[Ben Holmes]

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Can anyone explain Ben Holmes thinking referenced in this post from October 2014?

I can't.

This claim: "If the evidence showed Oswald to be a part of the conspiracy - no-one would have problems so indicting him. But unfortunately for you, the evidence clears him. Scientific evidence."

https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref...NXBPBESUJT

How could any scientific test clear someone of being involved in a *conspiracy*? 

It made no sense when Ben said it, which is why he never defended it. 

He never posted any evidence for his claim, he never clarified his claim, he never provided any argument for his claim. 

Instead, he kept changing the subject every time I asked him about it. 

This is just one of the kind of silly arguments Ben would make, that Heisenberg has, in the past, applauded Ben for, lauding Ben as someone I fear. 

Which is hilarious, as Ben was and is a typical conspiracy theorist who can't argue the evidence, can't debate the issues civilly, and always resorted to logical fallacies and cites he cribbed from conspiracy websites.

Just like Heisenberg. Within a short time of my rejoining this forum back in June, I warned Heisenberg (then posting as "Magus Maverik") to "don't be like Ben". He has proceeded to be exactly like Ben, but he knows even less about the assassination.

Hank

Henry's a coward and quite the despicable liar.

However, I do applaud him for posting the cite so that everyone can see that I ALREADY ANSWERED HIS QUESTION!!

Oswald could not have fired the rifle, due to the evidence of the cheek cast, which I already stated. There's ZERO evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy of any sort - the only possibility was that he was one of the shooters. If he was not one of the shooters, then he was not part of a conspiracy.

Since the evidence clears him of being a shooter - what did he "conspire" to do??? Where's the evidence of ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER on Oswald's part that would indict him as a conspirator?

Henry can't answer that - so despite knowing that I'm right here, and perfectly willing to answer ANY EVIDENTIAL QUESTION HE CAN POSSIBLY RAISE - Henry's quite content to snip and run in an arena he knows I've been forbidden from.
 

Henry cannot point to any question that he's raised
in any debate with me that I've not answered, or cannot answer.

The same is not true of Henry - he's run from dozens of questions... and will forever be branded a coward until he can step up to the plate and debate.