[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:You have a very narrow view of this case , in my opinion. Admittedly I know very little about you but that is the impression I am getting.

First of all the term WCR critic does not imply HSCA critic.

You are the administrator of this forum, I am not going to argue with you about YOUR DEFINITIONS of things.

You don't make sense. First you wonder why people don't criticize the HSCA and then you tell me that criticizing the WCR is the same as criticizing the HSCA. You are not consistent Ben. I was expecting more from you but I think was expecting too much.

The objective of "Fence Sitter," "WCR Critic," and "Supporter" is quite basic.

It's to label the various members very quickly as to their basic beliefs in this case.

To label someone a "HSCA critic" is rather nonsensical.

Notice, for example, that you wish to assert that you're a critic of the HSCA - yet when I cited a BLATANT LIE on their part, you refused to even talk about it.

Here it is again:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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?

And clearly, you're refusing to do so.

So you are not a critic of the HSCA in any traditionally accepted sense. My prediction is that you're really simply a supporter of the WCR, and wish to only "criticize" the "probable conspiracy" portion of the HSCA.

You want to fly under false colors...

You don't want your basic assumptions of the correctness of the Warren Commission to be known.

Time will tell if my prediction is correct.