[Ben Holmes]

(09-17-2016, 04:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  However there is no doubt that a rifle was seen pointing out of the 6th floor SE corner window as it was seen by at least 5 and possibly 6 people as I recall and it was seen as the sound of shots was heard.

It is possible that IF Moorman did take an earlier picture that she did so when the assassin was not visible - or for example was indescernable given the rather poor quality of the camera and film.

This is a silly hypothesis... it offers no explanatory power to the question of why it was covered up. If it showed nothing, then there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it wouldn't be retained as evidence. Not showing an assassin simply means it was taken seconds before or seconds after he was at the window.

It did not venture an argument as to cover up IF the picture actually existed.

Can  you not understand plain English!

Of course. As I prove time and time again...

You made the hypothesis that the photo disappeared because it DID NOT show the assassin.

I point out how silly such an hypothesis is - since it has no explanatory power over the fact that the photo disappeared from this case. (despite multiple witnesses to it's existence)

I have trouble believing that you can't understand this. You keep complaining that others can't understand plain English - yet you continue to fail to do so.

Let me break it down in simple words.
 

• FACT: The photo doesn't exist.
  
• FACT: It's original existence was asserted by multiple witnesses.
  
• FACT: It's completely consistent with the above facts, and with credible reasoning, that the photo disappeared from the record FOR A REASON.
  
• FACT: You provided reasoning that fails to fit the facts.
  

So I merely point it out. You know that the evidence shows that the photo originally existed... yet you provide a silly reason why it disappeared.

What's so difficult for you to follow?
 

---

 

(09-17-2016, 04:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:   

Ben Holmes Wrote:Only by labeling the witnesses as liars or morons.

I did not state Moorman was a moron nor any other witness.

Yes Patrick, you did.

You imply that the photo never existed, yet Mary Moorman says that it did, and says that it showed the 6th floor.

You refuse to deal with the contradiction - even though I point it out.
 

(09-17-2016, 04:22 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I actually met Mary Moorman twice in Dallas in the 80s and found her to be a very pleasent lady so I would never describe her as you suggest.

Do you get pleasure from just making stuff up Holmes....or do you just deliberately lie?

Where's the lie, Patrick?

You imply that Mary Moorman either lied, was mistaken, or was a moron. There must be SOME EXPLANATION why she described a photo you imply never existed. Yet you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give it. Why the cowardice, Patrick? Why do you keep running from the evidence?

Give a credible reason - and if you keep refusing to do so, don't complain when people draw the natural conclusions...

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the photo didn't exist. NONE AT ALL! It has multiple independent witnesses to it's existence.