Provable Lies of the Warren Commission (#13)
Ben Holmes
bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other
than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a
statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept
eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. As Mark
Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came
from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss
Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad
yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important
question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give
an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not
from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds
of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer,
Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)
And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location,
TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of
eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
Credible eyewitnesses.
Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
By the way... there appears to be dead silence about the last few posts
illustrating and demonstrating Lies told by the Warren Commission. Aren't there
any LNT'ers that can refute these examples???
aeffects
D-E-A-D silence -- Nutter's, they're terrified, left speecless. As
Harold W. said many years ago; "hit them over the head with the
evidence, thats ALL you need!"
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:21 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad
> > bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other
> > than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> >
> > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a
> > statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept
> > eyewitness testimony
Ben thinks the witnesses *saw* the sound of the shots?
> as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.
Since witnesses pointed all over for the same sounds makes this
evidence unreliable.
> As Mark
> > Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came
> > from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss
> > Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad
> > yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important
> > question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give
> > an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not
> > from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds
> > of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer,
> > Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)
Ben quotes a liar to support his lies.
> > And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location,
> > TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of
> > eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
> >
> > Credible eyewitnesses.
> >
> > Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
> >
> > By the way... there appears to be dead silence about the last few posts
> > illustrating and demonstrating Lies told by the Warren Commission. Aren't there
> > any LNT'ers that can refute these examples???
>
> D-E-A-D silence --
The sound of one finger gesturing.
> Nutter's, they're terrified, left speecless.
What would be the point of catching Ben in more lies? It was fun
the first couple dozen times or so, but the novelty wears off.
> As
> Harold W. said many years ago; "hit them over the head with the
> evidence, thats ALL you need!"
Even Weisburg would realize that most of the witnesses reported the
shots originating from a singular source (and he`s dead). Kook
scenarios ignore the witnesses, and posit multiple origins for the
shots. Kooks have to ignore the earwitnesses, they don`t support their
version of events.
If the witnesses indicate a singular source for the shots, what
location has the most goings for it? Gunman seen firing... check.
Rifle found... check. Shells found... check. Political fanatic
apprehended... check. Crime solved, case closed.