Forums

Forums > Main JFK Forums > JFK Conspiracy Main Forum > Hard Evidence In This Case!
Full Version: Hard Evidence In This Case!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Ben Holmes

09-08-2016, 02:24 PM
HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 

  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 

  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.

  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.

  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.

  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)

  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...

Patrick C

09-08-2016, 04:35 PM
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 

  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 

  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.

  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.

  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.

  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)

  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 
It is an anomaly – there was no bullet found in JFK
  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 
That is not hard evidence – that is medical guess work
  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.
No it was not….
  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.
That is not hard evidence. It is a photo of a light haired suited man with his fingers on the grass. There is no bullet visible and the accompanying DPD stated no bullet we found. Holmes you are misleading or even lying here because you CANNOT determine from that photo if a bullet has been found. That is only a possibility.
  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.
So what! Why would you necessarily identify a finger print ! What a ridiculous thing to say!!

The following four are minor challenges to the no conspiracy theorist I accept.
  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)
  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Ben Holmes

09-08-2016, 05:07 PM
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 

  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 

  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.

  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.

  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.

  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)

  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 
It is an anomaly – there was no bullet found in JFK

That's an opinion on your part that has been refuted by experts in the field - who state that it was a bullet, not an "anomaly". It's amusing to think that you believe an "anomaly" just happened in the precise spot needed by the Clark Panel to create a credible trajectory, and just happened, purely by coincidence mind you... to be 6.5mm in diameter.

This demonstrates the credulity needed to uphold your faith in the Warren Commission.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 
That is not hard evidence – that is medical guess work

No, it's not "guesswork" to state, as they did, that the bullet wound had the appearance of an entry wound. THAT'S MERELY A MEDICAL FACT. One that if you were honest, you'd publicly agree with.

And it's certainly 'hard evidence' because a portion of that wound can still be made out in the autopsy photo... according to medical experts.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.
No it was not….

You're lying again, Patrick.

You know, YOU KNOW that the clothing was withheld from the prosectors... and you know, YOU KNOW that you cannot provide a credible reason, hence "irrational" is a perfectly valid description.

You know as well that examination of the decedent's clothing is a routine part of virtually any autopsy

Go ahead, Patrick... tell everyone that you didn't know these facts...

 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.
That is not hard evidence. It is a photo of a light haired suited man with his fingers on the grass. There is no bullet visible and the accompanying DPD stated no bullet we found. Holmes you are misleading or even lying here because you CANNOT determine from that photo if a bullet has been found. That is only a possibility.

Why don't you tell everyone, publicly; what the title of those photos when published were...

But, of course, you won't.

And your cowardice in addressing the disappearing autopsy photos & X-rays is noted.

 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.
So what! Why would you necessarily identify a finger print ! What a ridiculous thing to say!!

Dead silence on the 'expert shopping' to find someone to contradict Frazier... what cowardice!!!

As for identifying a fingerprint - it was on the boxes that were used to create the 'Sniper's Nest' - what an incredible thing to say!!!

You're forced to admit that there's hard evidence that someone else was in the Sniper's Nest - and you simply find it "ridiculous" that what has been labeled one of the largest & longest investigations in history was unable to find who else was in the Sniper's Nest.

Then hid that fact from everyone, despite an over 800 page report, and 26 volumes of supporting evidence...

Nor did you deny that it's hard evidence... and it is... it's hard evidence for two facts:
 
  • Someone left tangible proof that they were there in the Sniper's Nest in the recent past.

  • And the Warren Commission demonstrated their 'search for the truth' to be a lie.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]The following four are minor challenges to the no conspiracy theorist I accept.
  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)
  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

No explanation given for the dishonesty of the Warren Commission - that you accept - in concealing the NAA testing.

No explanation given for the dishonest testing of the rifle, which STILL didn't support their theory.

No explanation given for the lack of first frame flash - WHICH IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF Z-FILM ALTERATION...

No explanation offered for the patching of the curb - which is prima facie evidence for a coverup by the FBI of physical evidence in this case.

It's up to Patrick to explain how he's able to accept such evidence of dishonesty and coverup - yet still maintain his faith in the Warren Commission. But he won't.

Patrick C

09-09-2016, 10:34 AM
(09-08-2016, 05:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 

  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 

  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.

  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.

  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.

  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)

  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 
It is an anomaly – there was no bullet found in JFK

That's an opinion on your part that has been refuted by experts in the field - who state that it was a bullet, not an "anomaly". It's amusing to think that you believe an "anomaly" just happened in the precise spot needed by the Clark Panel to create a credible trajectory, and just happened, purely by coincidence mind you... to be 6.5mm in diameter.

