[Ben Holmes]

It's often the claim that believers are knowledgeable on the case evidence, and critics are simply ignorant. And while I've occasionally seen a 'critic' who seems quite ignorant on the case evidence, it's far more common to see believers who don't know the evidence.

(Or lie about the evidence...)

Take, for example, Bill Clarke - a very dedicated believer in this case, who admited on 10/28/2013:
 

Quote:I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I have read of it I 
found one glaring mistake. I assume there are others. 

A very telling admission.

And believers such as Mr. Clarke can't post here... not because he cannot register and post, but because ad hominem is forbidden - and that is his only debating tactic.

He simply doesn't know the evidence.

This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence.

Patrick, for example, after a great initial start, has been almost shut down by the evidence... every time he lies, it get's pointed out. He has no explanation for the real evidence in this case. He's forced to remain silent.

And that tells the tale...