Forums

Once again, Patrick has decided to disappear when his assertion that McAdams' earwitness tabulation was "unassailable" was proven a lie.

Patrick undoubtedly knew that I could prove McAdams was a liar, but it's amusing that Patrick thought he could get away with claiming it was "unassailable" when he knew otherwise.

McAdams pulled virtually every possible trick he could to get the numbers of the Grassy Knoll witnesses as low as possible.

But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

No believer has been able to refute that simple fact. 

The Warren Commission lied when they "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

This fact is still unrefuted.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick undoubtedly knew that I could prove McAdams was a liar, but it's amusing that Patrick thought he could get away with claiming it was "unassailable" when he knew otherwise.

You have proved nothing of the sort. 

And no, I did not "know" or believe otherwise.

Ben Holmes Wrote:McAdams pulled virtually every possible trick he could to get the numbers of the Grassy Knoll witnesses as low as possible.

Bull shit - he is simply reporting accurately on what people said. Of course there will be some instances of vagueness on the part of witnesses. No doubt about it.

Anyway, it matters not. I don't care if 75% of all the witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll - the fact is they were WRONG. We know TWO shots at leats were fired from behind. Period.

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

But, as I said a week or two ago, this is just the same old crap from a conspiracy junky who can't see the wood for the trees and I don't give much of a monkeys about what you think about the Kennedy assassination. Your views are off the wall and off the planet.

Have fun talking to yourself Ben.

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick undoubtedly knew that I could prove McAdams was a liar, but it's amusing that Patrick thought he could get away with claiming it was "unassailable" when he knew otherwise.

You have proved nothing of the sort. 

And no, I did not "know" or believe otherwise.

Okay... let's go over it again.

If a shot is described by an earwitness standing at the entry to the TSBD as being from the Railroad yards - how can YOU differentiate that from a shot coming from the Grassy Knoll.

If you are unwilling to answer - it will merely be your cowardice speaking.

I'll be happy to go over this time and time again until you admit that McAdams' tabulation is not "unassailable" as you falsely claimed.

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:McAdams pulled virtually every possible trick he could to get the numbers of the Grassy Knoll witnesses as low as possible.

Bull shit - he is simply reporting accurately on what people said. Of course there will be some instances of vagueness on the part of witnesses. No doubt about it.

Anyway, it matters not. I don't care if 75% of all the witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll - the fact is they were WRONG. We know TWO shots at leats were fired from behind. Period.

If McAdams was accurately reporting and correctly categorizing the witnesses - then answering the above question will be easy for you to do.

I predict here and now that you'll absolutely REFUSE to give a credible answer...
 

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

If you could, you'd simply list the people, and cite what they said.

But you can't do that, can you Patrick?

Just like Mark - you have to make speculative assertions without looking at the evidence.

And I have to believe that you didn't look at the evidence, for otherwise, I'd have to label you a rather blatant liar.

So why are you willing to make assertions that you can't support?

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

No Patrick, you could not.

You see, I've actually sat down and compiled a list of those witnesses... and while I may have missed one or two, it's clear enough in it's pattern that I can quite confidently say that there were more than the 22 witnesses that Mark Lane thought who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You'll never dare try to defend your false claim.

You can't.

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]But, as I said a week or two ago, this is just the same old crap from a conspiracy junky who can't see the wood for the trees and I don't give much of a monkeys about what you think about the Kennedy assassination. Your views are off the wall and off the planet.

Have fun talking to yourself Ben.

If you cannot defend your beliefs against merely one person - how do you think you can convince anyone that you're right?

And I enjoy seeing you run away... it makes my point.

Ben Holmes Wrote:So why are you willing to make assertions that you can't support?

I could support them Ben, I just can't be bothered. I am not really interested in discussing the case with you. Got the T shirt for that one.


About the rail yards and the Grassy Knoll......if you were by the TSBD doorway, I doubt you could tell the difference no, maybe the far south western end of the yards yes.

But who cares, the only shots came from the TSBD, so it matters not.

As for Lane's witnesses.....did they all (was it 22 of them)....say ALL the shots came from the front.....?

Keep on dreaming Ben.

(08-23-2016, 01:51 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:So why are you willing to make assertions that you can't support?

I could support them Ben, I just can't be bothered. I am not really interested in discussing the case with you. Got the T shirt for that one.

Funny how often I get similar responses...

The truth, of course, is that you absolutely CANNOT support your claims.

Pretending, for example, that a majority of the witnesses documented on 11/22 and 11/23 didn't point to the Grassy Knoll is simply a lie.

You KNOW it's a lie.

You pretend that you simply can't be bothered to take the time to document the contrary implication...

I have checked out the list of people, I know for a fact that it's a lie to claim that the majority pointed to the TSBD.

(08-23-2016, 01:51 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]About the rail yards and the Grassy Knoll......if you were by the TSBD doorway, I doubt you could tell the difference no, maybe the far south western end of the yards yes.

You have, as I recall, already admitted this.

This proves that the McAdams' tabulation isn't correct.

(08-23-2016, 01:51 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]But who cares, the only shots came from the TSBD, so it matters not.

You're entitled to your opinion - you aren't entitled to your own "facts."

(08-23-2016, 01:51 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]As for Lane's witnesses.....did they all (was it 22 of them)....say ALL the shots came from the front.....? Keep on dreaming Ben.

Clearly you don't even know what Mark Lane said.

Nor are you willing to defend the lies you tell in this forum.

Those facts tell the tale, don't they?

The Warren Commission were actually BANG ON when they stated

Quote:"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

There is simply no credible evidence. Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver are not credible.

The significant number of ear witnesses who thought ALL the shots came from the front were obviously wrong!