This demonstrates the credulity needed to uphold your faith in the Warren Commission.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 
That is not hard evidence – that is medical guess work

No, it's not "guesswork" to state, as they did, that the bullet wound had the appearance of an entry wound. THAT'S MERELY A MEDICAL FACT. One that if you were honest, you'd publicly agree with.

And it's certainly 'hard evidence' because a portion of that wound can still be made out in the autopsy photo... according to medical experts.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.
No it was not….

You're lying again, Patrick.

You know, YOU KNOW that the clothing was withheld from the prosectors... and you know, YOU KNOW that you cannot provide a credible reason, hence "irrational" is a perfectly valid description.

You know as well that examination of the decedent's clothing is a routine part of virtually any autopsy

Go ahead, Patrick... tell everyone that you didn't know these facts...

 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.
That is not hard evidence. It is a photo of a light haired suited man with his fingers on the grass. There is no bullet visible and the accompanying DPD stated no bullet we found. Holmes you are misleading or even lying here because you CANNOT determine from that photo if a bullet has been found. That is only a possibility.

Why don't you tell everyone, publicly; what the title of those photos when published were...

But, of course, you won't.

And your cowardice in addressing the disappearing autopsy photos & X-rays is noted.

 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.
So what! Why would you necessarily identify a finger print ! What a ridiculous thing to say!!

Dead silence on the 'expert shopping' to find someone to contradict Frazier... what cowardice!!!

As for identifying a fingerprint - it was on the boxes that were used to create the 'Sniper's Nest' - what an incredible thing to say!!!

You're forced to admit that there's hard evidence that someone else was in the Sniper's Nest - and you simply find it "ridiculous" that what has been labeled one of the largest & longest investigations in history was unable to find who else was in the Sniper's Nest.

Then hid that fact from everyone, despite an over 800 page report, and 26 volumes of supporting evidence...

Nor did you deny that it's hard evidence... and it is... it's hard evidence for two facts:
 
  • Someone left tangible proof that they were there in the Sniper's Nest in the recent past.

  • And the Warren Commission demonstrated their 'search for the truth' to be a lie.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]The following four are minor challenges to the no conspiracy theorist I accept.
  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)
  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

No explanation given for the dishonesty of the Warren Commission - that you accept - in concealing the NAA testing.

No explanation given for the dishonest testing of the rifle, which STILL didn't support their theory.

No explanation given for the lack of first frame flash - WHICH IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF Z-FILM ALTERATION...

No explanation offered for the patching of the curb - which is prima facie evidence for a coverup by the FBI of physical evidence in this case.

It's up to Patrick to explain how he's able to accept such evidence of dishonesty and coverup - yet still maintain his faith in the Warren Commission. But he won't.

I see you completely ignore my challenge to you about the "bullet in the grass".......is that a tacit acceptance of the fact that you mislead.....because you know the photo does NOT show a buller and that therefore your conclusion is supposition...?

Why would you expect an explanation or an answer for every question you ask....? Do you think I have nothing better to do?

I have little inclination to engage at all with you Holmes. I may cherry pic from time to time, but discussing this case with you serves little purpose. You are a pro conspiracy extremist who believes in an utterly ridiculous set of scenarios around the events of Dallas 22 Nov 1963. Your multiple shooter belief is simply fairy tale nonsense. Your understanding of the case in some instances is based on make believe and frankly in some case, incredible mis judgments - as is the case with the so called "bullet in the grass". It is not hard evidence, it is picture of a man looking at the grass and that is all. There is no bullet. That is a fine example of your delusion.

Ben Holmes

09-09-2016, 02:09 PM
(09-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 05:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 

  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 

  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.

  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.

  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.

  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)

  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... 
  • The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray... 
It is an anomaly – there was no bullet found in JFK

That's an opinion on your part that has been refuted by experts in the field - who state that it was a bullet, not an "anomaly". It's amusing to think that you believe an "anomaly" just happened in the precise spot needed by the Clark Panel to create a credible trajectory, and just happened, purely by coincidence mind you... to be 6.5mm in diameter.

This demonstrates the credulity needed to uphold your faith in the Warren Commission.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet wound in the throat... 
That is not hard evidence – that is medical guess work

No, it's not "guesswork" to state, as they did, that the bullet wound had the appearance of an entry wound. THAT'S MERELY A MEDICAL FACT. One that if you were honest, you'd publicly agree with.

And it's certainly 'hard evidence' because a portion of that wound can still be made out in the autopsy photo... according to medical experts.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the prosectors for examination.
No it was not….

You're lying again, Patrick.

You know, YOU KNOW that the clothing was withheld from the prosectors... and you know, YOU KNOW that you cannot provide a credible reason, hence "irrational" is a perfectly valid description.

You know as well that examination of the decedent's clothing is a routine part of virtually any autopsy

Go ahead, Patrick... tell everyone that you didn't know these facts...

