[Ben Holmes]

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

'Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" 

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

 

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?

I have done that for years, so has DVP and so has Hank and many authors. You are talking nonsense again.

You're failing right HERE... refusing to publicly acknowledge the truth of my statements... (indeed, you even lie abou the facts, as listed below)

Henry ran... DVP is CURRENTLY running from me on virtually every issue in a public forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk)
 
So no, your assessment simply isn't true.
 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.

So what, they did not know the anterior neck wound was a bullet wound and muscles contract during mortis.

Nope...

If there'd been a path, THEY COULD HAVE FOUND IT. It's quite embarrassing for your faith that the interior chest photo disappeared... the one bit of evidence that could have proven, OR DISPROVEN your theory.

Tell us Patrick - is it more likely that the photo disappeared due to the fact that it proved transit? Or disproved transit?

Nor is your speculation about the throat wound evidence... what *IS* evidence is the observations of those doctors who saw the wound.

What *IS* evidence is the fact that the prosectors were forbidden from tracing the track of that bullet.

You can't give a credible reason... I can.

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.

So what...? However, it should have done, because it is obvious from  the film that the men are hit together, so they should have considered a one shot scenario for the non fatal wounds.

You're lying again, Patrick.

The Warren Commission quite clearly understood that the film DID NOT SHOW THE MEN BEING HIT TOGETHER.

Tell us Patrick, why do you think lies will get past a knowledgeable critic?

Why can't you PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that the Warren Commission believed that there was a "delayed reaction" seen in the film?

Why do you continue to lie about the issue?

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...

The SBT is THE MOST PLAUSIBLE and likely of the shooting scenarios. Period. 

You're LYING AGAIN, Patrick. The scenario of multiple shooters EXPLAINS MORE OF THE EVIDENCE THAN THE SBT DOES...

Nor does it run into the problems that the SBT has - such as the testimony of a number of witnesses, the lack of transit, the condition of CE399, the medical evidence, etc.

So it's a LIE to assert that the SBT is the "most plausible" - and I rather suspect that you won't be honest enough to withdraw such a lie.

 

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(01-17-2017, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?

There are and have been for years. It seems you choose to ignore them. I am totally confident you would get your ass kicked on the SBT in a public debate.

You didn't "dispute" most of these... you in essence said 'so what?'... then lied about the rest...

Feel free to visit alt.conspiracy.jfk and watch this speculated "ass kicking" that isn't happening there.
 

Better yet, QUOTE one of these alleged "ass kickings" that you think have happened... let's see them! Then let's see you defend them when I answer...

Keep in mind that THIS is a public forum as well. Henry could post here, had he the guts... DVP could post here, if he had the guts to do so...

(02-08-2017, 01:29 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The SBT is so obviously the historical truth it should be known as the SBF as I have stated many times.

And yet, you can't seem to defend that assertion... why is that, Patrick?