[Ben Holmes]

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 09:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You can keep quoting Warren Commission staff on their honesty & credibility - but until you actually deal with the HISTORICAL FACTS I present that show a different picture, you're unlikely to convince anyone.

Now, tell us why the Warren Commission wanted to seek out the truth, yet were unwilling to have any independent investigators...

Tell us why the Warren Commission refused to allow any cross-examination of eyewitnesses...

Tell us why the Warren Commission called some of the silliest witnesses, and refused to call the most obvious witnesses... (You can start with James Chaney...)

You want to defend the honor of the Warren Commission - YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS WHICH SHOW THEM TO BE LESS THAN HONORABLE.

Never made a statement regarding honesty and credibility - just a statement supporting my claim that they began the process LOOKING for a plot.

No, that's simply not true. Anyone can read the tentative outline for the Warren Commission - and note that no such thing was intended.

They NEVER tried to "look for a plot" - you can't cite any evidence that they did.

 

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Don't know why they didn't have independent investigators - you don't either. Just suspicions and innuendo.

If they really wanted to do an investigation - they absolutely needed independent investigators - they didn't trust the FBI, yet they ended up relying on them.

And you can't explain that fact...
 

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  It wasn't a trial so, no cross examination of witnesses.

Doesn't need to be a "trial".

Adversarial process has long been recognized as the best way to arrive at the truth. The Warren Commission was nothing more than a giant prosecution - they CLEARLY had no desire to find the truth. Time and time again a proper cross-examination would have revealed far more than what we know today.
 

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Don't know why Chaney wasn't called - you don't either - you ASSUME it was because of the nature of his testimony - don't assume.

I don't need to assume anything. I CAN GIVE A COMPLETELY CREDIBLE & BELIEVABLE REASON WHY CHANEY WASN'T CALLED TO TESTIFY... you cannot. It's really that simple.

Chaney wasn't called because he was a HIGHLY credible witness who would have presented evidence showing a conspiracy.

 

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Don't have to explain the actions of anybody - the WC made its case and published it - it's on you to shoot it down

And it's up to you to defend it.

Quite clearly, you're failing so far... and you'd better not get your hopes up... I know the evidence quite well.

 

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ... hasn't happened in 54 years so I doubt you'll get anywhere either.

The Warren Commission has been "shot down" so many times that it's difficult to keep score.

I guess it's time to start posting my "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" just to see if you have the courage to make any attempt to save the Warren Commission. My prediction in advance: You won't.

 

(03-31-2017, 10:17 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  I've been posting here for a week or two - you seem like a typical, garden variety theorist - no evidence, just quibbling and cherry picking - not impressive. You seem to have an extremely active, disordered imagination - that's typical of theorists too.

Ad hominem is forbidden in this forum... this will be your only warning, in the future, it will simply be removed.

Labeling a poster a "liar" is allowed, if you can quote the lie, and provide the citation showing that it's a lie.

Labeling a poster a "coward" is permitted, if they have been debating a particular topic, and refuse to address the points raised.

That's it.