[Ben Holmes]

From Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew:

Quote:From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy. Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report. They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he commissioned. The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself. And those were the people who had supposedly found the truth.

By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence. Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers.

Well stated... why do believers reject conspiracy when those who know far more of the evidence express their doubts? It's simply not reasonable to be so dogmatic on the issue.

Patrick claims that there are "well reasoned" books that reject (or fail to support) the Lone Assassin theory - yet he refuses to name even one title.

This shows that Patrick is merely pretending to be less dogmatic than he actually is... for otherwise, he'd be happy to list the titles of books he considers "well reasoned".

Mark Lane's 'Rush To Judgment' surely must be one of those titles, since Patrick refuses to point out anything specifically wrong with it. Mark Ulrik has managed to find a number counted wrong... sadly, this isn't a book on mathematics.

Why are believers so inflexible in their faith?