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick undoubtedly knew that I could prove McAdams was a liar, but it's amusing that Patrick thought he could get away with claiming it was "unassailable" when he knew otherwise.

You have proved nothing of the sort. 

And no, I did not "know" or believe otherwise.

Okay... let's start again - since you've forgotten.

If you're standing at the entry way to the TSBD, and you hear a shot from the "Railroad yard" - how did you determine that it was not the Grassy Knoll?

If you cannot explain this - then you've demonstrated that you know McAdams' tabulation isn't correct.

Patrick C Wrote: 

Ben Holmes Wrote:McAdams pulled virtually every possible trick he could to get the numbers of the Grassy Knoll witnesses as low as possible.

Bull shit - he is simply reporting accurately on what people said. Of course there will be some instances of vagueness on the part of witnesses. No doubt about it.

Anyway, it matters not. I don't care if 75% of all the witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll - the fact is they were WRONG. We know TWO shots at leats were fired from behind. Period.

The facts don't matter?

No wonder you're a believer!

This is an excellent example of 'Begging the Question' - you presume what you need to support, and argue that no matter what the evidence shows, your faith is paramount.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

You're lying again, Patrick. You'll NEVER support such a claim with evidence. Just as Mark refused to do.

So tell us Patrick - why are you a liar?
 

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

Nope...you're lying again. If Mike Majerus has addressed this question - simply cite the page number.

But you won't... you're lying again.

Quite pathetic, actually.

Patrick C Wrote:But, as I said a week or two ago, this is just the same old crap from a conspiracy junky who can't see the wood for the trees and I don't give much of a monkeys about what you think about the Kennedy assassination. Your views are off the wall and off the planet.

Have fun talking to yourself Ben.

When all you can do is repeatedly lie to defend your beliefs, don't you think it would be better to stick with the truth?

Since the overwhelming majority of Americans accept the position I hold, I have no stake in this... but you do.

(08-31-2016, 12:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]The Warren Commission were actually BANG ON when they stated

Quote:"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

There is simply no credible evidence. Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver are not credible.

The significant number of ear witnesses who thought ALL the shots came from the front were obviously wrong!

Yes... we understand that you don't believe ANY eyewitness was "credible". (Indeed, you still refuse to name any eyewitness whom you accept completely in their 1963-1964 statements on what they saw and heard)

But the Warren Commission was staffed with nothing but lawyers... and they knew very well that they were lying when they claimed "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."

Amusingly, you still refuse to cite the page number from the Majerus book you claim refuted the fact that the majority of the first two days of documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. It's understandable why you refuse to do so... you were lying.

Quote:Amusingly, you still refuse to cite the page number from the Majerus book you claim refuted the fact that the majority of the first two days of documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. It's understandable why you refuse to do so... you were lying.

I never claimed that Mike Majerus said a majority of witnesses initially stated they thought there were only two shots and neither does he because it is not true.

He notes that a significant number of witnesses initially said there were only two shots and that they then changed their minds when they heard the media reports about three shots. He refers to this as "group think" - which is a known entity.

It would seem more likely that people would mistake 2 shots for 3 as opposed to not hearing one shot at all and hearing two others. This is one of the reasons why Mike's theory is strong.

So wrong again Holmes and I am no liar. You however continue to demonstrate your inability to understand plain English.

[Ad Hominem snipped by Admin]

(09-02-2016, 10:37 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Amusingly, you still refuse to cite the page number from the Majerus book you claim refuted the fact that the majority of the first two days of documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. It's understandable why you refuse to do so... you were lying.

I never claimed that Mike Majerus said a majority of witnesses initially stated they thought there were only two shots and neither does he because it is not true.

Do you INTENTIONALLY fail to read? Are you illiterate? WHAT PART OF MY QUOTED SENTENCE SAYS ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT TWO SHOTS???

Here's the exchange you still refuse to support:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

You're lying again, Patrick. You'll NEVER support such a claim with evidence. Just as Mark refused to do.

So tell us Patrick - why are you a liar?

And again, as in the quote you quoted, there's no discussion WHATSOEVER about a two shot vs three shot scenario.

The topic is the witnesses who were documented on 11/22 or 11/23 - IN WRITING - as to where they said the shots came from.

I agree with Mark Lane, who points out that the overwhelming majority OF THOSE WITNESSES pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, you claimed that this isn't true, and claimed that Mike Majerus refuted this.

BACK IT UP COWARD!!!
 

Patrick C Wrote:He notes that a significant number of witnesses initially said there were only two shots and that they then changed their minds when they heard the media reports about three shots. He refers to this as "group think" - which is a known entity.

It would seem more likely that people would mistake 2 shots for 3 as opposed to not hearing one shot at all and hearing two others. This is one of the reasons why Mike's theory is strong.

So wrong again Holmes and I am no liar. You however continue to demonstrate your inability to understand plain English.

Then simply QUOTE which part of my statement THAT YOU QUOTED says anything at all about a two shot scenario... You're both a liar, and provably cannot read.

DOCUMENT WHERE I SAID ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT A TWO SHOT SCENARIO IN THE QUOTE YOU GAVE FROM ME - OR FOREVER BE PROVEN A LIAR!!!

Just to help you out, here's the quote again:

Quote:Amusingly, you still refuse to cite the page number from the Majerus book you claim refuted the fact that the majority of the first two days of documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. It's understandable why you refuse to do so... you were lying.

Simply re-quote the above statement, and underline where I'm talking about a two shot scenario.
 

Patrick C Wrote:[Ad Hominem snipped by Admin]

I will not allow ad hominem attacks in this forum. As stated in the rules, you may label someone a liar, or label someone a coward, but only based on citable facts. (as demonstrated in this very post)