NOT ONE EYEWITNESS!!!

***Ben Holmes*** · 02-07-2017, 03:03 PM

No matter how many times I bring this up, believers run for the hills every single time - and absolutely REFUSE to answer.

Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements about what they saw and heard.

Still unanswered.

This demonstrates beyond any possible refutation that believers have faith, not evidence...

For while there are provable liars among the eyewitnesses, *MOST* of the witnesses in this case are quite credible indeed.

Unfortunately for believers, their testimony simply doesn't support the Warren Commission's case - which is why the Warren Commission simply lied about some of that testimony.

And no explanation for this fact has ever been forthcoming from believers...

What AMAZING cowardice!

Patrick C · 02-08-2017, 01:22 PM

(02-07-2017, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: No matter how many times I bring this up, believers run for the hills every single time - and absolutely REFUSE to answer.

Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements about what they saw and heard.

Still unanswered.

This demonstrates beyond any possible refutation that believers have faith, not evidence...

For while there are provable liars among the eyewitnesses, *MOST* of the witnesses in this case are quite credible indeed.

Unfortunately for believers, their testimony simply doesn't support the Warren Commission's case - which is why the Warren Commission simply lied about some of that testimony.

And no explanation for this fact has ever been forthcoming from believers...

What AMAZING cowardice!

Are you kidding....there are dozens of witnesses who's statements should be accepted and believed....!

Clint Hill who said he heard two shots.

Paul Landis who said he heard two shots

Zapruder who thought there were two shots - maybe three, but he was not sure if he heard a third.

Brehm who thought initially only two shots and later thought three.....

Sam Holland who thought the shots came from the Knoll area......

These people gave statements that they believed true. There are a hundred more.

Have you lost your marbles Holmes....what kind of a question is that...?

Or is it that you are speaking your own version of the English language and you actually mean something else...?

As is frequently the case.....

***Ben Holmes*** · 02-08-2017, 03:16 PM

(02-08-2017, 01:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-07-2017, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: No matter how many times I bring this up, believers run for the hills every single time - and absolutely REFUSE to answer.

Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements about what they saw and heard.

Still unanswered.

This demonstrates beyond any possible refutation that believers have faith, not evidence...

For while there are provable liars among the eyewitnesses, *MOST* of the witnesses in this case are quite credible indeed.

Unfortunately for believers, their testimony simply doesn't support the Warren Commission's case - which is why the Warren Commission simply lied about some of that testimony.

And no explanation for this fact has ever been forthcoming from believers...

What AMAZING cowardice!

Are you kidding....there are dozens of witnesses who's statements should be accepted and believed....!

Clint Hill who said he heard two shots.

Paul Landis who said he heard two shots

Zapruder who thought there were two shots - maybe three, but he was not sure if he heard a third.

Brehm who thought initially only two shots and later thought three.....

Sam Holland who thought the shots came from the Knoll area......

These people gave statements that they believed true. There are a hundred more.

Have you lost your marbles Holmes....what kind of a question is that...?

Or is it that you are speaking your own version of the English language and you actually mean something else...?

As is frequently the case.....

It's a question that has never before been answered.

And you've just asserted that you accept and believe that there were only two shots, and that they came from the Knoll.

You clearly are the one who's "lost your marbles"... my question was quite precise. I asked you to "Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely..."

Now, answer three questions:

Cite where any believer has ever before answered this question. (and yes, it's been asked many times)

Explain why YOU missed such a clearly worded question...

And now that you understand the question... no, let me be crystal clear... NAME THE EYEWITNESSES WHOM YOU BELIEVE COMPLETELY IN THE *FACTS* THAT THE EYEWITNESSES STATED THEY'D SEEN AND HEARD IN 1963-1964... I'm not asking you if *they* believed what they stated, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT THEY STATED.

(You'll evade and run, of course... thus proving just who "lost their marbles")

Patrick C · 02-08-2017, 03:58 PM

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 01:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-07-2017, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: No matter how many times I bring this up, believers run for the hills every single time - and absolutely REFUSE to answer.

Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements about what they saw and heard.

Still unanswered.

This demonstrates beyond any possible refutation that believers have faith, not evidence...

