Forums - Are Believers Knowledgeable?

It's often the claim that believers are knowledgeable on the case evidence, and critics are simply ignorant. And while I've occasionally seen a 'critic' who seems quite ignorant on the case evidence, it's far more common to see believers who don't know the evidence.

(Or lie about the evidence...)

Take, for example, Bill Clarke - a very dedicated believer in this case, who admited on 10/28/2013:

Quote:I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I have read of it I
found one glaring mistake. I assume there are others.

A very telling admission.

And believers such as Mr. Clarke can't post here... not because he cannot register and post, but because ad hominem is forbidden - and that is his only debating tactic.

He simply doesn't know the evidence.

This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence.

Patrick, for example, after a great initial start, has been almost shut down by the evidence... every time he lies, it get's pointed out. He has no explanation for the real evidence in this case. He's forced to remain silent.

And that tells the tale...

To suggest Hank and DVP don't know the evidence is frankly ludicrous. Of course they do.

Patrick has not been "shut down" by the evidence. He has just been bored senseless by the tedium here.....!

I would also suggest that it is indeed conspiracy believers who tend to be poorly informed or mis-informed.....no wonder such is their reputation.

You for example claim that there could have been 5 or more shooters - based on wyward speculation....and that is being polite.

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]To suggest Hank and DVP don't know the evidence is frankly ludicrous. Of course they do.

Oh, I can vaguely see how you might have taken what I said that way, since you didn't pay attention... but the truth is, they cannot post here because they cannot use ad hominem.

Here's my precise wording: "This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence."

Now tell us Patrick, why couldn't you have answered what I actually said?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Patrick has not been "shut down" by the evidence. He has just been bored senseless by the tedium here.....!

And yet, the truth is, you've rather consistently lied about the evidence, and you've been caught every time you do so. (I don't believe I've missed any of your lies...)

You've not retracted even a single lie I've pointed out.

Why is that, Patrick?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]I would also suggest that it is indeed conspiracy believers who tend to be poorly informed or mis-informed.....no wonder such is their reputation.

You'd know far better than most that such would not apply to me... don't you Patrick?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]You for example claim that there could have been 5 or more shooters - based on wyward speculation....and that is being polite.

You've been caught lying about what I've stated... and you've CONSISTENTLY REFUSED to quote my actual words... why is that, Patrick?

Why do you refuse to support your lies?

Ben Holmes Wrote:You'd know far better than most that such would not apply to me... don't you Patrick?

Oh absolutely Ben, how could I disagree - you have an excellent knowledge of the assassination - it is a shame that you process the information that you have in such a illogical manner.

Ben Holmes Wrote:And yet, the truth is, you've rather consistently lied about the evidence

Absolute nonsense!

Ben Holmes Wrote:and you've been caught every time you do so. (I don't believe I've missed any of your lies...)

Complete BS.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You've not retracted even a single lie I've pointed out.

There is nothing to retract!

(09-26-2016, 04:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
Ben Holmes Wrote:You'd know far better than most that such would not apply to me... don't you Patrick?

Oh absolutely Ben, how could I disagree - you have an excellent good knowledge of the assassination - it is a shame that you process the information that you have in such a illogical manner.

And yet, you'll absolutely REFUSE to provide even a single example of my "illogical" processing of information... because you're again not telling the truth. You can't provide an example.

Oh, you'll explain that it's beneath you, or you're too busy, or you don't care, or any other number of explanations for why you refuse to support your claim... but the truth is, you can't.

(09-26-2016, 04:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
Ben Holmes Wrote:And yet, the truth is, you've rather consistently lied about the evidence

Absolute nonsense!

Yet you refuse to refute it when I point it out. Such as your claim that Dr. Baden was correct, WHEN YOU CONTRADICTED DR. BADEN YOURSELF.

Anytime I get specific on the evidence, you run.

Why is that, Patrick? Would you like some examples?

(09-26-2016, 04:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
Ben Holmes Wrote:and you've been caught every time you do so. (I don't believe I've missed any of your lies...)

Complete BS.

