Saturday, July 30, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

Patrick C wrote:
Ben, I was toying with you.

And yet, it wasn't me that was looking dumb... what an insane suggestion!
Patrick C wrote:
I know full well you wash your hands when you wash your face.

However my point about his hands coming into more contact with the two weapons than his face that day is a fair point and you should accept that.

Nope. No need to do so when the EVIDENCE shows that Oswald should have had "heavy deposits" on his cheeks. This is, of course, evidence that YOU will refuse to publicly admit.

And once again, you're still refusing to address the actual lie of omission told by the Warren Commission - their refusal to gather the full testimony on the NAA and it's results.

Not surprising really - you're a coward, Patrick - you continue to provably run from any questions that would force you to admit problems in this case.

Such as the Railroad shot...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:43 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=1016#p1016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Extreme conspiracy theories

Patrick C wrote:
Today I found probably one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on the JFK case and once again it makes me ask the question...if you do believe there was a conspiracy, why does it so often have to be extreme......

This guy thinks there were 11 shots........and the rest........

It is a You Tube post and he can't spell too well either......

Mists & Shadows 5 hours ago

So, if that is the ONLY BULLET that came forwards, through the car, and it is DOWN in Connally's thigh, in near perfect condition, why is there at least three holes FORWARD AND UP into the windshield?
Why do both Kellerman and Greer talk about a 'storm' of bullets coming into the car in their Warren Testimony? Why did the Secret Service find multiple bullet fragments all over the floorboards?
Why did ANOTHER bullet fall out of Connally's thigh, on the floor of Trauma-2, at Parkland?
Why did ANOTHER bullet, fall out of Kennedy's body, into the wrappings around his head, as they lifted the corpse from the casket for X-Rays? And what about the shot that nicked James Tague with spall or shrapnel, another 50 yards down the street?
We're talking a MINIMUM of six or seven shots into the car itself. Not counting the added shots into the Stemmons sign, the scrapes on the concrete manhole surround in the green belt and several more into street signs and lamps up and down Elm (Leroy Blevins: 11 shots).
No. The presumption that Oswald was the lone shooter and whether there were 2-3-4 shots is a standard misdirection/distraction effort that focusses on arguing over details to cover up the reality of THE LIE ITSELF. Which is that there were in fact far more and the witnesses only heard the shots whose direct report was closest to them.
There were half a dozen or more shots as two each from three teams. MINIMUM.
And the proof of this is twofold:
1. The HSCA was never allowed to further analyze reechoant patterns from positions /other than/ The Grassy Knoll. As in the Records Building, DalTex or Sherriff's Office. Could not continue to sort the wheat from the chaff to get the perfect acoustic overlay. This has not happened event yet, to this day. Even when shell casings were found atop the Records building.
2. The lead fragments in Connally's body which could not have come from CE-399, the 'single bullet' which not only went right-left-right to strike two people. But up-down-up to hit the windshield at three different points, almost three feet apart, before returning to Connally's leg as a whole and undamaged projectile.

CONCLUSION:
You get a good copy of Altgens 6. You look at Emory Roberts, sitting in the QM, as Dallas Detail chief. A man who was known throughout the Presidential Protection unit as 'serious to the point of taciturn' and you tell me why he's smiling that Mona Lisa grin after having pulled two agents off the car at Love Field and ordered another not to run forwards to the X-100 at the very last moment when it might have saved Kennedy's life.

You ask why critics so often have to be extreme - even as you've just been slapped silly for your insane claim that Oswald washed up... well enough to have a negative result on his cheeks, yet still quite positive on his hands...

So extreme in your faith that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to answer a question that would force YOU to admit that the McAdams earwitness tabulation you rely on is absolute nonsense. You'd rather have your cowardice pointed out time and time again than to find yourself stating a truth that undermines that tabulation.

Yet you try to point out an "extreme" viewpoint??? While not recognizing your own?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:37 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=110&p=1015#p1015

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Extreme conspiracy theories

Today I found probably one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on the JFK case and once again it makes me ask the question...if you do believe there was a conspiracy, why does it so often have to be extreme......

This guy thinks there were 11 shots........and the rest........

It is a You Tube post and he can't spell too well either......

