[Ben Holmes]

(10-29-2016, 10:22 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(10-26-2016, 02:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  OMG you have actually made a reasonably sensible post...!!!

Actually, I do so quite often. You simply aren't honest enough to acknowledge or respond honestly to them.

It's perfectly reasonable, for example, to point out when you're lying.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, tell us why you think a decades old interview that doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with his contemporary statement is grounds for refusing to state the truth?

The truth is that Mac K cites two seperate sources. He does not state in which order they came from.

 

You didn't answer my question... you evaded my question, and answered a strawman.

I know you'll be too much the coward to actually respond here, and ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY ASKED...

The question alone makes my point however...
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:IOW's, why did you use what YOU assert was an 'implication' to over-ride what Kilduff quite plainly stated in 1963?

I did not. I stated that he seemed to be implying in 1991 that it was Perry who advised that it was a bullet to the head that killed Kennedy.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Anyone can go here - and read post #5.

Tell us Patrick - what do you think you're achieving with all these lies?
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  It does not matter either way which doctor first told him. It may be likely that several doctors conferred with Mac K and he named Burkely because he was the presidents physician and it would seem correct to cite him.

It seems you are obsessed with making countless posts on a misinterpretation - on you part - at a cost to discussing the actual case.

Of course it doesn't matter WHICH doctor told him. It matters that you're willing to lie to confuse the issue... it matters that you can't be honest on this topic that matters.

It matters that you're trying to use a decades later interview implication to over-ride a contemporary filmed direct statement.

It matters that you're desperately speculating ... when the evidence is crystal clear.

The evidence matters, Patrick.

Speculation doesn't.
 

(10-26-2016, 10:51 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  But I expect you will not understand that point - and it has been made more elequently than I by Hank.

You're LYING again, Patrick.

You'll NEVER quote any such statement by Henry Sienzant... you can't.

So you're quite the coward as well.

[Ad hominem redacted by Forum Administrator]

It does NOT matter which doctor told Kilduff that JFK was killed by a headshot.

No, it doesn't.

But the TRUTH matters...

The fact that you consistently get corrected by me on the actual evidence shows that you really don't care one way or the other... as long as your faith is upheld.

(10-29-2016, 10:22 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  And I am no liar. [Ad hominem redacted by Forum Administrator]

Yet, just as predicted, you refuse to offer any quotes from Henry Sienzant that support your claim.

So yes Patrick, you ARE a liar. And every time I point it out, there are usually very simple ways to refute it... such as here, where all you need do is cut & paste the quote from Henry Sienzant.

Yet you refuse to do so...

So yes... YOU ARE A LIAR!!!


P.S. Interesting that you refuse to label Henry Sienzant a liar... even though he clearly was. I'm sure you recall when he claimed that I'd argued that Malcolm Kilduff got his information from viewing the body. A rather outrageous lie that didn't seem to upset you at all.