For while there are provable liars among the eyewitnesses, *MOST* of the witnesses in this case are quite credible indeed.

Unfortunately for believers, their testimony simply doesn't support the Warren Commission's case - which is why the Warren Commission simply lied about some of that testimony.

And no explanation for this fact has ever been forthcoming from believers...

What AMAZING cowardice!

Are you kidding....there are dozens of witnesses who's statements should be accepted and believed....!

Clint Hill who said he heard two shots.

Paul Landis who said he heard two shots

Zapruder who thought there were two shots - maybe three, but he was not sure if he heard a third.

Brehm who thought initially only two shots and later thought three.....

Sam Holland who thought the shots came from the Knoll area......

These people gave statements that they believed true. There are a hundred more.

Have you lost your marbles Holmes....what kind of a question is that...?

Or is it that you are speaking your own version of the English language and you actually mean something else...?

As is frequently the case.....

It's a question that has never before been answered.

And you've just asserted that you accept and believe that there were only two shots, and that they came from the Knoll.

You clearly are the one who's "lost your marbles"... my question was quite precise. I asked you to "Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely..."

Now, answer three questions:

Cite where any believer has ever before answered this question. (and yes, it's been asked many times)

Explain why YOU missed such a clearly worded question...

And now that you understand the question... no, let me be crystal clear... NAME THE EYEWITNESSES WHOM YOU BELIEVE COMPLETELY IN THE *FACTS* THAT THE EYEWITNESSES STATED THEY'D SEEN AND HEARD IN 1963-1964... I'm not asking you if *they* believed what they stated, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT THEY STATED.

(You'll evade and run, of course... thus proving just who "lost their marbles")

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It's a question that has never before been answered.

And you've just asserted that you accept and believe that there were only two shots, and that they came from the Knoll.

Nope I made no such assertion. I stated clearly that there were either two or three shots from the rear. Your comment is idiotic.

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: You clearly are the one who's "lost your marbles"... my question was quite precise. I asked you to "Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely..."

Nope, you just don't understand plain English because [Ad hominem Removed]

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Now, answer three questions:

Cite where any believer has ever before answered this question. (and yes, it's been asked many times)

That is a meaningless point. The consistancy of individual eye witness testimony has been cited many times by many authors over many years. Clint Hill for example maintains to this day that he heard only two shots. He accepts that he could simplu have not heard a third shot.

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Explain why YOU missed such a clearly worded question...

Not a chance - your question was just stupid.

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: And now that you understand the question... no, let me be crystal clear... NAME THE EYEWITNESSES WHOM YOU BELIEVE COMPLETELY IN THE *FACTS* THAT THE EYEWITNESSES STATED THEY'D SEEN AND HEARD IN 1963-1964... I'm not asking you if *they* believed what they stated, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT THEY STATED.

Yes I absolutely belive what they stated, that they were being honest, but not necessarily historically accurate. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This is why the question is plain silly.

(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (You'll evade and run, of course... thus proving just who "lost their marbles")

Well I just proved you wrong again didn't I Holmes.

[Ad hominem attacks Deleted]

Pip Pip.

PS The new Flip de May book is rather good - he does believe some one else fired Oswald's rifle.....but he dismisses the GK shooter fairy tale that gullible ill informed conspiracy sensationalists like you believe in.

***Ben Holmes*** · 02-08-2017, 05:09 PM

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It's a question that has never before been answered.

And you've just asserted that you accept and believe that there were only two shots, and that they came from the Knoll.

Nope I made no such assertion. I stated clearly that there were either two or three shots from the rear. Your comment is idiotic.

I asked a simple question... here it is again: Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements about what they saw and heard.

You assert that I've "lost my marbles" even for asking the question - YET IT STILL REMAINS UNANSWERED!!!

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: You clearly are the one who's "lost your marbles"... my question was quite precise. I asked you to "Name even a SINGLE eyewitness whom you believe completely..."

Nope, you just don't understand plain English because [Ad hominem Removed]

Ad Hominem isn't an answer...

I've asked a very simple question - and you've proved that you can't answer it.

