[Ben Holmes]

(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:How silly! I've never stated ANYTHING that I can't point to evidence that supports it. I defy you to produce any statement of mine that I cannot support with citation... something that YOU are unable to do.

Yes you have......

How about your 5 to 7 shot assassination scenario in which you have up to 3 gunmmen in the TSBD including TWO firing out the SE corner window......one on the Knoll and possibly one on the south Knoll......I can't recall the other locations because I don't pay much attention to that kind of whack job thinking.

I ask you to produce a statement of mine that I cannot support with citation... instead, you produce a statement of YOURS describing what you believe I said.

You've been caught lying on numerous occasions about what I've said... so why do you think that I'd EVER take your word for anything???

I predicted that you would be unable to do so... and once again, I was right.
 

---

 

(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Of course, the fact that you lied about my reply to you, and that you refused to answer the question I raised - illustrates that you're a dishonest coward...

What a stupid comment. Just because some one does not answer a question does not make them dishonest.

Au Contraire... When I want to refute something a believer has said, the most forceful way to do so is to force THEM to say it. Asking you to cite for your claims, for example.

And when you refuse to cite for your claims... or when you refuse to answer a question - the answer being the refutation - then yes indeed, you're a coward... and quite a dishonest one too.

I pointed out correctly that you lied about my reply to you... you had nothing to say to that.
 

(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It might be that they don't give a monkeys about what you think or just can't be bothered!

And I am neither dishonest nor a coward, I consider myself as a person of integrity and decency.

You are PROVABLY a liar, Patrick. Here's merely one of the more recent lies you told:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Bull shit - no they did not.

Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.

Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.

You STILL refuse to retract or explain why you claimed that Mike Majerus refuted Mark Lane on that issue. YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR.

Doesn't matter what your own opinion is.
 

(09-10-2016, 12:06 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You however Holmes are an [Ad hominem removed by Admin] as I have stated many times. And no I really don't care about what you think about the JFK assassination. In fact I really don't care too much about the subject these days. It should have been put to sleep 30 years ago as an open and shut case.

Two shots struck JFK just under 5 seconds apart, there may have been an early missed shot, but there was one gunman. Period. Keep dreaming and fooling yourself.

You don't seem to get it, Patrick. I've repeatedly stated that there are only two ad hominem attacks allowed on this forum, and both must be evidence based. The charge of cowardice can only apply to topics that the poster has responded to, and the charge of lying must quote the lie, and demonstrate that it is not true.

20 years ago you could have gotten away with your claims about what happened in the JFK case - now there's simply too much evidence that you're forced to run from.
 

Patrick C Wrote:The following four are minor challenges to the no conspiracy theorist I accept.

• The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
  
• The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
  
• The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy' film a fake. (Patrick has been known to run from this one!)
  
• The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us about the ballistic path of that bullet.
  

Still no explanation how you can accept evidence that the Warren Commission & FBI intentionally altered or misrepresented evidence, and yet came up with the correct conclusion. No explanation why you accept the hard scientific evidence that the Zapruder film was altered, yet cannot explain by whom or the reason why...

If you were an honest man, these would be easy to explain.

Tell us Patrick, why do you keep complaining that you're honest, yet keep providing evidence to the contrary?

Why don't your posts reflect your "honesty?"