[Ben Holmes]

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C 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)..."

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

You're lying again, Patrick. It cannot be "essentially true" because you know that there's a tremendous body of eyewitness & earwitness testimony which DID put shots in another place.

You've even been caught lying about this fact earlier, when you claimed that the majority of the witnesses DOCUMENTED on 11/22 & 11/23 put the shots as coming from the TSBD.

You would have no reason to lie about that fact unless you understood just how damaging it was that the majority of witnesses in those first two days - before any intimidation had coalesced to convince witnesses that there was a lone assassin in the TSBD.

Your INTENTIONAL lie on this topic shows an awareness of just how weak your case is.

You've not shown even a SINGLE Grassy Knoll witness 'un-credible'. Why is that, Patrick?
 

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

I realize that you're desperate not to admit that the Warren Commission simply lied... but that's a fact.

And you've been caught lying to defend the Commission... (and to denigrate Mark Lane)

When you have to lie about the evidence, instead of explaining it - then you've simply demonstrated a vast dishonesty and awareness of the weakness of your case.
 

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

Once again, you're lying.

They did indeed find "evidence" of another assassin, it was in the testimony of the many people who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This evidence is still there, and you can't make it disappear.
 

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

Actually, and you're well aware of this fact, they HAD to create the SBT... without which they HAD TO come to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy.

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

So the Warren Commission simply failed... according to you.

Yet you refuse to list the evidence ... all you have are your naked statements.

And since you've repeatedly proven yourself a liar, why would anyone believe you, Patrick?

---

 

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

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

What absolute hogwash.

You would be expected to deny this.

Yet you refuse to offer any citations to show that the large numbers of Grassy Knoll witnesses weren't credible.

Or weren't evidence.

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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. 

Let's go back to those witnesses first documented in the first two days...

What did they say?

CITE FOR IT!!!

(But you won't... you're a coward, and quite dishonest)

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  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.

You're afraid to cite their actual statements as documented in the first two days...

There's a reason for that, isn't there?

Mark ran from this as well...