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Now, answer three questions:

Cite where any believer has ever before answered this question. (and yes, it's been asked many times)

That is a meaningless point. The consistancy of individual eye witness testimony has been cited many times by many authors over many years. Clint Hill for example maintains to this day that he heard only two shots. He accepts that he could simplu have not heard a third shot.

How can it be a "meaningless point?" You've asserted that I've "lost my marbles" for even asking the question, pretending that it's been answered many times before, yet you cannot cite even one example.

Which means that there are NO WITNESSES that believers accept.

Rather embarrassing that you rely on the Warren Commission's story, and refuse to deal with the actual evidence, isn't it Patrick?

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Explain why YOU missed such a clearly worded question...

Not a chance - your question was just stupid.

Why was it "stupid?"

Rather, it's a question that reveals that believers DON'T ACCEPT ANY EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.

And the truth embarrasses you.

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: And now that you understand the question... no, let me be crystal clear... NAME THE EYEWITNESSES WHOM YOU BELIEVE COMPLETELY IN THE *FACTS* THAT THE EYEWITNESSES STATED THEY'D SEEN AND HEARD IN 1963-1964... I'm not asking you if *they* believed what they stated, I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT THEY STATED.

Yes I absolutely belive what they stated,

You're lying again, Patrick.

I didn't ask you if you believe that *THEY* believe themselves to be accurate.

Why the pretend illiteracy?

Why do you keep pretending to answer a different question?

Why are you afraid to answer the question I actually raised?

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote: ... that they were being honest, but not necessarily historically accurate. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This is why the question is plain silly.

Nah, not at all. It reveals that you can't point to ANY foundation for your beliefs.

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(02-08-2017, 03:16 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (You'll evade and run, of course... thus proving just who "lost their marbles")

Well I just proved you wrong again didn't I Holmes.

[Ad hominem attacks Deleted]

Pip Pip.

And yet, there's that question still hanging... and still unanswered.

Such AMAZING cowardice on your part, Patrick.

You cannot publicly state that you don't believe *ANY* of the witnesses.

(02-08-2017, 03:58 PM)Patrick C Wrote: PS The new Flip de May book is rather good - he does believe some one else fired Oswald's rifle.....but he dismisses the GK shooter fairy tale that gullible ill informed conspiracy sensationalists like you believe in.

The GK shooter is well established by the evidence... the fact that you've continued to lie about that evidence shows a consciousness of guilt. In the first few days, witnesses who were documented in print as to the direction of fire overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll. You've repeatedly lied on that fact.

Patrick C · 02-09-2017, 01:17 PM

Ben Holmes Wrote:The GK shooter is well established by the evidence...

No it is NOT.

Ben Holmes Wrote:the fact that you've continued to lie about that evidence shows a consciousness of guilt.

Tripe, on the contrary, you are delussional. If there was evidence of a GK shooter, I would readily accept it.

Ben Holmes Wrote:In the first few days, witnesses who were documented in print as to the direction of fire overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

That is sheer unadulterated nonsense and an out right lie!

The witness testimony overwhelmingly poited toward the TSBD

The truth of course is that about 35 of the witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the front - naturally we know that as two shots came from the rear - this group of people were simply mistaken.

Around ten people thought the shots came from more than one direction.

And of course on 22 Nov 1963 NOT ONE person in Dallas came forward on the day to say they had seen a gunman on the GK or up on the overpass.........yet up to 7 people said they saw a gun being fired from the SE 6th floor window.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You've repeatedly lied on that fact.

Nope I have not. You on the other hand are the liar - or self delusionist.

Your statement

Ben Holmes Wrote:In the first few days, witnesses who were documented in print as to the direction of fire overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Is a complete fabrication. And frankly a blatent and outright lie.

John McAdams sums up the situation rather well in considering that only some 5 people of the 100+ interviwed thought the shots came from two directions.

"This "two locations" number is exceedingly important. There is
overwhelming evidence that at least some shots were fired from behind
the motorcade. Several witnesses saw a shooter, or at least a gun in
the sixth floor sniper's nest window. The medical evidence is clear
that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind (regardless of
whether either was also hit from the front). Once we understand that
at least some shots came from behind, it is hard to see how shots
could also have come from the Grassy Knoll without more witnesses
reporting shots from more than one direction. It begins to look like
some were confused about THE direction of the shots." -- John McAdams

No doubt you will AVOID the sound logic of the above contention that in reality there was no shot from the Knoll.

