Forums

(20) Oswald had the cab drive past his residence, dropping him off down the road. 

This is sheer speculation that isn't based on the evidence... chances are quite good that Oswald never even took a taxi. Indeed, this particular evidence would tend to show that it wasn't Oswald who took the taxi.

Once again we see the presumption of guilt, then an attempt to force the evidence into supporting this 'guilt'.

(11-29-2016, 03:27 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ](20) Oswald had the cab drive past his residence, dropping him off down the road. 

This is sheer speculation that isn't based on the evidence... chances are quite good that Oswald never even took a taxi. Indeed, this particular evidence would tend to show that it wasn't Oswald who took the taxi.

Once again we see the presumption of guilt, then an attempt to force the evidence into supporting this 'guilt'.

I am not aware of any credible evidence to suggest that Oswald did not take a cab. However I accept that it is possible that Whalley gave a ride to another white male, who resembled Oswald. But then how did Oswald get back to his rooming house?

It is  a bit like saying we can't rule out three ice bullets being fired in Dealey Plaza - all missed and melted. Sure you can't prove that did not happen, but I think we know that did not happen.

This is just one of those things that defies logic......of all the places that Whalley could have taken his passenger - it just happens to be right by Oswald's rooming house and right before when the housekeeper says Oswald comes into the property in a rush.......what a coincidence.....

(12-02-2016, 03:51 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-29-2016, 03:27 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ](20) Oswald had the cab drive past his residence, dropping him off down the road. 

This is sheer speculation that isn't based on the evidence... chances are quite good that Oswald never even took a taxi. Indeed, this particular evidence would tend to show that it wasn't Oswald who took the taxi.

Once again we see the presumption of guilt, then an attempt to force the evidence into supporting this 'guilt'.

I am not aware of any credible evidence to suggest that Oswald did not take a cab. However I accept that it is possible that Whalley gave a ride to another white male, who resembled Oswald. But then how did Oswald get back to his rooming house?

Of course you're not aware of any contradictory evidence for your theory... you simply put it out of you mind, and refuse to even acknowledge it. (Such as your recent lying about answering the only question asked... in the thread on the head wound.) 

You probably haven't a clue who Darryl Click is...

And you've probably never heard of David Edmond Knapp - the guy that Whaley actually identified...

Oswald probably got back to the rooming house the way that the earliest witnesses and photos showed... picked up in a station wagon.

(12-02-2016, 03:51 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]It is  a bit like saying we can't rule out three ice bullets being fired in Dealey Plaza - all missed and melted. Sure you can't prove that did not happen, but I think we know that did not happen.

Au contraire... I'm using EVIDENCE and explaining the known EVIDENCE in this case... you are the one simply speculating away...
 

(12-02-2016, 03:51 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]This is just one of those things that defies logic......of all the places that Whalley could have taken his passenger - it just happens to be right by Oswald's rooming house and right before when the housekeeper says Oswald comes into the property in a rush.......what a coincidence.....

It wasn't, of course, "right by Oswald's rooming house". It was more than a block away, and the guy who got out of the cab starting walking South... Oswald's apt was North.

Go ahead, Patrick, deny any of these details...

And explain why you claimed to have answered the only question raised in the head wound thread, then pretended to be surprised that I was referring to the only question in that post...

Or run again. Who cares???

Ben Holmes Wrote:It wasn't, of course, "right by Oswald's rooming house". It was more than a block away, and the guy who got out of the cab starting walking South... Oswald's apt was North. Go ahead, Patrick, deny any of these details...

Not denying that it was a block away, but sorry in a city the size of Dallas FW - a block is right by in my book.

Ben Holmes Wrote:And explain why you claimed to have answered the only question raised in the head wound thread, then pretended to be surprised that I was referring to the only question in that post...

Speak English Ben, please.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Or run again. Who cares???

I don't care a jot about your views on the assassination Ben, I drop in this thread for amusement for maybe 20 minutes per week.

Seems like no one else seems to drop in now - I wonder why that is....maybe something to do with your irrational, illogical style...and that is being polite by the way.

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:It wasn't, of course, "right by Oswald's rooming house". It was more than a block away, and the guy who got out of the cab starting walking South... Oswald's apt was North. Go ahead, Patrick, deny any of these details...

Not denying that it was a block away, but sorry in a city the size of Dallas FW - a block is right by in my book.

Yep... couldn't deny the truth.