Then simply quote me where I made the claim that "It is s shame in some respects that people like Ben Holmes give many of the well intentioned pro conspiracy supporters a bad name with his 7 shot, 5 shooter scenario with mobile film lab and metal detector team for all those missed bullets....."

That's a provable lie on your part.

You can't support such a lie... so you simply keep pretending that you never said it.

(09-26-2016, 04:18 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:You've not retracted even a single lie I've pointed out.

There is nothing to retract!

One lie was quoted above.

Another one would be your claim that Dr. Baden was correct when stated that "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."

I can keep this up all day long... merely by going through the posts that you've refused to answer.

So this would be another example of a lie... you know that there's things you should retract, but you refuse to... then claim that "there is nothing to retract"

You have my permission now to begin running again, Patrick.

Because both of us know you'll never address the two lies referenced above, let alone all the rest of them...

(09-26-2016, 04:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]To suggest Hank and DVP don't know the evidence is frankly ludicrous. Of course they do.

Oh, I can vaguely see how you might have taken what I said that way, since you didn't pay attention... but the truth is, they cannot post here because they cannot use ad hominem.

Here's my precise wording: "This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence."

Now tell us Patrick, why couldn't you have answered what I actually said?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Patrick has not been "shut down" by the evidence. He has just been bored senseless by the tedium here.....!

And yet, the truth is, you've rather consistently lied about the evidence, and you've been caught every time you do so. (I don't believe I've missed any of your lies...)

You've not retracted even a single lie I've pointed out.

Why is that, Patrick?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]I would also suggest that it is indeed conspiracy believers who tend to be poorly informed or mis-informed.....no wonder such is their reputation.

You'd know far better than most that such would not apply to me... don't you Patrick?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]You for example claim that there could have been 5 or more shooters - based on wyward speculation....and that is being polite.

You've been caught lying about what I've stated... and you've CONSISTENTLY REFUSED to quote my actual words... why is that, Patrick?

Why do you refuse to support your lies?

I do not lie. I decided to virtually stop posting here a couple of weeks ago because you are incapable of debating the subject without calling a person a liar if they disagree with you.

It is also boring. I am used to a high standard of debate and really have no interest in exchanging views with someone who demonstrates ignorance and rudeness on a consistant basis.

Enjoy your time posting to yourself on this tedious forum.

(09-26-2016, 05:00 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-26-2016, 04:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]To suggest Hank and DVP don't know the evidence is frankly ludicrous. Of course they do.

Oh, I can vaguely see how you might have taken what I said that way, since you didn't pay attention... but the truth is, they cannot post here because they cannot use ad hominem.

Here's my precise wording: "This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence."

Now tell us Patrick, why couldn't you have answered what I actually said?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Patrick has not been "shut down" by the evidence. He has just been bored senseless by the tedium here.....!

And yet, the truth is, you've rather consistently lied about the evidence, and you've been caught every time you do so. (I don't believe I've missed any of your lies...)

You've not retracted even a single lie I've pointed out.

Why is that, Patrick?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]I would also suggest that it is indeed conspiracy believers who tend to be poorly informed or mis-informed.....no wonder such is their reputation.

You'd know far better than most that such would not apply to me... don't you Patrick?

(09-26-2016, 04:03 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]You for example claim that there could have been 5 or more shooters - based on wyward speculation....and that is being polite.

You've been caught lying about what I've stated... and you've CONSISTENTLY REFUSED to quote my actual words... why is that, Patrick?

Why do you refuse to support your lies?

I do not lie. I decided to virtually stop posting here a couple of weeks ago because you are incapable of debating the subject without calling a person a liar if they disagree with you.

It is also boring. I am used to a high standard of debate and really have no interest in exchanging views with someone who demonstrates ignorance and rudeness on a consistant basis.

Enjoy your time posting to yourself on this tedious forum.

You're lying again, Patrick.

I predicted that you'd refuse to cite any evidence or support for your lies, and indeed, this is exactly what happened.

I don't label people who "disagree" with me "liars," Patrick; I label those who tell provable lies ...

I've made that point repeatedly.

You CANNOT provide an example of a mere "disagreement" as being labeled a lie by me...

You have my permission to continue your cowardly running, Patrick...