***Ben Holmes*** · 02-09-2017, 03:28 PM

(02-09-2017, 01:17 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:The GK shooter is well established by the evidence...

No it is NOT.

That's your unsupported opinion. It's a fact, however, that police began running into the Grassy Knoll area right after the shooting, and were ORDERED into that area as the first DPD order after the assassination.

It's also a fact, that you keep denying, and absolutely REFUSE to support, that the majority of witnesses documented in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

(02-09-2017, 01:17 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:the fact that you've continued to lie about that evidence shows a consciousness of guilt.

Tripe, on the contrary, you are delussional. If there was evidence of a GK shooter, I would readily accept it.

Okay... simply list those eyewitnesses that were documented in print in the first two days who listed where they thought the shots came from.

LIST THEIR NAMES!!

(02-09-2017, 01:17 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:In the first few days, witnesses who were documented in print as to the direction of fire overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

That is sheer unadulterated nonsense and an out right lie!

The witness testimony overwhelmingly poited toward the TSBD

The truth of course is that about 35 of the witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the front - naturally we know that as two shots came from the rear - this group of people were simply mistaken.

Around ten people thought the shots came from more than one direction.

And of course on 22 Nov 1963 NOT ONE person in Dallas came forward on the day to say they had seen a gunman on the GK or up on the overpass.........yet up to 7 people said they saw a gun being fired from the SE 6th floor window.

Then you won't be afraid to name the witnesses who were documented in print in the first few days, will you?

Go ahead, start the list - I'll add in the ones you miss.

Let's actually see who's lying.

Let's actually see who's lying!!

(02-09-2017, 01:17 PM)Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You've repeatedly lied on that fact.

Nope I have not. You on the other hand are the liar - or self delusionist.

Then you won't be afraid to begin compiling a list of witnesses documented in the first two days...

My crystal ball tells me that I'm going to have to provide you with the list of names, and what they said... because you're starting to realize that I can back up what I say.

(02-09-2017, 01:17 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:In the first few days, witnesses who were documented in print as to the direction of fire overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Is a complete fabrication. And frankly a blatent and outright lie.

Then you shouldn't be afraid to start naming the witnesses.

But, as I've already predicted, you'll refuse to do so...

(02-09-2017, 01:17 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
John McAdams sums up the situation rather well in considering that only some 5 people of the 100+ interviwed thought the shots came from two directions.

"This "two locations" number is exceedingly important. There is
overwhelming evidence that at least some shots were fired from behind
the motorcade. Several witnesses saw a shooter, or at least a gun in
the sixth floor sniper's nest window. The medical evidence is clear
that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind (regardless of
whether either was also hit from the front). Once we understand that
at least some shots came from behind, it is hard to see how shots
could also have come from the Grassy Knoll without more witnesses
reporting shots from more than one direction. It begins to look like
some were confused about THE direction of the shots." -- John McAdams

No doubt you will AVOID the sound logic of the above contention that in reality there was no shot from the Knoll.

There's no need to "avoid" the "sound logic" of the above contention - it's based on a lie. Once one realizes that most of the witnesses documented in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll, then the "sound logic" turns upside down. The "sound logic" presupposes that only one shooter was shooting - this simply isn't logical at all. There's no inherent need to restrict the number of shooters to one, other than the government's desire to avoid the fact of conspiracy.

Tell us Patrick, WHAT EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THERE WAS NOT A SHOOTER AT THE GRASSY KNOLL?

(Let the silence begin...)

Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

You've NEVER cited where Mike Majerus has done so, and you've never done the homework.

You're going to have to do the homework now, Patrick...

Because if you don't - I'm going to post the list of witnesses - and what they are documented to have stated in those first few days - and you'll look absolutely wacky & dishonest if you haven't even TRIED to compile a list of the witnesses.

