Henry Sienzant Wrote:Also note who Bertrand Russell blames for all the misinformation in his Warren Report critique:
Bertrand Russell Wrote:I am indebted to Mr. Mark Lane, the New York criminal lawyer who was appointed counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of the information in this article.
That effectively explains why Russell got so much wrong, doesn't it? Lane has never been known for his honesty in his treatment of the assassination evidence.
The Special Lie:
The raw accusation, with zero supporting evidence or citation.
This is a favored tactic of believers, and time and time again I point out that despite their non-stop accusations against Mark Lane -
BELIEVERS CANNOT DOCUMENT OR CITE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THEIR LIES.
Henry is quite slick with these sorts of tricks... which undoubtedly explains his reticence in posting to this forum - where they will be quickly spotted and pointed out.
Dare I say it?
Yep... once again, Patrick has remained silent.
Does Hank even know this forum exists....?
(09-30-2016, 02:44 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Does Hank even know this forum exists....?
Can Henry read? If you think he's illiterate, then no, he wouldn't know this forum exists.
But tell us Patrick... why can't you simply help a fellow believer out? Why can't
YOU document what Henry could not? You certainly aren't honest enough to publicly state that I have a point here... that Henry refuses to support his raw claims...
Yet you also refuse to help Henry out... why is that, Patrick?
Of course,
you are guilty of the same tactic - making claims that you refuse to support. An honest man wouldn't make statements he couldn't support, would he?
(Don't worry Patrick, it's a totally rhetorical question - I certainly wouldn't expect
you to answer it.)
(09-29-2016, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Dare I say it?
Yep... once again, Patrick has remained silent.
Proven wrong again Holmes. May I remind you that you should not necessarily expect a timely response from me - I rareley visit this forum and do not intend to spend more than a few minutes - if that - per week responding to you.
Most of your questions and points you have made have been admirably and sucesfully challenged over the years by people like Henry Sienzent and DVP, various authors and others on Amazon.
Why would there be much point in doing it all over again?
I do thank you however for the mild enjoment I get from seeing you and Dex (Lee Abbott) make a fool of yourself on an almost daily basis. Pip Pip.
(10-01-2016, 05:44 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2016, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Dare I say it?
Yep... once again, Patrick has remained silent.
Proven wrong again Holmes. May I remind you that you should not necessarily expect a timely response from me - I rareley visit this forum and do not intend to spend more than a few minutes - if that - per week responding to you.
Most of your questions and points you have made have been admirably and sucesfully challenged over the years by people like Henry Sienzent and DVP, various authors and others on Amazon.
Why would there be much point in doing it all over again?
I do thank you however for the mild enjoment I get from seeing you and Dex (Lee Abbott) make a fool of yourself on an almost daily basis. Pip Pip.
You're lying again, Patrick.
If "most of my questions & points" had actually been answered, all you'd need to do is cut & paste... or link to the 'refutation'... but you can't do it.
You can't support your claim because you're lying.
Why all the lies, Patrick?
Why would you believe something that requires you to lie all the time?
How can you look yourself in the mirror???