+- 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: Patrick Lies Again... (/Thread-Patrick-Lies-Again)
Patrick Lies Again... - Ben Holmes - 09-13-2016
Patrick C Wrote:I would agree in respect of most of which these guys believe. It is astonishing. I am not surprised that many people believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case however. Unfortunately most people only get the sensationalist pro conspiracy fiction that dominates the mainstream popular bestseller lists and of course the movie Oliver Stone made.
You're lying again, Patrick. The mainstream media and the educational system is quite firmly in the hands of Warren Commission apologists.
Patrick C Wrote:It is evident from the absence of one time regular expert contributors like Hank and SVA, together with a group of well informed, sensible adults like Paul, IGS and Craig (though they did not necessarily see things in the same way), that our gang of three here are either not taken seriously or just drive people away with their irritating and exasperating methods.
What's evident is that knowledgeable believers cannot stand toe to toe with knowledgeable critics. THAT is what this clearly shows. Even those who still post, such as you, absolutely REFUSE to address the actual evidence.
Patrick C Wrote: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.....
What's truly a shame is that Patrick is too much the coward to actually CITE that claim he puts in my mouth.
He knows that if he did, it would prove him to be the liar that he is. It's far easier to simply lie than it is to actually confront the statements critics ACTUALLY make.
Patrick C Wrote:And those that are potentially at least - capable of reasoned debate - such as the prevaricator Mark Lane, simply cannot be trusted to paint a fair and reasonable picture, instead they resort largely to selective and manipulative presentation of the evidence in this case.
And yet, despite over 400 direct quotes from Mark Lane, you've been rather totally unable to respond and refute anything he's been quoted saying. Why is that, Patrick?
RE: Patrick Lies Again... - Patrick C - 09-14-2016
Ben Holmes Wrote:And yet, despite over 400 direct quotes from Mark Lane, you've been rather totally unable to respond and refute anything he's been quoted saying. Why is that, Patrick?
Just had a quick look at some posts...I am aiming to limit the time to maybe an hour per week.....
So the answer is I cannot be bothered and I am not really that interested.
What I find very odd is that you are digging out old Amazon posts and responding to them here.......
RE: Patrick Lies Again... - Ben Holmes - 09-14-2016
(09-14-2016, 05:43 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:And yet, despite over 400 direct quotes from Mark Lane, you've been rather totally unable to respond and refute anything he's been quoted saying. Why is that, Patrick?
Just had a quick look at some posts...I am aiming to limit the time to maybe an hour per week.....
So the answer is I cannot be bothered and I am not really that interested.
What I find very odd is that you are digging out old Amazon posts and responding to them here.......
Let's examine this theory you're putting forth...
If you respond to a post, even if you've not actually answered anything... then that post is now forever 'done with' - and cannot be brought up again.
I have a different theory... mine is that until you answer HONESTLY AND CREDIBLY - I don't see any problem at all in bringing up what you certainly think of as 'old' material.
If you think that you've answered the points I raise, THEN SIMPLY CUT & PASTE YOUR PREVIOUS REPLY.
You evidently believe it's okay to lie, then refuse to retract or support that lie... let me explain this to you - honest people find fault with that position.
You blatantly lied and claimed that I'd put forth a "7 shot, 5 shooter scenario with mobile film lab and metal detector team for all those missed bullets....." But you certainly know by now that you were intentionally lying, because you've NEVER cited any such claim.
You want to keep insisting that you're an honest man - yet you keep refusing to deal with the proof that you're a liar.
Why is that, Patrick?
Too busy?