[Ben Holmes]

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick undoubtedly knew that I could prove McAdams was a liar, but it's amusing that Patrick thought he could get away with claiming it was "unassailable" when he knew otherwise.

You have proved nothing of the sort. 

And no, I did not "know" or believe otherwise.

Okay... let's go over it again.

If a shot is described by an earwitness standing at the entry to the TSBD as being from the Railroad yards - how can YOU differentiate that from a shot coming from the Grassy Knoll.

If you are unwilling to answer - it will merely be your cowardice speaking.

I'll be happy to go over this time and time again until you admit that McAdams' tabulation is not "unassailable" as you falsely claimed.

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:McAdams pulled virtually every possible trick he could to get the numbers of the Grassy Knoll witnesses as low as possible.

Bull shit - he is simply reporting accurately on what people said. Of course there will be some instances of vagueness on the part of witnesses. No doubt about it.

Anyway, it matters not. I don't care if 75% of all the witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll - the fact is they were WRONG. We know TWO shots at leats were fired from behind. Period.

If McAdams was accurately reporting and correctly categorizing the witnesses - then answering the above question will be easy for you to do.

I predict here and now that you'll absolutely REFUSE to give a credible answer...
 

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)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.

If you could, you'd simply list the people, and cite what they said.

But you can't do that, can you Patrick?

Just like Mark - you have to make speculative assertions without looking at the evidence.

And I have to believe that you didn't look at the evidence, for otherwise, I'd have to label you a rather blatant liar.

So why are you willing to make assertions that you can't support?

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

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.

No Patrick, you could not.

You see, I've actually sat down and compiled a list of those witnesses... and while I may have missed one or two, it's clear enough in it's pattern that I can quite confidently say that there were more than the 22 witnesses that Mark Lane thought who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You'll never dare try to defend your false claim.

You can't.

(08-10-2016, 10:49 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  But, as I said a week or two ago, this is just the same old crap from a conspiracy junky who can't see the wood for the trees and I don't give much of a monkeys about what you think about the Kennedy assassination. Your views are off the wall and off the planet.

Have fun talking to yourself Ben.

If you cannot defend your beliefs against merely one person - how do you think you can convince anyone that you're right?

And I enjoy seeing you run away... it makes my point.