[Ben Holmes]

(09-02-2016, 10:37 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Quote:Amusingly, you still refuse to cite the page number from the Majerus book you claim refuted the fact that the majority of the first two days of documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. It's understandable why you refuse to do so... you were lying.

I never claimed that Mike Majerus said a majority of witnesses initially stated they thought there were only two shots and neither does he because it is not true.

Do you INTENTIONALLY fail to read? Are you illiterate? WHAT PART OF MY QUOTED SENTENCE SAYS ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT TWO SHOTS???

Here's the exchange you still refuse to support:

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?

And again, as in the quote you quoted, there's no discussion WHATSOEVER about a two shot vs three shot scenario.

The topic is the witnesses who were documented on 11/22 or 11/23 - IN WRITING - as to where they said the shots came from.

I agree with Mark Lane, who points out that the overwhelming majority OF THOSE WITNESSES pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, you claimed that this isn't true, and claimed that Mike Majerus refuted this.

BACK IT UP COWARD!!!
 

Patrick C Wrote:He notes that a significant number of witnesses initially said there were only two shots and that they then changed their minds when they heard the media reports about three shots. He refers to this as "group think" - which is a known entity.

It would seem more likely that people would mistake 2 shots for 3 as opposed to not hearing one shot at all and hearing two others. This is one of the reasons why Mike's theory is strong.

So wrong again Holmes and I am no liar. You however continue to demonstrate your inability to understand plain English.

Then simply QUOTE which part of my statement THAT YOU QUOTED says anything at all about a two shot scenario... You're both a liar, and provably cannot read.

DOCUMENT WHERE I SAID ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT A TWO SHOT SCENARIO IN THE QUOTE YOU GAVE FROM ME - OR FOREVER BE PROVEN A LIAR!!!

Just to help you out, here's the quote again:

Quote:Amusingly, you still refuse to cite the page number from the Majerus book you claim refuted the fact that the majority of the first two days of documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. It's understandable why you refuse to do so... you were lying.

Simply re-quote the above statement, and underline where I'm talking about a two shot scenario.
 

Patrick C Wrote:[Ad Hominem snipped by Admin]

I will not allow ad hominem attacks in this forum. As stated in the rules, you may label someone a liar, or label someone a coward, but only based on citable facts. (as demonstrated in this very post)