[Patrick C]

(10-11-2016, 06:15 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote:  

(10-11-2016, 01:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

---

In fairness, Mr. Hankie is really a baseball expert and knows very lillte about Dallas. Recently, for example, he felt it was necessary to announce a base on balls with the bases loaded counts as an RBI for the batter.... I'd guess that everyone over 10 knows that, other than Mr. Hankie's loyal folowers of Dale, De Bozo, Mogul and similar simpletons.

Quote:"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)..."

The statement is essentially true - however depends on the definition of "credible" in terms of how the witnesses were seen.

IMO the WC should have made more reference to those who thought the shots came from the front, but clearly it is obvious from a logical perspective that as almost all of those witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the front, that they were simply wrong - perfectly understandable.

The commission did not find evidence of another assassin - that is a simplle fact of life. IF there was evidence, it was not  presented to the staffers - who by all accounts really did look for a conspiracy.

They were simply left with the rather boring conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin and had no choice other than to conclude that one bullet caused the non fatal wounds of Kennedy and Connally - namely the single bullet fact - the most logical, plausible and reasonable scenario to explain those wounds.

Oswald fired two shots approx 5.2 seconds apart - easily doable for an ex marine - even I could do that with a bit o luck. There was no shot between those two. Either there were only two or there was an early missed shot - and that is what the witness testimony strongly suggests - one of those scenarios is right. Or put another way - as close to the historical truth as we will get and non of this whack job 5, 6 or 7 shot balderdash that seems to be the domain of the pro conspiracy extremists to the near exclusion of sensible alternatives.

---

Ben Holmes Wrote:"Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this"

What absolute hogwash.

The majority of witnesses thought the shots - ALL the shots came from above and behind. And why would they not - bacause we KNOW that two shots came from the rear as we have TWO rear entry wounds in JFK. 

Altgens 6 demonstrates this majority conclusion rather well - that some 10 persons are looking to the rear as the president goes by - why would they not be looking at the president......? Simple, because they were distracted by a shot they had heard fired from the TSBD 6th floor.