Mists & Shadows 5 hours ago

So, if that is the ONLY BULLET that came forwards, through the car, and it is DOWN in Connally's thigh, in near perfect condition, why is there at least three holes FORWARD AND UP into the windshield?
Why do both Kellerman and Greer talk about a 'storm' of bullets coming into the car in their Warren Testimony? Why did the Secret Service find multiple bullet fragments all over the floorboards?
Why did ANOTHER bullet fall out of Connally's thigh, on the floor of Trauma-2, at Parkland?
Why did ANOTHER bullet, fall out of Kennedy's body, into the wrappings around his head, as they lifted the corpse from the casket for X-Rays? And what about the shot that nicked James Tague with spall or shrapnel, another 50 yards down the street?
We're talking a MINIMUM of six or seven shots into the car itself. Not counting the added shots into the Stemmons sign, the scrapes on the concrete manhole surround in the green belt and several more into street signs and lamps up and down Elm (Leroy Blevins: 11 shots).
No. The presumption that Oswald was the lone shooter and whether there were 2-3-4 shots is a standard misdirection/distraction effort that focusses on arguing over details to cover up the reality of THE LIE ITSELF. Which is that there were in fact far more and the witnesses only heard the shots whose direct report was closest to them.
There were half a dozen or more shots as two each from three teams. MINIMUM.
And the proof of this is twofold:
1. The HSCA was never allowed to further analyze reechoant patterns from positions /other than/ The Grassy Knoll. As in the Records Building, DalTex or Sherriff's Office. Could not continue to sort the wheat from the chaff to get the perfect acoustic overlay. This has not happened event yet, to this day. Even when shell casings were found atop the Records building.
2. The lead fragments in Connally's body which could not have come from CE-399, the 'single bullet' which not only went right-left-right to strike two people. But up-down-up to hit the windshield at three different points, almost three feet apart, before returning to Connally's leg as a whole and undamaged projectile.

CONCLUSION:
You get a good copy of Altgens 6. You look at Emory Roberts, sitting in the QM, as Dallas Detail chief. A man who was known throughout the Presidential Protection unit as 'serious to the point of taciturn' and you tell me why he's smiling that Mona Lisa grin after having pulled two agents off the car at Love Field and ordered another not to run forwards to the X-100 at the very last moment when it might have saved Kennedy's life.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:03 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=110&p=1014#p1014

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

Ben, I was toying with you.

I know full well you wash your hands when you wash your face.

However my point about his hands coming into more contact with the two weapons than his face that day is a fair point and you should accept that.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:56 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=1013#p1013

Friday, July 29, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

Patrick C wrote:
You can use a face cloth to wash your face Ben without washing your hands....DUH

That you would seriously argue this shows that your faith is unwavering.

But the average person will scoff at this. Indeed, I had mentioned your theory that Oswald had washed up to someone a few hours ago, and he had a good laugh too.

Except in highly unusual situations, people don't wash their face without also washing their hands - that's simply ordinary life experience...

You'd better stick to Oswald using his forearms to wash his face, it's equally nonsensical, and at least has the advantage of being a prior claim (re: forearms)

Once again you've refused to address the actual issue I raised, which was the lie by omission of the Warren Commission... it seems that you must agree that the Warren Commission lied by omission - since you refuse to even touch that topic.

P.S. Still the coward on the Railroad shots, eh Patrick?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:19 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=1012#p1012

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

You can use a face cloth to wash your face Ben without washing your hands....DUH

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:45 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=1011#p1011

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

"Someone's basic character can be easily discovered via discussions on topics such as the JFK case (or Evolution, Christianity, etc) One is either honest and has character, or the debate reveals that one does not."

What a simplistic load of tripe Ben really come on!

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:43 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=1010#p1010

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.


I think my irony meter just burst.

Here's an example (originally a .tiff file) - but posted here as a jpg:
Image

Now here's a closeup of the above jpg (on the left) with the original .tiff format on the right:
Image

One doesn't have to be a graphics design artist to note the difference... you pretend that you can accurately measure pixels that no longer exist on the ear to the left...

But that's simply dishonesty on your part.

I noticed that you didn't say one word about the lack of photos & video for James Chaney's asserted conversation with Chief Curry...

Why is that, Mark?

I thought you weren't afraid of the topic of James Chaney?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:21 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=1009#p1009

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:I'm happy with the truth.

And you still aren't telling it, are you?

How can you measure what no longer exists?

Why do you claim you can?

The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.


I think my irony meter just burst.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:13 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=1008#p1008

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Patrick C wrote:
And you did not mess up the Amazon forums Ben.......? You were consistently antagonistic, rude and downright personal to people you knew almost nothing about apart from their views on the JFK case......

Would you like to compare the evidence and debate on the evidence in this case that I brought to the Amazon forums?

And compare it with someone you REFUSE to denigrate... such as the anonymous "Mogul Cast?"

Nah... the truth hurts too much!

Someone's basic character can be easily discovered via discussions on topics such as the JFK case (or Evolution, Christianity, etc) One is either honest and has character, or the debate reveals that one does not.

Amusingly, I've NEVER found an honest Warren Commission believer... and while I'm sure that they must exist, I've never debated one. Why is that, Patrick?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:04 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=1007#p1007

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Belin Admits That The Warren Commission Lied...