Patrick C · 02-09-2017, 04:16 PM

Go ahead and post them - about 40 in total thought ALL the shots came from the front - that is NOT a majority.

I don't care a jot anyway. They were wrong. ALL the shots did not come from the front. The autopsy proves that the fatal head shot struck from the rear - there is a bullet hole in the back of the head. It is that simple.

***Ben Holmes*** · 02-09-2017, 10:41 PM

(02-09-2017, 04:16 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Go ahead and post them - about 40 in total thought ALL the shots came from the front - that is NOT a majority.

I don't care a jot anyway. They were wrong. ALL the shots did not come from the front. The autopsy proves that the fatal head shot struck from the rear - there is a bullet hole in the back of the head. It is that simple.

Who cares whether the witnesses were right or wrong, THIS IS ABOUT YOU, PATRICK COLLINS, and your lying about the evidence in this case.

I find it amusing that you still refuse to document your claim.

So here it is, ON THE RECORD - that you refuse to document the witnesses who were documented in print in the first two days...

I should have the list posted this weekend... but it's absolutely HILARIOUS (as Henry would say) that you absolutely refuse to support your claim.

P.S. You're not going to attempt to claim you didn't understand what I've been saying... I've said it too many times now, and you've denied it too many times. The eyewitnesses WHO WERE DOCUMENTED IN PRINT in the first two days - the majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll. You've labeled that a lie, and you're going to be greatly embarrassed as I prove beyond all refutation that you've been lying.

Patrick C · 02-13-2017, 02:18 PM

(02-09-2017, 10:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(02-09-2017, 04:16 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Go ahead and post them - about 40 in total thought ALL the shots came from the front - that is NOT a majority.

I don't care a jot anyway. They were wrong. ALL the shots did not come from the front. The autopsy proves that the fatal head shot struck from the rear - there is a bullet hole in the back of the head. It is that simple.

Who cares whether the witnesses were right or wrong, THIS IS ABOUT YOU, PATRICK COLLINS, and your lying about the evidence in this case.

I find it amusing that you still refuse to document your claim.

So here it is, ON THE RECORD - that you refuse to document the witnesses who were documented in print in the first two days...

I should have the list posted this weekend... but it's absolutely HILARIOUS (as Henry would say) that you absolutely refuse to support your claim.

P.S. You're not going to attempt to claim you didn't understand what I've been saying... I've said it too many times now, and you've denied it too many times. The eyewitnesses WHO WERE DOCUMENTED IN PRINT in the first two days - the majority pointed to the Grassy Knoll. You've labeled that a lie, and you're going to be greatly embarrassed as I prove beyond all refutation that you've been lying.

(02-09-2017, 10:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: There's no need to "avoid" the "sound logic" of the above contention - it's based on a lie.

No it is not. Almost ALL of the people who thought a shot came from the Knoll, thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll. We know 2 did not.

That is the point - which you have missed - [Ad hominem removed]

(02-09-2017, 10:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Once one realizes that most of the witnesses documented in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll, then the "sound logic" turns upside down. The "sound logic" presupposes that only one shooter was shooting - this simply isn't logical at all. There's no inherent need to restrict the number of shooters to one, other than the government's desire to avoid the fact of conspiracy.

No it does not - because those witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll - are you REALLY that dumb Ben, or do you have a language problem?

(02-09-2017, 10:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Tell us Patrick, WHAT EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THERE WAS NOT A SHOOTER AT THE GRASSY KNOLL?

(Let the silence begin...)

You cannot PROVE there was no shooter on the Knoll Ben. There could have been 5 shooters firing ice bullets and they all missed. There could have been a shooter on the Knoll who missed. The evidence does not support a frontal hit however. The evidence shows one bullet entered the back of the head.

If you want to think otherwise and believe in fairy tales, then go ahead waste your time. I am prepared to make minimal contributions to your site.

As for your GK in print / weekend witnesses being a majority - post them.

How do you know you have everything there was in print...?

I interviewed many dozens of Dallas residents including 20 + witnesses circa 1983, I was left in little doubt that the majority of people in the plaza ON THE DAY thought the shots came from high and to the rear. No surprises there as they did.

The others were simply mistaken. Simple.