[Patrick C]

(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.

Is that supposed to make some logical sense....? It does not.

Your logic implies that because I disagree with you that makes you honest and me not.

And my faith is based on an honest and highly informed opinion that Oswald acted alone - as the evidence suggests very strongly.

---

 

(09-06-2016, 02:13 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population

90% of the American population ....!

What a howler.

First of all the vast majority of the US population know very little about the JFK assassination. 

However the statistics has invariably hovered around a 70 : 30 split.

However, if one takes a poll of recent years of the 40+ age group which includes the population that lived through those early 60s, the split is quite different.

It is an approx 60 : 40 split in favour of conspiracy.

And I suggest that amid the informed and learned % of the population including academia - the split would be closer to an even split, perhaps more in favour of the lone assassin.

I for one have met only one historian who accept conspiracy. Michael Kurtz is the that one who I have personally met which would include around 20 at universities in the US and UK over a 25 year period.

Kurtz presentations are available on line - and one can see how he manages to conclude there was a conspiracy by distorting the facts, getting his facts in some case plain wrong and ignoring significant evidence that challenges his belief.