+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... (/Thread-Believers-Who-Lie-About-The-Evidence)
Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Ben Holmes - 09-02-2016
The following exchange recently occurred on this forum:
Ben Holmes Wrote: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.
You're lying again, Patrick. You'll NEVER support such a claim with evidence. Just as Mark refused to do.
So tell us Patrick - why are you a liar?
Patrick has had an opportunity to retract or support his claim (he also claimed that Mike Majerus book also refuted Mark Lane's point raised here)
Then asserts that he's not a liar...
Yet there's STILL no page reference to look at, or a list of witnesses in those first two days that Patrick can total up to less than a majority for the Grassy Knoll.
Why is this? Why do believers consistently refuse to support the lies that they tell about the evidence? How can Patrick believe himself honest when he absolutely refuses to defend his claims?
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Patrick C - 09-02-2016
(09-02-2016, 02:01 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: The following exchange recently occurred on this forum:
Ben Holmes Wrote: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.
You're lying again, Patrick. You'll NEVER support such a claim with evidence. Just as Mark refused to do.
So tell us Patrick - why are you a liar?
Patrick has had an opportunity to retract or support his claim (he also claimed that Mike Majerus book also refuted Mark Lane's point raised here)
Then asserts that he's not a liar...
Yet there's STILL no page reference to look at, or a list of witnesses in those first two days that Patrick can total up to less than a majority for the Grassy Knoll.
Why is this? Why do believers consistently refuse to support the lies that they tell about the evidence? How can Patrick believe himself honest when he absolutely refuses to defend his claims?
As I explained to you there is NO page ref from Mike Majerus' book ref the majority stating 2 shots not 3, because he is NOT saying that and neither am I !!!
The majority stated 3 shots initially, BUT initially more people stated two and then CHANGED their MIND when they heard the media reports.
Lane is incorrect when he states that on 22/23 Nov a MAJORITY of witnesses said they thought the shots came from the Knoll area. They did NOT. The majority of witnesses said to the rear and high.
Of those that DID say they thought shots came from the KNOLL...almost all stated ALL the shots camme from there - and clearly they are mistaken because at least two shots struck from the rear.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you.
And as I stated, I am not a liar and never have been - what is the point...? There would be zero point - I would be deluding myslef and working on a false premis. I am a far more educated man than you Holmes - that is evident in your posts which frequently show flawed logic an dmisunderstanding - and I do not mean that as a brag. It is simple reality and as a former academic in respect of this subject I would never lie - that is simply not in my DNA.
I have also explained to you that people can make mistakes and people may HONESTLY mis-interpret evidence or opinion and or mistakenly use error based sources - as YOU do with the deceptive Mr. Mark Lane.
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Ben Holmes - 09-03-2016
(09-02-2016, 04:52 PM)Patrick C Wrote: As I explained to you there is NO page ref from Mike Majerus' book ref the majority stating 2 shots not 3, because he is NOT saying that and neither am I !!!
You provably did. You continue to refuse to deal with it.
(09-02-2016, 04:52 PM)Patrick C Wrote: The majority stated 3 shots initially, BUT initially more people stated two and then CHANGED their MIND when they heard the media reports.
Nope... not the topic. I've not brought this up - the debate here is on the majority of witnesses documented in the first two days.
(09-02-2016, 04:52 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Lane is incorrect when he states that on 22/23 Nov a MAJORITY of witnesses said they thought the shots came from the Knoll area. They did NOT. The majority of witnesses said to the rear and high.
Of those that DID say they thought shots came from the KNOLL...almost all stated ALL the shots camme from there - and clearly they are mistaken because at least two shots struck from the rear.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you.
Until you start telling the truth.
You're a liar, Patrick... if you had the truth on your side, you'd be happy to document your claims.
Instead, you keep bobbing & weaving, then lying some more... then running away.
That's your habit...
(09-02-2016, 04:52 PM)Patrick C Wrote: And as I stated, I am not a liar and never have been - what is the point...?
You've provably lied several times recently - I've pointed each one out, and you've not refuted even ONE of them.
(09-02-2016, 04:52 PM)Patrick C Wrote: There would be zero point - I would be deluding myslef and working on a false premis. I am a far more educated man than you Holmes - that is evident in your posts which frequently show flawed logic an dmisunderstanding - and I do not mean that as a brag. It is simple reality and as a former academic in respect of this subject I would never lie - that is simply not in my DNA.
I'm going to copy this, and re-post it from time to time... it's truly a keeper!!!
![[Image: smile.png]](http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/smilies/smile.png)
(09-02-2016, 04:52 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I have also explained to you that people can make mistakes and people may HONESTLY mis-interpret evidence or opinion and or mistakenly use error based sources - as YOU do with the deceptive Mr. Mark Lane.
Honest people admit their mistakes...
Honest people can document their claims.
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Lee Abbott - 09-04-2016
It's similar to when Patrick supposedly quoted Doug Horne and when I asked him to site that quote he repied, "Do your own homework."
