[Ben Holmes]

(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.