[Patrick C]

(01-17-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Anonymous Believer Wrote:No, the SBT is NOT a proven fact. It is simply the only plausible explanation for the JFK's upper body wound and all of JBC's wounds that has ever been offered. It wins by default. 

This is a quite despicable lie.

The "plausible explanation" was known within minutes of the assassination - there were multiple shooters.

Is there anyone in America that isn't familiar with this "plausible explanation?"

The anon believer is not technically correct. It is remotely possible that JFK showed a visible delayed reaction and JC was struck by a seperate bullet fired by Oswald 1.7 seconds later. It is however a REMOTE possibility because one of the bullets needs to have disappeared.

The SBT though is of coure THE MOST PLAUSIBLE scenario by a country mile.

You state 

"The "plausible explanation" was known within minutes of the assassination - there were multiple shooters."

Twidle Twaddle, people had NO IDEA there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza - other than the handful who thought shots came from 2 directions.

Of the hundreds who heard the shots, they thought they came from one gunman. They were right of course. They just did not all get the location correct - perfectly understandable.

[Ben Holmes]

(02-08-2017, 03:48 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Anonymous Believer Wrote:No, the SBT is NOT a proven fact. It is simply the only plausible explanation for the JFK's upper body wound and all of JBC's wounds that has ever been offered. It wins by default. 

This is a quite despicable lie.

The "plausible explanation" was known within minutes of the assassination - there were multiple shooters.

Is there anyone in America that isn't familiar with this "plausible explanation?"

The anon believer is not technically correct. It is remotely possible that JFK showed a visible delayed reaction and JC was struck by a seperate bullet fired by Oswald 1.7 seconds later. It is however a REMOTE possibility because one of the bullets needs to have disappeared.

You're quite the despicable liar, aren't you, Patrick?

I've pointed out many times the speed of cycled fire recorded by the FBI for CE-139. You KNOW FOR A FACT that it can't be fired as quickly as 1.7 seconds.

(02-08-2017, 03:48 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The SBT though is of coure THE MOST PLAUSIBLE scenario by a country mile.

No, it isn't. It fails to explain the known evidence.

(02-08-2017, 03:48 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  The "plausible explanation" was known within minutes of the assassination - there were multiple shooters.

Twidle Twaddle, people had NO IDEA there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza - other than the handful who thought shots came from 2 directions.

You refute yourself.

(02-08-2017, 03:48 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Of the hundreds who heard the shots, they thought they came from one gunman. They were right of course. They just did not all get the location correct - perfectly understandable.

Nope.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

[Patrick C]

(02-08-2017, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Vincent Bugliosi"]
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" 

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

Its a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

I have done that for years, so has DVP and so has Hank and many authors. You are talking nonsense again.

You're failing right HERE... refusing to publicly acknowledge the truth of my statements... (indeed, you even lie abou the facts, as listed below)

Henry ran... DVP is CURRENTLY running from me on virtually every issue in a public forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk)
 
So no, your assessment simply isn't true.
 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

So what, they did not know the anterior neck wound was a bullet wound and muscles contract during mortis.

Nope...

If there'd been a path, THEY COULD HAVE FOUND IT. It's quite embarrassing for your faith that the interior chest photo disappeared... the one bit of evidence that could have proven, OR DISPROVEN your theory.

Tell us Patrick - is it more likely that the photo disappeared due to the fact that it proved transit? Or disproved transit?

Nor is your speculation about the throat wound evidence... what *IS* evidence is the observations of those doctors who saw the wound.

What *IS* evidence is the fact that the prosectors were forbidden from tracing the track of that bullet.

You can't give a credible reason... I can.

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

So what...? However, it should have done, because it is obvious from  the film that the men are hit together, so they should have considered a one shot scenario for the non fatal wounds.

You're lying again, Patrick.

The Warren Commission quite clearly understood that the film DID NOT SHOW THE MEN BEING HIT TOGETHER.

Tell us Patrick, why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?

Why can't you PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that the Warren Commission believed that there was a "delayed reaction" seen in the film?

Why do you continue to lie about the issue?

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

The SBT is THE MOST PLAUSIBLE and likely of the shooting scenarios. Period. 

You're LYING AGAIN, Patrick. The scenario of multiple shooters [i' Wrote:  EXPLAINS MORE OF THE EVIDENCE THAN THE SBT DOES...[/i]

Nor does it run into the problems that the SBT has - such as the testimony of a number of witnesses, the lack of transit, the condition of CE399, the medical evidence, etc.

So it's a LIE to assert that the SBT is the "most plausible" - and I rather suspect that you won't be honest enough to withdraw such a lie.

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

There are and have been for years. It seems you choose to ignore them. I am totally confident you would get your ass kicked on the SBT in a public debate.

You didn't "dispute" most of these... you in essence said 'so what?'... then lied about the rest...

Feel free to visit alt.conspiracy.jfk and watch this speculated "ass kicking" that isn't happening there.
 

Better yet, QUOTE one of these alleged "ass kickings" that you think have happened... let's see them! Then let's see you defend them when I answer...

