+- 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: No "Credible" Evidence??? (/Thread-No-Credible-Evidence)
No "Credible" Evidence??? - Ben Holmes - 06-02-2016
Dale Hayes Wrote:There is NO credible evidence of a shot from the front.
Henry Sienzant finally defined the term "Evidence" - and this is the only currently known definition online by a believer:
Henry Sienzant Wrote:== QUOTE ==
EVIDENCE
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects
== UNQUOTE ==
So we know that the Parkland doctors who stated that the bullet wound in the throat was from the front - IS EVIDENCE.
So the only thing left is the modifier "credible".
Which believers absolutely REFUSE to define.
It's usually not possible to force WCR Supporters to define their terms (Indeed, it took years before Henry defined "evidence") - they clearly mean something entirely foreign to the English language when they use the word "credible".
But it's an outright lie to suggest that there's no credible evidence of a frontal shot... the Parkland Press Conference alone proves that Dale is lying.
Why are lies needed to support the truth?