 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
  • The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the grass.
That is not hard evidence. It is a photo of a light haired suited man with his fingers on the grass. There is no bullet visible and the accompanying DPD stated no bullet we found. Holmes you are misleading or even lying here because you CANNOT determine from that photo if a bullet has been found. That is only a possibility.

Why don't you tell everyone, publicly; what the title of those photos when published were...

But, of course, you won't.

And your cowardice in addressing the disappearing autopsy photos & X-rays is noted.

 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
  • The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
  • The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was never identified.
So what! Why would you necessarily identify a finger print ! What a ridiculous thing to say!!

Dead silence on the 'expert shopping' to find someone to contradict Frazier... what cowardice!!!

As for identifying a fingerprint - it was on the boxes that were used to create the 'Sniper's Nest' - what an incredible thing to say!!!

You're forced to admit that there's hard evidence that someone else was in the Sniper's Nest - and you simply find it "ridiculous" that what has been labeled one of the largest & longest investigations in history was unable to find who else was in the Sniper's Nest.

Then hid that fact from everyone, despite an over 800 page report, and 26 volumes of supporting evidence...

Nor did you deny that it's hard evidence... and it is... it's hard evidence for two facts:
 
  • Someone left tangible proof that they were there in the Sniper's Nest in the recent past.

  • And the Warren Commission demonstrated their 'search for the truth' to be a lie.
 
(09-08-2016, 04:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-08-2016, 02:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]The following four are minor challenges to the no conspiracy theorist I accept.
  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)
  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

No explanation given for the dishonesty of the Warren Commission - that you accept - in concealing the NAA testing.

No explanation given for the dishonest testing of the rifle, which STILL didn't support their theory.

No explanation given for the lack of first frame flash - WHICH IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF Z-FILM ALTERATION...

No explanation offered for the patching of the curb - which is prima facie evidence for a coverup by the FBI of physical evidence in this case.

It's up to Patrick to explain how he's able to accept such evidence of dishonesty and coverup - yet still maintain his faith in the Warren Commission. But he won't.

I see you completely ignore my challenge to you about the "bullet in the grass".......is that a tacit acceptance of the fact that you mislead.....because you know the photo does NOT show a buller and that therefore your conclusion is supposition...?

It always amuses me to see a coward try to accuse someone else of 'completely ignoring' something, especially since I neither ignored it, nor did you answer it.

As I stated, Why don't you tell everyone, publicly; what the title of those photos when published were...

But, of course, you won't.

And, my prediction was, as usual; absolutely correct. WHAT A COWARD!!!

Would you like to explain how someone can "completely ignore" something that they provably responded to?
 
(09-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Why would you expect an explanation or an answer for every question you ask....? Do you think I have nothing better to do?

I don't expect anything that I don't normally do.

I answer completely, I answer ALL POINTS RAISED, I don't run away... it's not unreasonable of me to expect the same of those who are trying to debate me.

The truth, of course, is that I can't find any believers willing to debate... Mark appeared to be such a one, but he ended up running away. It didn't take long for him to realize that I know the evidence, and can quickly spot the inconsistencies, the lies, the cowardice...

You, Patrick - are knowledgeable enough to attempt debate with me - but you simply aren't honest enough, and you change into a coward when I raise points you refuse to acknowledge. Such as your abject refusal to admit you lied about Mike Majerus having refuted what he never refuted - or your refusal to cite for your claim that a majority of witnesses did NOT point to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots.

You keep complaining that you don't have time. So all you have to do is stop posting anything you can't instantly cite for. Then you would be unable to lie, and you'd never be accused of cowardice.
(09-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]I have little inclination to engage at all with you Holmes. I may cherry pic from time to time, but discussing this case with you serves little purpose.

Au contraire! It serves an excellent purpose! It demonstrates to the world that even highly knowledgeable believers cannot stand face to face with a knowledgeable critic without lying or running away...

Time and time again believers turn and run... I should start keeping a list of believers who've run... it would be a long one.
 
(09-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]You are a pro conspiracy extremist who believes in an utterly ridiculous set of scenarios around the events of Dallas 22 Nov 1963.

How silly! I've never stated ANYTHING that I can't point to evidence that supports it. I defy you to produce any statement of mine that I cannot support with citation... something that YOU are unable to do.
 
(09-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Your multiple shooter belief is simply fairy tale nonsense.

Another assertion that you simply cannot support. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Patrick?
 
(09-09-2016, 10:34 AM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Your understanding of the case in some instances is based on make believe and frankly in some case, incredible mis judgments - as is the case with the so called "bullet in the grass". It is not hard evidence, it is picture of a man looking at the grass and that is all. There is no bullet. That is a fine example of your delusion.

