[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Clearly you have an English comprehension problem. I wrote Zapruder had said he stopped filming over a concern over running out of film which is what I thought for many years. I then discovered that actually he was more concerned about the winding mechanism. Where that comes from I cannot recall. I have studied the assassination academically and on occasions professionally, but I do not have a photographic memory, nor am I in a court of law. I am on an amateur forum with , largely speaking, people who have crackpot ideas about Dallas and seem to expect a water tight response to every post that shows disagreement with them!

No Patrick, you're simply lying again.

One lie pointed out, you move smoothly to another lie.

Zapruder made it quite clear in his EARLIEST TESTIMONY that he intended to get the Presidential limo as it turned from Houston Street:

Quote:Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Now, I've cited the proof that you've been lying all along...

The VERY BEST you could have done is produce a statement from many years later that contradicts his earliest statements... but you can't even do that.

You just continue to try to push a factoid that you KNOW YOU CANNOT SUPPORT WITH A CITATION.

That's not an "opinion" - that's a lie.

Patrick C Wrote:Well that is not going to happen as I simply don't care to spend that time researching for you - and your co fairy tale believes , but I am NOT a liar Mr Mitcham. I suggest you take up some English comprehension classes - it is never too late to learn.

You can argue that you're not lying - but the simple fact is - you keep asserting something with no evidence whatsoever - and since you aren't the actual eyewitness - YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE A SOURCE.

But you don't have a source... and you refuse to retract.

So every time you bring it up, I'm simply going to point out that you're lying, Patrick - and despite your claim that this is a "comprehension" problem, it's really quite simple.

Patrick C Wrote:Holmes sated I could not essentially cite for that and I said I would check with Mike Majerus who I think will know. I also stated I could be mistaken.

Until you admit that you were "mistaken" - you're provably lying.

Patrick C Wrote:That is NOT lie. It would seem however to be ignorance on your part Ray. But then again I suppose I do have the advantage of a very fine education which helps me engage in debate in a sensible manner in my first language - English.

Oh it would be soooo nice if critics could follow these rules too!

But critics are required to cite for their claims... and rightfully so.