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Ben Holmes - 09-04-2016
(09-04-2016, 02:13 AM)Lee Abbott Wrote: It's similar to when Patrick supposedly quoted Doug Horne and when I asked him to site that quote he repied, "Do your own homework."
It's truly amusing how often dishonest people refuse to support what they say.
Honest people have no trouble citing for the statements they make, because they are, after all, only telling the truth.
Another amusing tidbit is the number of times that a dishonest person will insist that he's honest. Honest people don't need to tell other people that. It's quite obvious.
But dishonest people desperately want the title of 'honest' - yet are unwilling to work for it.
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Patrick C - 09-05-2016
Which part of "there is no page reference" do you not comprehend...?
Niether Mike M nor I claim that more people stated there were 2 shots than 3. What I stated was that the number of people who thought there were only two shots decreased as some of them changed their minds as they were influenced by media reports.
Mike M in his book does not address Mark Lane's claim that the majority of witnesses stated the GK was the source of the shots on 22 and 23 Nov 1963. That is my assertion and it does not come from a single book. It is based on my knowledge of the case and appraisal of the witness statements.
Oh and I am not running from anything Holmes, I just consider exchanging comments with you on the JFK case laregly pointless because your logic is frankly a joke.
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Patrick C - 09-05-2016
Lee Abbott Wrote:It's similar to when Patrick supposedly quoted Doug Horne and when I asked him to site that quote he repied, "Do your own homework.
Horne has 5 volumes so several thousand pages......and you think I am going to trawl through them for a quote for your benefits.......
What was it Mr McEnroe used to say......"you cannot be serious"......
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Ben Holmes - 09-05-2016
(09-05-2016, 11:16 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Which part of "there is no page reference" do you not comprehend...?
Niether Mike M nor I claim that more people stated there were 2 shots than 3. What I stated was that the number of people who thought there were only two shots decreased as some of them changed their minds as they were influenced by media reports.
Mike M in his book does not address Mark Lane's claim that the majority of witnesses stated the GK was the source of the shots on 22 and 23 Nov 1963. That is my assertion and it does not come from a single book. It is based on my knowledge of the case and appraisal of the witness statements.
Oh and I am not running from anything Holmes, I just consider exchanging comments with you on the JFK case laregly pointless because your logic is frankly a joke.
You quite desperately keep lying... Nowhere have you been able to quote me saying what you claim.
What IS the topic is simple... Here it is again:
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.
Now, even the most literately challenged person sees that you claimed that Mike Majerus addressed the issue raised by Mark Lane - that the majority of the first two days of documented eyewitnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
It doesn't do anything to merely claim that Majerus didn't address it, WHEN YOU PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED THAT HE DID!
What is needed is your acknowledgement that you lied.
It's really just that simple.
I'm sure you'll argue that you didn't understand what was clearly written... or you'll argue that you weren't paying attention to the topic.
I frankly don't care HOW you explain it... but you WILL address your lie, because I'll simply keep bringing it up.
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Ben Holmes - 09-05-2016
(09-05-2016, 12:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Lee Abbott Wrote:It's similar to when Patrick supposedly quoted Doug Horne and when I asked him to site that quote he repied, "Do your own homework.
Horne has 5 volumes so several thousand pages......and you think I am going to trawl through them for a quote for your benefits.......
What was it Mr McEnroe used to say......"you cannot be serious"......
The Warren Commission has 888 pages, in addition to 26 more volumes that completely dwarf Douglas Horne's five volume set.
Yet believers rightfully demand that we cite for our statements.
Only liars hesitate to cite for claims they make...
Quite often, when a believer is forced to cite, it turns out that the citation doesn't really say what he claimed it said.
That is the true reason for refusing to cite.
RE: Believers Who Lie About The Evidence... - Patrick C - 09-05-2016
Ben Holmes Wrote:Quite often, when a believer is forced to cite, it turns out that the citation doesn't really say what he claimed it said.
Not in my case Holmes.
Ben Holmes Wrote:That is the true reason for refusing to cite.
Nonsense - there may be a number of different reasons. In my own case, I simply don't have the time or inclination. Nothing I have stated will ever change your mind on the case.
For example, I met around 23 witnesses to the assassination and around 15 law enforcement people in the 80s. I have notes in my thesis about what they told me, but I cannot cite for their testimony - the material is not published, nor is it official and or taken under oath.
But what I do know is that during the afternoon in the plaza as people gathered and stories began to form, most of the talk was of shots coming from the TSBD buidling and NOT the Knoll area....
There is no single absolute bible on the witness statements ref direction. McAdams does however interpret the statements he lists correctly in respect of Knoll area (including around the Knoll - ie railyard behind the bushes and picket fence) or TSBD / rear.
However your contention that Lane correctly states that the majority of witnesses that weekend are on record or tape etc as saying the shots came from the front is simply wrong. Plain and simple and you are deluding yourself.