[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm amused at this last statement... believers somehow believe that if virtually all pointed to one direction, then the shots must have come from one direction.

Wrong, it does mean that the shots MUST have come from one direction, it is merely persuasive that they did.

Nope.

The eyewitnesses CANNOT be "persuasive" that shots came from only one direction. Based on the eyewitness data, you can only conclude multiple directions for originating shots.

What you are using is evidence for one location, and an absence of physical evidence (shells, rifle, etc) for the other location.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The evidence is well explained by multiple shot locations - it's not explained AT ALL by pretending only one location.

Absolute bunkum, the evidence is compelling that shots were fired from one location above and behind the limo.

And, as I just pointed out, you are relying on more than the eyewitness statements... and rather than evidence, you're relying on an absence of physical evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Depending on how you read the statements & testimony, by some accounts the MAJORITY of witnesses place the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. By the logic employed here - this shows that they came from the TSBD, and a majority of witnesses were mistaken.

In that instance clearly yes - but why not?

It's not surprising that you dislike eyewitness accounts... I've repeatedly asked believers for the name of an eyewitness whom they accept in ALL their 1963-64 statements & testimony... and I'VE NEVER GOTTEN AN ANSWER!

Patrick C Wrote:I do not agree that the account totals such as those by Thompson (39% TSBD / 52% GK), Gallanor (44% TSBD / 48% GK) are accurate though, McAdams is far more accurate in his interpretation of the witness statements and concludes 59% TSBD and 31% GK

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm">http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm</a><!-- m -->

TWO directions.....3%

McAdams is the premier disinfo agent on the Internet. And since you'll refuse to defend the lies told by McAdams, why would you think anyone would believe your cite?

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find such reasoning to be quite silly.

On the contrary, the reasoning is perfectly logical Ben.

Nope... you only believe eyewitnesses who support your faith... that's not "logical" at all.