Of course, the fact that you lied about my reply to you, and that you refused to answer the question I raised - illustrates that you're a dishonest coward... so why would anyone believe you, Patrick? Why the lies? Why the cowardice? If you're on the side of truth - WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING???

Patrick C

09-10-2016, 12:06 PM
Ben Holmes Wrote:How silly! I've never stated ANYTHING that I can't point to evidence that supports it. I defy you to produce any statement of mine that I cannot support with citation... something that YOU are unable to do.

Yes you have......

How about your 5 to 7 shot assassination scenario in which you have up to 3 gunmmen in the TSBD including TWO firing out the SE corner window......one on the Knoll and possibly one on the south Knoll......I can't recall the other locations because I don't pay much attention to that kind of whack job thinking.


 
Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course, the fact that you lied about my reply to you, and that you refused to answer the question I raised - illustrates that you're a dishonest coward...

What a stupid comment. Just because some one does not answer a question does not make them dishonest.

It might be that they don't give a monkeys about what you think or just can't be bothered!

And I am neither dishonest nor a coward, I consider myself as a person of integrity and decency.

You however Holmes are an [Ad hominem removed by Admin] as I have stated many times. And no I really don't care about what you think about the JFK assassination. In fact I really don't care too much about the subject these days. It should have been put to sleep 30 years ago as an open and shut case.

Two shots struck JFK just under 5 seconds apart, there may have been an early missed shot, but there was one gunman. Period. Keep dreaming and fooling yourself.

Ben Holmes

09-10-2016, 03:05 PM
(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
Ben Holmes Wrote:How silly! I've never stated ANYTHING that I can't point to evidence that supports it. I defy you to produce any statement of mine that I cannot support with citation... something that YOU are unable to do.

Yes you have......

How about your 5 to 7 shot assassination scenario in which you have up to 3 gunmmen in the TSBD including TWO firing out the SE corner window......one on the Knoll and possibly one on the south Knoll......I can't recall the other locations because I don't pay much attention to that kind of whack job thinking.

I ask you to produce a statement of mine that I cannot support with citation... instead, you produce a statement of YOURS describing what you believe I said.

You've been caught lying on numerous occasions about what I've said... so why do you think that I'd EVER take your word for anything???

I predicted that you would be unable to do so... and once again, I was right.
 
 
(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course, the fact that you lied about my reply to you, and that you refused to answer the question I raised - illustrates that you're a dishonest coward...

What a stupid comment. Just because some one does not answer a question does not make them dishonest.

Au Contraire... When I want to refute something a believer has said, the most forceful way to do so is to force THEM to say it. Asking you to cite for your claims, for example.

And when you refuse to cite for your claims... or when you refuse to answer a question - the answer being the refutation - then yes indeed, you're a coward... and quite a dishonest one too.

I pointed out correctly that you lied about my reply to you... you had nothing to say to that.
 
(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]It might be that they don't give a monkeys about what you think or just can't be bothered!

And I am neither dishonest nor a coward, I consider myself as a person of integrity and decency.

You are PROVABLY a liar, Patrick. Here's merely one of the more recent lies you told:
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.
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.

You STILL refuse to retract or explain why you claimed that Mike Majerus refuted Mark Lane on that issue. YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR.

Doesn't matter what your own opinion is.
 
(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]You however Holmes are an [Ad hominem removed by Admin] as I have stated many times. And no I really don't care about what you think about the JFK assassination. In fact I really don't care too much about the subject these days. It should have been put to sleep 30 years ago as an open and shut case.

Two shots struck JFK just under 5 seconds apart, there may have been an early missed shot, but there was one gunman. Period. Keep dreaming and fooling yourself.

You don't seem to get it, Patrick. I've repeatedly stated that there are only two ad hominem attacks allowed on this forum, and both must be evidence based. The charge of cowardice can only apply to topics that the poster has responded to, and the charge of lying must quote the lie, and demonstrate that it is not true.

20 years ago you could have gotten away with your claims about what happened in the JFK case - now there's simply too much evidence that you're forced to run from.
 
Patrick C Wrote:The following four are minor challenges to the no conspiracy theorist I accept.
  • The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
  • The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
  • The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)
  • The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Still no explanation how you can accept evidence that the Warren Commission & FBI intentionally altered or misrepresented evidence, and yet came up with the correct conclusion. No explanation why you accept the hard scientific evidence that the Zapruder film was altered, yet cannot explain by whom or the reason why...

If you were an honest man, these would be easy to explain.

Tell us Patrick, why do you keep complaining that you're honest, yet keep providing evidence to the contrary?

Why don't your posts reflect your "honesty?"
Forums > Main JFK Forums > JFK Conspiracy Main Forum > Hard Evidence In This Case!