Which means that you were trying to mislead people, weren't you Patrick?
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:And explain why you claimed to have answered the only question raised in the head wound thread, then pretended to be surprised that I was referring to the only question in that post...

Speak English Ben, please.

You can keep running like the coward you are, Patrick...

I asked you to give the medical terminology that would be used if one presumed that there was a wound on the back of the head.

You claimed you'd already answered the question - yet had not...

Then you finally DID answer the question after I pointed out that you were lying...

Now you refuse to retract your lies...

Or respond to the post.

Quite the coward, aren't you Patrick? (And trying to cover up by pretending not to understand plain English...)

And for anyone interested in proof of Patrick's cowardice, here it is.
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Or run again. Who cares???

I don't care a jot about your views on the assassination Ben, I drop in this thread for amusement for maybe 20 minutes per week.

And take a rather thorough thrashing each time... All I need to do is point out each time when you blatantly lie.

Or when you quite cowardly refuse to address the issues I raise... such as who Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp are...
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like no one else seems to drop in now - I wonder why that is....maybe something to do with your irrational, illogical style...and that is being polite by the way.

Believers have been running away from debating me for over a decade... it's nothing new.

Nor is it only me... you cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

If it were only my "irrational illogical style" - then you'd certainly be able to point to real debates happening somewhere... but you can't.

You're merely lying again.

For example, what's "irrational" or "illogical" about bringing up Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp?

Or pointing out your cowardice in refusing debate?

(12-04-2016, 08:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:It wasn't, of course, "right by Oswald's rooming house". It was more than a block away, and the guy who got out of the cab starting walking South... Oswald's apt was North. Go ahead, Patrick, deny any of these details...

Not denying that it was a block away, but sorry in a city the size of Dallas FW - a block is right by in my book.

Yep... couldn't deny the truth.

Which means that you were trying to mislead people, weren't you Patrick?
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:And explain why you claimed to have answered the only question raised in the head wound thread, then pretended to be surprised that I was referring to the only question in that post...

Speak English Ben, please.

You can keep running like the coward you are, Patrick...

I asked you to give the medical terminology that would be used if one presumed that there was a wound on the back of the head.

You claimed you'd already answered the question - yet had not...

Then you finally DID answer the question after I pointed out that you were lying...

Now you refuse to retract your lies...

Or respond to the post.

Quite the coward, aren't you Patrick? (And trying to cover up by pretending not to understand plain English...)

And for anyone interested in proof of Patrick's cowardice, here it is.
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Or run again. Who cares???

I don't care a jot about your views on the assassination Ben, I drop in this thread for amusement for maybe 20 minutes per week.

And take a rather thorough thrashing each time... All I need to do is point out each time when you blatantly lie.

Or when you quite cowardly refuse to address the issues I raise... such as who Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp are...
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like no one else seems to drop in now - I wonder why that is....maybe something to do with your irrational, illogical style...and that is being polite by the way.

Believers have been running away from debating me for over a decade... it's nothing new.

Nor is it only me... you cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

If it were only my "irrational illogical style" - then you'd certainly be able to point to real debates happening somewhere... but you can't.

You're merely lying again.

For example, what's "irrational" or "illogical" about bringing up Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp?

Or pointing out your cowardice in refusing debate?

Oh what a surprise....."Lying" and "Cowardice" again. YAWN !!!

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

What a howler......how about the two years going head to head on a weekly basis with Hank, SVA and myslef Benny Boy and DVP from time to time...?

You don't half talk a load of tripe.

And as for "real debates" - you don't know the meaning of the word.....!

(12-05-2016, 04:53 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2016, 08:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:It wasn't, of course, "right by Oswald's rooming house". It was more than a block away, and the guy who got out of the cab starting walking South... Oswald's apt was North. Go ahead, Patrick, deny any of these details...

Not denying that it was a block away, but sorry in a city the size of Dallas FW - a block is right by in my book.

Yep... couldn't deny the truth.

Which means that you were trying to mislead people, weren't you Patrick?
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:And explain why you claimed to have answered the only question raised in the head wound thread, then pretended to be surprised that I was referring to the only question in that post...

Speak English Ben, please.

You can keep running like the coward you are, Patrick...

I asked you to give the medical terminology that would be used if one presumed that there was a wound on the back of the head.

You claimed you'd already answered the question - yet had not...

Then you finally DID answer the question after I pointed out that you were lying...

Now you refuse to retract your lies...

Or respond to the post.

