Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
NOT ONE EYEWITNESS!!!

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


02-13-2017, 03:21 PM #11
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: NOT ONE EYEWITNESS!!!
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  
(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]

Each time you use ad hominem instead of logical argument and evidence, you demonstrate that you've lost the debate.
 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  
(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?
 
Which witnesses, Patrick?

Surely you're not implying that the MAJORITY of witnesses documented in the first two days thought that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll?

So tell us Patrick, and state the answer clearly - where did the MAJORITY of witnesses think that the shot came from? The TSBD? Or the Grassy Knoll?

 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  
(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.

It's so welcome to see the truth in this case...

Now that you've admitted that there's no proof that there was no Grassy Knoll shooter, and YOU KNOW FOR A FACT that there's positive evidence FOR a Grassy Knoll Shooter... on what basis do you deny that there was a shooter there?

Can you cite?
 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

You're lying again, Patrick.

The earliest statements support a frontal shot to the throat, those witnesses were intimidated and convinced to back up based on the autopsy report - YET YOU KNOW THAT ITS A FACT THAT THE AUTOPSY NEVER EXAMINED THAT WOUND, NOR KNEW IT EXISTED DURING THE AUTOPSY.

So yes, the evidence DOES support a frontal shot.

 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

Make none at all... stop with your threats, and just go away. I will continue demonstrating that the Warren Commission, Vincent Bugliosi, and all knowledgeable believers are liars, and I can do so quite easily without any help from you.

If you think I'm worried about you leaving, you can stop worrying.

 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  As for your GK in print / weekend witnesses being a majority - post them.

I'll wait until you state PUBLICLY which it is that you actually believe - since you're now on record as going either way. The list is almost complete.

 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  How do you know you have everything there was in print...?

If you cannot produce more witnesses who were documented in the first two days, it doesn't matter, does it?

 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

Statements like this from a proven liar mean quite little... that's the problem believers face. They lack all credibility when they are constantly caught lying.

 
(02-13-2017, 02:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The others were simply mistaken. Simple.

Based on what evidence? CITE IT!!







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)