[Patrick C]

I thought Ben Holmes,
You had urged and called for civility on your forum, but I see you are falling short of that.

"In other words - if you wanted to redefine the number of shooters, and the directions of the shots - you'd be REQUIRED to avoid such witnesses as James Chaney, as well as other close witnesses."

Chaney said the shots cam from back over his shoulder which as he was riding down Elm St with his back to the TSBD area.

"P.S. Your dishonest implication that Chaney supported the official version is quite despicable. An honest man would admit that Chaney wouldn't have been a good witness for believers in the WCR. And, "back over my right shoulder" is quite far from the lie you told that "the sounds came from behind him".

It is one and the same thing.

Now another thing - if you are going to accuse me of being a liar and despicable, I shall simply withdraw from your forum. Your choice. You know I have spent close to 30 years researching this subject off and on AND that I worked professionally on the case. Now if you prefer to insult me rather than exchange views in a civil manner that is your choice.

I met several of the Dallas cops in the 80s who worked the case. Although it was 20 years after the fact, I can assure you Hargis and Chaney were sure that the shots came from up high behind them - that does not make them right, although the medical evidence supports their beliefs.

If you want to delude yourself and claim Chaney did not support the WC conclusions then that is your choice and frankly just makes you look plain silly.

[Garry Puffer]

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I thought Ben Holmes,
You had urged and called for civility on your forum, but I see you are falling short of that.

Ben Holmes Wrote:In other words - if you wanted to redefine the number of shooters, and the directions of the shots - you'd be REQUIRED to avoid such witnesses as James Chaney, as well as other close witnesses.

Chaney said the shots cam from back over his shoulder which as he was riding down Elm St with his back to the TSBD area.

It's downright amusing how often believers have intentionally mangled what James Chaney actually said. (And yes, I can cite numerous examples if you try to challenge me on this point)

Tell us Patrick, can you explain the nearly constant lying about what James Chaney actually said about where the shots came from?

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:P.S. Your dishonest implication that Chaney supported the official version is quite despicable. An honest man would admit that Chaney wouldn't have been a good witness for believers in the WCR. And, "back over my right shoulder" is quite far from the lie you told that "the sounds came from behind him".

It is one and the same thing.

If it were actually the same thing, then believers wouldn't so consistently lie about what James Chaney actually said. You had the quote right in front of you from my post, and still mangled it.

Patrick C Wrote:Now another thing - if you are going to accuse me of being a liar and despicable, I shall simply withdraw from your forum. Your choice. You know I have spent close to 30 years researching this subject off and on AND that I worked professionally on the case. Now if you prefer to insult me rather than exchange views in a civil manner that is your choice.

You're lying again, Patrick. I stated that "Your dishonest implication that Chaney supported the official version is quite despicable." - you quite dishonestly equate that with me labeling you "despicable".

I stated quite clearly at the beginning what the rules are regarding labeling someone a liar. I've followed them to the letter.

If you can't stand the heat, then simply be ready to cite for anything you say... it's not possible to be caught lying if you could do this.

It's not my "choice" whether you stick around or not - I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of allowing believers (or, for that matter, critics) to lie blatantly about the evidence and get away with it. You want to muzzle me... not going to happen.

Patrick C Wrote:I met several of the Dallas cops in the 80s who worked the case. Although it was 20 years after the fact, I can assure you Hargis and Chaney were sure that the shots came from up high behind them - that does not make them right, although the medical evidence supports their beliefs.

I don't care what they believe... it's what they saw and heard that is evidence.

Patrick C Wrote:If you want to delude yourself and claim Chaney did not support the WC conclusions then that is your choice and frankly just makes you look plain silly.

If you'd like to continue lying, and claim that when James Chaney said:

• JFK was shot in the face.
  
• Connally was hit by a separate bullet than the two that struck JFK
  
• That he rode forward - not seen in any photo or video...

... that these statements support the Warren Commission's theory, then don't be so surprised when I label you a liar for making such a claim. You cannot defend any of those statements as being supportive of the Warren Commission, and you know it.

I could care less what your opinion is, but when you lie about the EVIDENCE - you'll get called on it.

That's the rule in this forum. Your opinions will merely be argued with... but lies about the evidence will be pointed out.

[Patrick C]

Left shoulder or right shoulder, slight turn of his head or not, if he is riding his motorcycle down Elm St looking where he is going, his body is oriented such that over either shoulder equated to behind him.

Yes, of course we know Chaney said in the hallway at DPD that he saw Kennedy was shot in the face, it clearly looked like that to him as he saw Kennedy's head explode a blood spray up - but I would not assume for a minute he was stating where a bullet had actually entered.

He would not actually have been able to see JFK's face given his position and that of JFK, so it would have been supposition on his part.