Quite the coward, aren't you Patrick? (And trying to cover up by pretending not to understand plain English...)

And for anyone interested in proof of Patrick's cowardice, here it is.
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Or run again. Who cares???

I don't care a jot about your views on the assassination Ben, I drop in this thread for amusement for maybe 20 minutes per week.

And take a rather thorough thrashing each time... All I need to do is point out each time when you blatantly lie.

Or when you quite cowardly refuse to address the issues I raise... such as who Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp are...
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like no one else seems to drop in now - I wonder why that is....maybe something to do with your irrational, illogical style...and that is being polite by the way.

Believers have been running away from debating me for over a decade... it's nothing new.

Nor is it only me... you cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

If it were only my "irrational illogical style" - then you'd certainly be able to point to real debates happening somewhere... but you can't.

You're merely lying again.

For example, what's "irrational" or "illogical" about bringing up Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp?

Or pointing out your cowardice in refusing debate?

Oh what a surprise....."Lying" and "Cowardice" again. YAWN !!!
 

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

What a howler......how about the two years going head to head on a weekly basis with Hank, SVA and myslef Benny Boy and DVP from time to time...?

You don't half talk a load of tripe.

And as for "real debates" - you don't know the meaning of the word.....!

Point to a single "debate" where Henry, SVA, or yourself didn't run away... AND CITE FOR IT.

But you won't be able to. You and other believers end up running away all the time. Even this post illustrates your abject cowardice... I keep trying to get you to respond to Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp, and all anyone sees is your cowardice...

Run Patrick... RUN!!!

(12-05-2016, 07:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2016, 04:53 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2016, 08:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:It wasn't, of course, "right by Oswald's rooming house". It was more than a block away, and the guy who got out of the cab starting walking South... Oswald's apt was North. Go ahead, Patrick, deny any of these details...

Not denying that it was a block away, but sorry in a city the size of Dallas FW - a block is right by in my book.

Yep... couldn't deny the truth.

Which means that you were trying to mislead people, weren't you Patrick?
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:And explain why you claimed to have answered the only question raised in the head wound thread, then pretended to be surprised that I was referring to the only question in that post...

Speak English Ben, please.

You can keep running like the coward you are, Patrick...

I asked you to give the medical terminology that would be used if one presumed that there was a wound on the back of the head.

You claimed you'd already answered the question - yet had not...

Then you finally DID answer the question after I pointed out that you were lying...

Now you refuse to retract your lies...

Or respond to the post.

Quite the coward, aren't you Patrick? (And trying to cover up by pretending not to understand plain English...)

And for anyone interested in proof of Patrick's cowardice, here it is.
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Or run again. Who cares???

I don't care a jot about your views on the assassination Ben, I drop in this thread for amusement for maybe 20 minutes per week.

And take a rather thorough thrashing each time... All I need to do is point out each time when you blatantly lie.

Or when you quite cowardly refuse to address the issues I raise... such as who Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp are...
 

(12-04-2016, 05:05 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like no one else seems to drop in now - I wonder why that is....maybe something to do with your irrational, illogical style...and that is being polite by the way.

Believers have been running away from debating me for over a decade... it's nothing new.

Nor is it only me... you cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

If it were only my "irrational illogical style" - then you'd certainly be able to point to real debates happening somewhere... but you can't.

You're merely lying again.

For example, what's "irrational" or "illogical" about bringing up Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp?

Or pointing out your cowardice in refusing debate?

Oh what a surprise....."Lying" and "Cowardice" again. YAWN !!!
 

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

What a howler......how about the two years going head to head on a weekly basis with Hank, SVA and myslef Benny Boy and DVP from time to time...?

You don't half talk a load of tripe.

And as for "real debates" - you don't know the meaning of the word.....!

Point to a single "debate" where Henry, SVA, or yourself didn't run away... AND CITE FOR IT.

But you won't be able to. You and other believers end up running away all the time. Even this post illustrates your abject cowardice... I keep trying to get you to respond to Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp, and all anyone sees is your cowardice...

Run Patrick... RUN!!!

Well Hank "debated" with you for many months Ben....that is hardly running away. Off and on over a year I would think.

That he and others gave up in the end is not cowardice, it is because dealing with your bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical meanderings is ultimately a waste of time.

(12-10-2016, 02:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2016, 07:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-10-2016, 02:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2016, 07:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

What a howler......how about the two years going head to head on a weekly basis with Hank, SVA and myslef Benny Boy and DVP from time to time...?