Keep in mind that THIS is a public forum as well. Henry could post here, had he the guts... DVP could post here, if he had the guts to do so...
 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The SBT is so obviously the historical truth it should be known as the SBF as I have stated many times.

And yet, you can't seem to defend that assertion... why is that, Patrick?

Oh, I can absolutely defend that assertion Holmes, using the very same data that others have used - including Dale Myers and David Belin, Posner and Bug and defenders such as DVP and John McAdams....no point in reinventing the wheel.

Bullet enters back at 2000ft per second will exit.
Short shot chance = approx 1 in 5,000
Bullet wound in anterior neck - clearly an exit as no bullet found in the torso of JFK
No bullet in car other than head shot pieces 567 and 569
JC seated below and inward & in front of JFK is struck by a bullet in the armpit area.
Angles add up
Wounds add up

Simple. The SBF.

[Ben Holmes]

(02-08-2017, 04:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(02-08-2017, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The SBT is so obviously the historical truth it should be known as the SBF as I have stated many times.

And yet, you can't seem to defend that assertion... why is that, Patrick?

Oh, I can absolutely defend that assertion Holmes, using the very same data that others have used - including Dale Myers and David Belin, Posner and Bug and defenders such as DVP and John McAdams....no point in reinventing the wheel.

Bullet enters back at 2000ft per second will exit.
Short shot chance = approx 1 in 5,000
Bullet wound in anterior neck - clearly an exit as no bullet found in the torso of JFK
No bullet in car other than head shot pieces 567 and 569
JC seated below and inward & in front of JFK is struck by a bullet in the armpit area.
Angles add up
Wounds add up

Simple. The SBF.

You can't defend against the evidence by using speculation.

Most of what you just spouted is speculation.

I'm still waiting for you to quote or cite these "ass kickings" you claim I've taken...

Why are you such a coward, Patrick? You keep making claims you can't support.

Quote one of these "ass kickings," or have the honesty to retract your lie.

[Ben Holmes]

(02-08-2017, 05:27 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(02-08-2017, 04:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(02-08-2017, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The SBT is so obviously the historical truth it should be known as the SBF as I have stated many times.

And yet, you can't seem to defend that assertion... why is that, Patrick?

Oh, I can absolutely defend that assertion Holmes, using the very same data that others have used - including Dale Myers and David Belin, Posner and Bug and defenders such as DVP and John McAdams....no point in reinventing the wheel.

Bullet enters back at 2000ft per second will exit.
Short shot chance = approx 1 in 5,000
Bullet wound in anterior neck - clearly an exit as no bullet found in the torso of JFK
No bullet in car other than head shot pieces 567 and 569
JC seated below and inward & in front of JFK is struck by a bullet in the armpit area.
Angles add up
Wounds add up

Simple. The SBF.

You can't defend against the evidence by using speculation.

Most of what you just spouted is speculation.

I'm still waiting for you to quote or cite these "ass kickings" you claim I've taken...

Why are you such a coward, Patrick? You keep making claims you can't support.

Quote one of these "ass kickings," or have the honesty to retract your lie.

Clearly, Patrick had the opportunity to support his lying claim, and refuses to do so.

What AMAZING cowardice on his part! And a demonstration of his dishonesty as well, since he's now asserting something that simply never happened.

[Patrick C]

I may respond in future if you desist from using the words liar and coward. Otherwise my visits this week will be one off's. You don't deserve much of a response to anything frankly.

[Ben Holmes]

(02-09-2017, 04:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I may respond in future if you desist from using the words liar and coward. Otherwise my visits this week will be one off's. You don't deserve much of a response to anything frankly.

There are only three tools commonly used by believers... ad hominem attacks on critics... lying about the evidence... and running away from relevant points & evidence.

I don't allow ad hominem attacks here.

But I can easily understand your desire not to be singled out when you lie or run away.

It's not up to me.

ONLY YOU can stop the lies and cowardice.

If you support your claims, and answer the points I raise that tend to refute what you're saying, then I can never honestly accuse you of cowardice.

If you are INSTANTLY capable of citing the evidence for your claims, I can't honestly label you a liar.

But as in the recent example, where you tried to claim a time less than 2.3 seconds for the Mannlicher Carcano, you KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD.

Why would you expect to get away with it?

If I were to dishonestly assert that it takes 5 seconds to cycle the Mannlicher (and I guarantee you that I could find one in bad enough condition that would support a 5 second cycle time!), and therefore the entire assassination took a MINIMUM of 10 seconds - you would rightfully label that a lie.

Yet you want the chance to lie yourself... without it being pointed out.

Not going to happen.

You might as well forget this forum, and never come back if you think I'll let you get away with lying & cowardice. Only YOU can stop me ... by refusing to lie and by addressing my points.

But since I'm going to present the proof in a few days on the witnesses documented in the first two days who pointed to the Grassy Knoll, you'd better simply say goodbye, and run away while you can.

[FrankJScott]

Please try Google before asking about High Rated Product Site 3ddd2a7

[FrankJScott]

Please try Google before asking about Great Product Guide d2a716d

---

Please try Google before asking about Top Product Blog 69d0_59

[FrankJScott]

Please try Google before asking about Awesome Product Blog 03a524a