The autopsy photo shows the face left side and right side to be intact in as much as a internet copy can do so.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:I could care less what your opinion is, but when you lie about the EVIDENCE - you'll get called on it.

Don't make me laugh Ben, I don't lie about evidence, I simply interpret some of it differently to you. There may be some evidence I am not aware of or have forgotten about and indeed like everyone, I can make a mistake.

I resented the way Dex would always call me a liar and you are no different. You are obsessed with thinking people lie when they conclude there was no conspiracy. My pinion is that you guys can't see the wood for the trees as I have long stated. That Oswald alone killed Kennedy is about as obvious as the nose on your face [Slur deleted by Administrator]

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Astonishing" is an understatement... there's absolutely no explanation possible from believers, and you've offered none.

How could I offer an explanation - I did not work on the commission and I do not know anyone who did and I do not recall reading about why specifically Chaney was not cold. I can but hazard a guess....but guessing on this would be pointless.

You clearly can't tell the difference between offering an opinon, which is all an "explanation" is - and offering historical fact that has been testified to or written about.

And, of course, you prove my statement correct... as I stated, there's absolutely no explanation possible from believers... and you've offered none.

When trying to define history - you cannot do experiments... you cannot go back in time and watch it unfold... you can only offer explanations... and when you have competing explanations - the one that most easily explains the evidence & facts - clearly wins.

The testifying eyewitnesses to the Warren Commission - both the ones who did testify, and the ones not called to testify, is completely inexplicable on the basis of a belief in the WCR.

Calling someone who once knew someone who babysat a 2 year old Lee Harvey Oswald, yet refusing to call James Chaney is complete nonsense, and you know it, whether or not you're willing to publicly admit it.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I could care less what your opinion is, but when you lie about the EVIDENCE - you'll get called on it.

Don't make me laugh Ben, I don't lie about evidence, I simply interpret some of it differently to you. There may be some evidence I am not aware of or have forgotten about and indeed like everyone, I can make a mistake.

Then the honest thing to do would be to simply state you'd forgotten about that evidence.

Such as the memo from Joe West - discussing shrapnel injuries to JFK's face.

When you claim that no evidence exists... then when it's pointed out, you don't state that you forgot about it, you state you knew of it, then misleadingly describe it - you shouldn't be surprised that people label you a liar.

Patrick C Wrote:I resented the way Dex would always call me a liar and you are no different. You are obsessed with thinking people lie when they conclude there was no conspiracy.

Nope... never happened.

There's many people I disagree with that I don't label liars... I stick to people provably lying about the evidence.

[Patrick C]

"Then the honest thing to do would be to simply state you'd forgotten about that evidence."

Yes absolutely and I have already responded with that statement that I was some good time back aware of that interview with the mortician and that I had forgotten the part about shrapnel wounds on the face.

And if you keep calling me a liar, I'll leave the discussion and you can just pat each other on the back and go over the same old stuff you all agree on.

[Ben Holmes]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:Then the honest thing to do would be to simply state you'd forgotten about that evidence.

Yes absolutely...

Then why didn't you?

Patrick C Wrote:...and I have already responded with that statement that I was some good time back aware of that interview with the mortician and that I had forgotten the part about shrapnel wounds on the face.

And if you keep calling me a liar, I'll leave the discussion and you can just pat each other on the back and go over the same old stuff you all agree on.

Stop providing examples, Patrick, and I'll be happy to never label something you've said to be a lie. Your threats to leave bother me not at all.

If WCR Supporters cannot defend the WCR without lying about the evidence - it merely adds support to the theory that a conspiracy took JFK's life.

There is - as I've pointed out - corroborating evidence of a frontal shot to JFK's throat... to wit, the shrapnel wounds to the face that can logically be connected to flying glass from the windshield.

Admittedly, not the strongest evidence - sadly, the witnesses were never called to testify.

[Patrick C]

I am not threatening anything - that is an odd choice or word....

You need to be mindful that there is a distinct difference between opinion and deliberately misleading some one!

I disagree with you on the neck wound - IMO there is zero evidence that the wound was an entry. There is speculation based on Perry's initial interpretation of the wound looking like an entry.

Common sense should tell us all that the MC projectile that struck JFK in the back would exit if id did not strike the spine - which it did not. It enters at approx 2000 ft per second.

Whether or not it was CE399 is another matter, but to suggest that the neck wound was an entry is clutching at straws. I would go as far as saying it is preposterous.

I accept that there could have been a shrapnel wound to JFK's face - but it could have been from a head shot fragment causing a glass splinter to fly back.

I think it far more likely that there was no such wound to the face and that the mortician was simply wrong. I think it would have drawn attention form other persons attending the autopsy and it would have been duly noted in the report. It was not......