Patrick C wrote:
It is poorly worded and guarded. I am not sure I would say it was a lie....

On what basis do you dispute what Belin stated?

He said that was published in one instance was "AN OUTRIGHT MISSTATEMENT OF FACT"

I have no problems with the English language... this is synonymous with the telling of a lie.

Still no answer...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:59 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108&p=1006#p1006

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Belin Admits That The Warren Commission Lied...

Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:P.S. Still running from the Railroad yard shot... what a coward you are!!!

Haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Haven't had the inclination to dig it out either.

There were no shots from the front so for me whatever your question is or was, its irrelevant anyway.

Since I've CONTINUOUSLY mentioned your cowardice on this issue ever since you ran from it, your pretended ignorance is truly amusing!!!

I'll explain it again, just to watch your cowardice kick in again:

I told you to imagine yourself standing in the entry way of the TSBD... and hearing a shot from the Railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD, I asked how you would differentiate hearing such a shot from one that happened at the Grassy Knoll. By using your hearing only, HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RAILROAD YARDS AND THE GRASSY KNOLL AS A LOCATION FOR THE SHOOTING?

Now, even though I've reminded you of the topic that has shown you to be an absolute coward, my prediction is that you'll continue to pretend you've not seen the question...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:58 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108&p=1005#p1005

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
And I guess we have a theory on your part that Oswald washed his face using his forearms, right?

I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that you're trying to explain away a negative NAA test on his cheek cast, while admitting that he was positive on his hands...

Did not escape my notice at all. As you know the test was pretty poor and gave false negatives and positives. Perhaps Oswald used a face cloth or towel or Kleenex.....perhaps there was more residue on his hands - after all he used his hands for the pistol. The only time his face was close to the gunpowder elements was when he fired the rifle.....there are a number of options here to explain why the lone assassin tested positive for hands and negative for face.

Tell us Patrick, how do you wash your cheeks without washing your hands?

Why would you proffer such a silly theory?

P.S. And continue your cowardice over the Railroad issue?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:44 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=1004#p1004

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:Yeah, it's same line. I got 183 pixel units for Chaney and 191 for Hargis - a 4.4% difference. It's on page 3.

That's a rough estimate, of course, so - to make Ben happy - we could build in an uncertainty of (say) ± 1 pixel unit. That would give us a difference in the 3.3% to 5.5% range.

I'm happy with the truth.

And you still aren't telling it, are you?

How can you measure what no longer exists?

Why do you claim you can?

The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:41 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=1003#p1003

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

And you did not mess up the Amazon forums Ben.......? You were consistently antagonistic, rude and downright personal to people you knew almost nothing about apart from their views on the JFK case......

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:40 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=1002#p1002

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Belin Admits That The Warren Commission Lied...

"P.S. Still running from the Railroad yard shot... what a coward you are!!!"

Haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Haven't had the inclination to dig it out either.

There were no shots from the front so for me whatever your question is or was, its irrelevant anyway.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:38 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108&p=1001#p1001

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

"I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that you're trying to explain away a negative NAA test on his cheek cast, while admitting that he was positive on his hands..."

Did not escape my notice at all. As you know the test was pretty poor and gave false negatives and positives. Perhaps Oswald used a face cloth or towel or Kleenex.....perhaps there was more residue on his hands - after all he used his hands for the pistol. The only time his face was close to the gunpowder elements was when he fired the rifle.....there are a number of options here to explain why the lone assassin tested positive for hands and negative for face.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:35 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=1000#p1000

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Patrick C wrote:Mark,

Did you calculate the width difference....?
Is that the same line in each case....? I am not at home and have no measure....

Yeah, it's same line. I got 183 pixel units for Chaney and 191 for Hargis - a 4.4% difference. It's on page 3.

That's a rough estimate, of course, so - to make Ben happy - we could build in an uncertainty of (say) ± 1 pixel unit. That would give us a difference in the 3.3% to 5.5% range.

I'm happy with the truth.

And you still aren't telling it, are you?

How can you measure what no longer exists?

Why do you claim you can?


The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:35 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=999#p999

Thursday, July 28, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:The first is the fact that Altgens shows him alongside the limo - and even you and Mark admit that he's larger in size than the other motorcycle cops, therefore MUST be closer to Altgens.

Yes, I agree Chaney is it would seem further forward but not by much - measure the wind shields.......they are almost the same.....

Sheer speculation.

You have no idea how much closer Chaney is to Altgens... you have no idea how far away ANY of these distances were.

You admit that the evidence supports Chaney being right where he's seen, yet desperately deny it.

P.S. Still demonstrating your cowardice over the Railroad shots issue...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:31 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=998#p998

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Patrick C wrote:Mark,

Did you calculate the width difference....?
Is that the same line in each case....? I am not at home and have no measure....

