[Ben Holmes]

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.

Quite misleading, 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. 

Take a look, for example, at Mark Ulrik... rather consistently lying about the evidence in this case. Inventing non-existent citations, and lying about citations that do exist. Or your cowardice in this very forum about the "unassailable" McAdams tabulation that turned out not to be so "unassailable."

Most knowledgeable believers who know about this forum simply refuse post... they know how badly their arguments get chewed up and spit out by knowledgeable critics.
 

Patrick C Wrote:There are some reasonable arguments for conspiracy and there are some well reasoned works out there on the case that do not support the lone gunman theory - personally for me they fail to convince however.

You can't name even a SINGLE one. Nor will you. You're a coward. When it comes to supporting your assertions, you're just like most believers...

Patrick asserts that he has a very large library of JFK related books - yet he cannot name even ONE that is "well reasoned" and supports conspiracy.

Which, of course, simply goes to show that Patrick is a liar. For until he get specific, and name a title - he's making an assertion that he cannot support.

 

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.....

Of course, Patrick is simply lying again...

It's amusing that believers cannot defend their faith with the truth. Patrick lies at the drop of a hat, and no wonder - the evidence simply doesn't support his faith.

I defy Patrick to produce cites to my words that support what he just claimed...

But he won't. Nor will he ever even try.

And it's certainly beyond his charactor to apologize for lying about what I've stated...

 

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?

It's easy for believers to assert that Mark Lane is a liar - it's quite another to actually point to anything he stated in 'Rush to Judgment' - then provide the citation that proves he lied. Mark, for example, has been desperately trying for weeks now to prove what he's been unable to prove.

Patrick simply refuses to even try.