(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.
Is that supposed to make some logical sense....? It does not.
Your logic implies that because I disagree with you that makes you honest and me not.
And my faith is based on an honest and highly informed opinion that Oswald acted alone - as the evidence suggests very strongly.
There's no "logic" stated or implied... it's merely an observation based on fact. You
cannot name a single believer, knowledgeable in the facts of this case, who has not repeatedly lied.
On the opposite side, you don't need lies to support the truth... believers often claim that Mark Lane lied, then
ABSOLUTELY FAIL to support their claim. (You, in fact; are an excellent example of this...)
When believers lie, generally all the other believers remain silent.
If a critic misrepresents the evidence, he's quickly corrected by other critics.
This is not about "disagreement" - this is about the facts. For example, when you claimed that Majerus had refuted Mark Lane's point that the first two days of documented witnesses quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll... that's simply a lie on your part - one that you've still refused to acknowledge.
(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population
90% of the American population ....!
What a howler.
Merely a factual truth. The last liar who disputed it was David Von Pein... I merely cited the poll.
(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]First of all the vast majority of the US population know very little about the JFK assassination.
Again,
you're lying.
You're intentionally attempting to imply that knowledgeable people will support the Warren Commission. That's
PROVABLY false. People who've seen far more of the actual evidence than either you or I have pronounced quite authoritatively that they accept a conspiracy in this case.
(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]However the statistics has invariably hovered around a 70 : 30 split.
However, if one takes a poll of recent years of the 40+ age group which includes the population that lived through those early 60s, the split is quite different.
It is an approx 60 : 40 split in favour of conspiracy.
And I suggest that amid the informed and learned % of the population including academia - the split would be closer to an even split, perhaps more in favour of the lone assassin.
You won't, of course, cite for this claim... because yet again you're certain to be lying.
Indeed, simple math demonstrates that you are. Someone who is 40 today would have been born in 1976 - which means that they
NEVER LIVED THROUGH THOSE EARLY 60's - as you just claimed. Nor will you cite a poll that shows 40 year olds & up...
Tell us Patrick - why are you demonstrating such a poor grasp on
basic math? (Didn't you claim
"I am a far more educated man than you Holmes" ??? Why do you keep demonstrating that this is quite untrue?)
(09-06-2016, 05:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]I for one have met only one historian who accept conspiracy. Michael Kurtz is the that one who I have personally met which would include around 20 at universities in the US and UK over a 25 year period.
Kurtz presentations are available on line - and one can see how he manages to conclude there was a conspiracy by distorting the facts, getting his facts in some case plain wrong and ignoring significant evidence that challenges his belief.
You're lying again, Patrick.
YOU ARE A LIAR!!!
And every single time you make these uncited and unsupported charges, I'll simply skip asking you for the cites that you invariably refuse to give... and just label you a liar.