Ben Holmes Wrote:If you cannot refute the evidence they bring to the table, then you've lost, haven't you?
Not at all, I simply do not have the time or inclination.
Do you not realise you are supporting UTTER NUT JOBS here Ben...? I mean come on.......
Patrick C Wrote:"Not at all, I simply do not have the time or inclination."
Enough of this "I don't have the time" crap, Collins. No one is buying such an excuse from the second-most prolific poster here, who practically spends more time here than the Administrator.
There is not a doubt in my mind the limo slowed to a stop or near stop. This has been corroborated by more than enough witnesses. But to play devil's advocate, perhaps one reason we don't see such an obvious slowdown in the extant Z-film is because of the frame rate in which it was filmed. Sometimes old amateur films played back faster than the real-time counterpart:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qphaz/why_does_old_film_seem_sped_up/">https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... m_sped_up/</a><!-- m -->
Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:If you cannot refute the evidence they bring to the table, then you've lost, haven't you?
Not at all, I simply do not have the time or inclination.
Do you not realise you are supporting UTTER NUT JOBS here Ben...? I mean come on.......
You NEVER seem to have the "time or inclination" when it's the evidence in this case... evidence you can't explain...
So yes, you HAVE lost... for if you cannot defend the Warren Commission ... and
YOUR beliefs against cross examination, then you can't do what critics ROUTINELY do...
Can you cite ANY QUESTION on the evidence in this case that I've not answered??
Why can't you do the same???
So yes, Patrick... you've lost. All you represent now is the fact that time and time again you refuse to make a case refuting what I've stated about the evidence.
Lost what..?
I am not hear to win or loose. I don't give a jot.
Ben Holmes Wrote:time and time again you refuse to make a case refuting what I've stated about the evidence.
We have exchanged views on the case for YEARS on Amazon and I have challenged you HUNDREDS of times. So that is hardly "time and time again" is it Holmes?
I would be confident that in an open public debate with you Ben, with an audience of 100% neutrals I would convince a majority there was no conspiracy.
Most of your arguments are weak and many are sensational - for example your multiple 5 to 7 shooters, including a scenario in which there are two shooters firing out of the SE 6th floor window which is based on pure guesswork on your part.
Ben is an advocate. The truth is a side issue to him; it's all about winning or losing.
Ben has never lost an argument. According to Ben.
Patrick C Wrote:Lost what..?
I am not hear to win or loose. I don't give a jot.
Ben Holmes Wrote:time and time again you refuse to make a case refuting what I've stated about the evidence.
We have exchanged views on the case for YEARS on Amazon and I have challenged you HUNDREDS of times. So that is hardly "time and time again" is it Holmes?
Quote just ONE example where I've not answered your 'challenge'. But you won't... you can't. You KNOW that there's nothing you can say about the evidence that I don't have an answer for.
The same is not true for you. You run from quite a bit of the evidence in this case, you do so over and over again...then pretend that you're too "busy" to get around to answering.
What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
It's a question that can be answered in a single sentence... yet you've repeatedly run from it.
And this is just ONE example!!
Patrick C Wrote:I would be confident that in an open public debate with you Ben, with an audience of 100% neutrals I would convince a majority there was no conspiracy.
And yet here, in a written forum, where each has the opportunity to think about, research, and answer fully - you can't do it.
Yet you pretend that in a different arena, you'd suddenly start winning... :roll:
Ben Holmes Wrote:Most of your arguments are weak and many are sensational - for example your multiple 5 to 7 shooters, including a scenario in which there are two shooters firing out of the SE 6th floor window which is based on pure guesswork on your part.
You're lying again, Patrick. You know quite well that I've pointed out that eyewitnesses put a shooter in the opposite window from the SN. It's
not "
pure guesswork" as you claim. Tell us Patrick, why do I successfully (and unrefuted by you) point out lies time and time again from you and other believers - yet the opposite never seems to happen?
Why does the 'truth' need lies to support it?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben is an advocate. The truth is a side issue to him; it's all about winning or losing.
Ben has never lost an argument. According to Ben.
I've often challenged believers to CITE the evidence that contradicts what I post...
I usually face nothing but dead silence.
Tell us Mark... What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
Will you run too?
Patrick C Wrote:I would be confident that in an open public debate with you Ben, with an audience of 100% neutrals I would convince a majority there was no conspiracy.
That's the epitome of a lame excuse, Patrick.... Either the evidence supports your case - or it doesn't...
Lee Abbott Wrote:Patrick C Wrote:I would be confident that in an open public debate with you Ben, with an audience of 100% neutrals I would convince a majority there was no conspiracy.
That's the epitome of a lame excuse, Patrick.... Either the evidence supports your case - or it doesn't...
You put your finger on the exact problem that Patrick has. He can't seem to win any debates when he's given all the time he wants to research the evidence, post videos, photos, images... get his thoughts precisely in order...
Yet thinks that in the rough & tumble of a spoken debate, he'll somehow come out ahead...