to provide it.

Yet you pretend that it's merely the critic's inability to conduct "adult debate" which prevents you from answering.

The truth is... you're lying.

(10-08-2016, 06:20 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I don't really give a monkeys about your views or posts and I am simply not interested in spending any more than around an hour per week here.

Comprehende.....?

And yet, here you are again... demonstrating your cowardice by your refusal to address the points I raised above.