(PART 1001)


Too bad that you [John McAdams] cannot supply reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these evidential questions.


Reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers HAVE been supplied, Benjamin. You just simply don't like the answers.

And the main reason you don't like the answers that have been supplied by LNers over the years is because those answers are, indeed, "non- conspiratorial" in nature; and you, of course, WANT a conspiracy to exist in virtually every nook and cranny of this case.

I've answered many of your never-ending questions (back when you only had 21 inquiries on your silly list). You know I've answered those 21 questions (three full years ago, in fact, in this 2007 post), but you didn't like the responses you received, so you pretended that nobody has ever once answered them in anything approaching a satisfactory or "reasonable" manner.

And now Ben Holmes will pretend that John McAdams has not provided any "reasonable, non-conspiratorial answers to these evidential questions", even though Professor McAdams has done just that, of course.

In short -- To a conspiracy kook like Ben Holmes, NO "non-conspiratorial" answer will ever (ever!) be accepted as a "reasonable" answer to ANY of his foolish inquiries. And that's because people like Ben are too much in love with the idea of conspiracy to ever admit that the "conspiracy" in the John F. Kennedy, J.D. Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald murders only exists in their own fantasy-filled minds.

David Von Pein
February 9, 2010