[Ben Holmes]

You virtually never see anyone posting positive evidence that there was a lone assassin, and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Believers not only refuse to post positive evidence for their case, they generally run in the opposite direction when the lies of the Warren Commission are pointed out.

In other words, believers are almost totally reactive.

They don't have a case to put forward... they simply react when critics post their assertions & evidence.

Even such knowledgeable believers such as Patrick C, or Henry Sienzant, rarely post citations to the evidence, and rarely make any positive case for their belief... all they do is react.

This fact simply goes to show that believers realize just how weak their case is. Why did all government investigations blatantly lie in order to make their case???

Why can't believers defend those lies, or even admit that they exist?

[Guest]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Has Anyone Noticed?

You virtually never see anyone posting positive evidence that there was a lone assassin, and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

We don't need to - it is widely available in the published body of works by people like Posner, Bugliosi, Knight and Majerus.....read those books.

There were two shots that struck JFK from the back. Fired from Oswald's MC.  The evidence for that is very powerful.

It is pretty simple.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-25-2016, 06:20 PM)Guest Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Has Anyone Noticed?

You virtually never see anyone posting positive evidence that there was a lone assassin, and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

We don't need to - it is widely available in the published body of works by people like Posner, Bugliosi, Knight and Majerus.....read those books.

You're lying...

It seems that Patrick prefers to be an anonymous guest when he lies.

NONE of those books provides positive evidence that there was only one assassin. They all argue, of course, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, but there isn't any positive evidence that there was only a single assassin, and Patrick knows that. Patrick is willing to lie to support his faith.

Patrick can read, and he knows I'm quite literate... he knew EXACTLY what I stated, and he just jumped in and cited some books, knowing that he would NEVER be able to cite passages from those books, or page numbers... that actually say what he just claimed they contained.

But, since Patrick points to books as the repository of truth, clearly he accepts such books as:

The Greatest Lie On Earth...

Zetetic Astronomy

Satellites are a Hoax

Unfortunately, I don't allow ad hominem attacks in this forum. But it's truly funny that Patrick believes such books.

 

(08-25-2016, 06:20 PM)Guest Wrote:  There were two shots that struck JFK from the back. Fired from Oswald's MC.  The evidence for that is very powerful.

It is pretty simple.

Were it "powerful" evidence, you'd be happy to cite it.

But your cowardice has extended to even refusing to post under your own name... let alone citing evidence.

How embarrassing for you! 

[Ben Holmes]

Still no positive evidence posted that shows that there was only a lone assassin, and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Quite embarrassing for the Warren Commission crowd, isn't it?

[David Healy]

Perhaps lone nuts aren't quite sure what the term "positive evidence" means, eh? Extremely embarrassing! ! !

I'd sure like to see another run of the Mark Lane series from a few years back. I'd like to be sure there is an archive of those postings for future researchers. Can't think of a better spot for that than right here on this forum.

[Ben Holmes]

(09-01-2016, 02:45 PM)David Healy Wrote:  Perhaps lone nuts aren't quite sure what the term "positive evidence" means, eh? Extremely embarrassing! ! !

I'd sure like to see another run of the Mark Lane series from a few years back. I'd like to be sure there is an archive of those postings for future researchers. Can't think of a better spot for that than right here on this forum.

When I get the chance, I think I'll post just a random sampling of Mark Lane... of course, believers will accuse me of 'cherry-picking' - but they can't get away with that nonsense anymore, since I've twice now posted nearly his entire book, paragraph by paragraph.

Even when believers select what they want to dispute Mark Lane over - a recent example being his number count... but his basic point still hasn't been refuted.

Lied about, yes...

But not refuted.