You don't half talk a load of tripe.

And as for "real debates" - you don't know the meaning of the word.....!

Point to a single "debate" where Henry, SVA, or yourself didn't run away... AND CITE FOR IT.

But you won't be able to. You and other believers end up running away all the time. Even this post illustrates your abject cowardice... I keep trying to get you to respond to Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp, and all anyone sees is your cowardice...

Run Patrick... RUN!!!

Well Hank "debated" with you for many months Ben....that is hardly running away. Off and on over a year I would think.

That he and others gave up in the end is not cowardice, it is because dealing with your bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical meanderings is ultimately a waste of time.

I note for the record that you couldn't cite even a SINGLE "debate" where Henry, SVA, or you didn't run away...

Indeed, even on THIS forum, it's clear that you've run away time and time again... you simply cannot face the facts.

I've NEVER been in a 'debate' with a believer where the believer didn't simply shut up and run away... it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And that fact tells the tale... doesn't it Patrick?

P.S. Nor will you EVER quote an example of a post that is "bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical"... you can't, you're simply lying again.

(12-10-2016, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-10-2016, 02:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2016, 07:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-10-2016, 02:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2016, 07:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot point to a SINGLE example of a believer going head to head against someone reasonably knowledgeable on the evidence.

What a howler......how about the two years going head to head on a weekly basis with Hank, SVA and myslef Benny Boy and DVP from time to time...?

You don't half talk a load of tripe.

And as for "real debates" - you don't know the meaning of the word.....!

Point to a single "debate" where Henry, SVA, or yourself didn't run away... AND CITE FOR IT.

But you won't be able to. You and other believers end up running away all the time. Even this post illustrates your abject cowardice... I keep trying to get you to respond to Darryl Click or David Edmond Knapp, and all anyone sees is your cowardice...

Run Patrick... RUN!!!

Well Hank "debated" with you for many months Ben....that is hardly running away. Off and on over a year I would think.

That he and others gave up in the end is not cowardice, it is because dealing with your bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical meanderings is ultimately a waste of time.

I note for the record that you couldn't cite even a SINGLE "debate" where Henry, SVA, or you didn't run away...

Indeed, even on THIS forum, it's clear that you've run away time and time again... you simply cannot face the facts.

I've NEVER been in a 'debate' with a believer where the believer didn't simply shut up and run away... it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And that fact tells the tale... doesn't it Patrick?

P.S. Nor will you EVER quote an example of a post that is "bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical"... you can't, you're simply lying again.

 

(12-10-2016, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]I note for the record that you couldn't cite even a SINGLE "debate" where Henry, SVA, or you didn't run away...

Logical failure Holmes. I stated there were plenty of long debates between you and people like SVA and Henry that lasted for many months - if not a year or more.

That those debates ended was not because people "ran" away - it was because they defeated you and retired - wisely.

(12-10-2016, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, even on THIS forum, it's clear that you've run away time and time again... you simply cannot face the facts.

Not running Ben, just not interested in "debating with you"....been there got the T shirt. It is a waste of time.

(12-10-2016, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]I've NEVER been in a 'debate' with a believer where the believer didn't simply shut up and run away... it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Tripe - you are deluded. You have had you ass kicked over and over. You believe in an idiotic consppiracy theory involving up to 5 gunmen and up to 7 shots. 

Enough said. That little belief system of yours speaks volumes. Your views on the Kennedy assassination are fantastical.

(12-10-2016, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]And that fact tells the tale... doesn't it Patrick?

Yep, that you should not be taken seriously on the this subject.

(12-10-2016, 03:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]P.S. Nor will you EVER quote an example of a post that is "bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical"... you can't, you're simply lying again.

Oh believe you me Holmes, I could have a field day doing that. Can I be bothered? Nope.

And let me point out - my comment that your posts are often "bizzare, cryptic and at times, non sensical"
cannot be a lie. It is my assertion and therefore an opinion.

That you even made that statement "you're simply lying again." merely demonstrates the point you are asking me to cite. The problem is of course is that you lack the intellectual accumen and rigour to stand up to knowledgeable, intelligent adversaries but unfortunately for you, you cannot appreciate that of course - palpably because you think people have "run" from you. They simply have not, they have run rings around you, probably got bored and left.

I have reduced my time on your site to maybe 20 minutes per week approx. I do rather enjoy a bit of light entertainment.

Where are the other posters Ben.....have they run? Or maybe got bored....?