[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:First of all, I am not desperate, you are and I think the readers can see that.

Second, why do YOU avoid the HSCA?

I have a long record of posts about the HSCA online.

miker Wrote:When I was choosing my status from your list of options I was looking for one that said "HSCA critic". But I did not see one. You only provided, WCR Critic, WCR Supporter or Fence Sitter.

Perhaps a valid criticism... but the question I posed still remains unanswered... why do believers almost totally ignore the HSCA and constantly refer back to the WCR?

miker Wrote:Since I am a HSCA critic I was going to send you a PM asking you to add that as an option. But since you refused my recommendation for a sub forum for Photographic Analysis I figured you would think that I was trying to interfere too much so I did not send you that PM.

But, alas, it worked out that way anyway so I am going to ask you now, would you please provide an option for "HSCA critic" in your status option list.

If you can offer a reason for such a suggestion, sure.

But the term "WCR Critic" implies "HSCA Critic" as well... since it's just about impossible to be a critic of the Warren Commission without ALSO being a critic of the HSCA.

But since you claim to be a critic of the HSCA... what are your views of the HSCA lying about the medical testimony?

In particular:

HSCA Wrote:In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts.

Can you publicly state that this is a lie?