[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/...info-agent

Which would make them believers, not critics.

You make my point for me.

But you're not a critic either, Ben, you're a conspiracy believer. A researcher like Paul Hoch, with his keen scientific mind, was always able to weigh information objectively (or with minimal bias). You, on the other hand, stopped being objective about the JFK case many years ago.

A 'believer' is someone who continues to believe despite the evidence against them.

Feel free to CITE the evidence that is against anything I've stated.

I predict dead silence - because you're well aware of the fact that I can cite the evidence for anything I post.

Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence. In the "Basic Facts" thread, for example, you wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle [,etc.]

The above are not facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?

You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?