[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I thought Ben Holmes,
You had urged and called for civility on your forum, but I see you are falling short of that.

Ben Holmes Wrote:In other words - if you wanted to redefine the number of shooters, and the directions of the shots - you'd be REQUIRED to avoid such witnesses as James Chaney, as well as other close witnesses.

Chaney said the shots cam from back over his shoulder which as he was riding down Elm St with his back to the TSBD area.

It's downright amusing how often believers have intentionally mangled what James Chaney actually said. (And yes, I can cite numerous examples if you try to challenge me on this point)

Tell us Patrick, can you explain the nearly constant lying about what James Chaney actually said about where the shots came from?

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:P.S. Your dishonest implication that Chaney supported the official version is quite despicable. An honest man would admit that Chaney wouldn't have been a good witness for believers in the WCR. And, "back over my right shoulder" is quite far from the lie you told that "the sounds came from behind him".

It is one and the same thing.

If it were actually the same thing, then believers wouldn't so consistently lie about what James Chaney actually said. You had the quote right in front of you from my post, and still mangled it.

Patrick C Wrote:Now another thing - if you are going to accuse me of being a liar and despicable, I shall simply withdraw from your forum. Your choice. You know I have spent close to 30 years researching this subject off and on AND that I worked professionally on the case. Now if you prefer to insult me rather than exchange views in a civil manner that is your choice.

You're lying again, Patrick. I stated that "Your dishonest implication that Chaney supported the official version is quite despicable." - you quite dishonestly equate that with me labeling you "despicable".

I stated quite clearly at the beginning what the rules are regarding labeling someone a liar. I've followed them to the letter.

If you can't stand the heat, then simply be ready to cite for anything you say... it's not possible to be caught lying if you could do this.

It's not my "choice" whether you stick around or not - I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of allowing believers (or, for that matter, critics) to lie blatantly about the evidence and get away with it. You want to muzzle me... not going to happen.

Patrick C Wrote:I met several of the Dallas cops in the 80s who worked the case. Although it was 20 years after the fact, I can assure you Hargis and Chaney were sure that the shots came from up high behind them - that does not make them right, although the medical evidence supports their beliefs.

I don't care what they believe... it's what they saw and heard that is evidence.

Patrick C Wrote:If you want to delude yourself and claim Chaney did not support the WC conclusions then that is your choice and frankly just makes you look plain silly.

If you'd like to continue lying, and claim that when James Chaney said:

• JFK was shot in the face.
  
• Connally was hit by a separate bullet than the two that struck JFK
  
• That he rode forward - not seen in any photo or video...

... that these statements support the Warren Commission's theory, then don't be so surprised when I label you a liar for making such a claim. You cannot defend any of those statements as being supportive of the Warren Commission, and you know it.

I could care less what your opinion is, but when you lie about the EVIDENCE - you'll get called on it.

That's the rule in this forum. Your opinions will merely be argued with... but lies about the evidence will be pointed out.