Yeah, it's same line. I got 183 pixel units for Chaney and 191 for Hargis - a 4.4% difference. It's on page 3.

That's a rough estimate, of course, so - to make Ben happy - we could build in an uncertainty of (say) ± 1 pixel unit. That would give us a difference in the 3.3% to 5.5% range.

I'm happy with the truth.

And you still aren't telling it, are you?

How can you measure what no longer exists?

Why do you claim you can?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:26 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=997#p997

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

Patrick C wrote:
Although I studied biochemistry I cannot say at this point if washing with soap and water would remove barium and antimony which the NAA picks up. Oswald had plenty of opportunity to wash his hands and face......anyway

A quick search on Google ......"you can wash your hands with soapy water and most of it will come off, .."

This seems to escape people's notice...Oswald could have washed his face....

What was the time between him leaving the Tippit scene and Brewer seeing him.....20 minutes at least......?

Maybe he used a washroom somewhere on the Bld......and no one saw him.....

And this explains why the Warren Commission evaded this issue... how???

Why do you continue to evade facts when posted?

You refuse to acknowledge them, and you refuse to refute them. So clearly, YOU KNOW that the Warren Commission lied by omission.

And I guess we have a theory on your part that Oswald washed his face using his forearms, right?

I'm sure it didn't escape your notice that you're trying to explain away a negative NAA test on his cheek cast, while admitting that he was positive on his hands...

P.S. Still showing your cowardice on the Railroad yard shots...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:20 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=996#p996

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Belin Admits That The Warren Commission Lied...

Patrick C wrote:
You are talking about this section right.....

(3) Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

It is poorly worded and guarded. I am not sure I would say it was a lie....

On what basis do you dispute what Belin stated?

He said that was published in one instance was "AN OUTRIGHT MISSTATEMENT OF FACT"

I have no problems with the English language... this is synonymous with the telling of a lie.

P.S. Still running from the Railroad yard shot... what a coward you are!!!

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:10 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108&p=995#p995

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Patrick C wrote:
Mark,

Did you calculate the width difference....?
Is that the same line in each case....? I am not at home and have no measure....


I got 183 pixel units for Chaney and 191 for Hargis - a 4.4% difference. It's on page 3.

That's a rough estimate, of course, so - to make Ben happy - we could build in an uncertainty of (say) ± 1 pixel unit. That would give us a difference in the 3.3% to 5.5% range.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:36 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=994#p994

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark,

Did you calculate the width difference....?
Is that the same line in each case....? I am not at home and have no measure....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:35 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=993#p993

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

According to Ben, you can't make meaningful measurements on JPEGs, but here's one anyway...

Image

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:06 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=992#p992

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Belin Admits That The Warren Commission Lied...

You are talking about this section right.....

(3) Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

It is poorly worded and guarded. I am not sure I would say it was a lie....

Kennedy could have been struck earlier and suffered a delayed reaction. Oswald could have got off 2 shots in two seconds using the iron sights.

However it is extremely unlikely.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:05 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108&p=991#p991

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...

Although I studied biochemistry I cannot say at this point if washing with soap and water would remove barium and antimony which the NAA picks up. Oswald had plenty of opportunity to wash his hands and face......anyway

A quick search on Google ......"you can wash your hands with soapy water and most of it will come off, .."

This seems to escape people's notice...Oswald could have washed his face....

What was the time between him leaving the Tippit scene and Brewer seeing him.....20 minutes at least......?

Maybe he used a washroom somewhere on the Bld......and no one saw him.....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:55 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=990#p990

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

"The first is the fact that Altgens shows him alongside the limo - and even you and Mark admit that he's larger in size than the other motorcycle cops, therefore MUST be closer to Altgens."

Yes, I agree Chaney is it would seem further forward but not by much - measure the wind shields.......they are almost the same.....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:38 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=989#p989

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Warren Commission Lies About NAA Testing...


...Conversely, a person who has recently fired a weapon may not show a positive reaction to the paraffin test, particularly if the weapon was a rifle. - WCR, pg 561

Unfortunately for the honesty of the Warren Commission, they decided to completely bury the NAA testing (which is far more sensitive than a diphenylamine test of the paraffin casting) conducted by Dr. Guinn... and reported to Gallagher (who was not questioned on NAA the test results, even though he'd been in charge of them!)

At the end of February 1964 Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the NAA Section of General Atomic Division, of the General Dynamics Corporation, called Gallagher about the research his division was undertaking for the Atomic Energy Commission. For the past few years, Guinn reported, he and his colleagues had been using NAA to test the powder residues from discharged firearms. He sought out Gallagher to report the results of their tests on a "rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald." The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, "leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts." Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army's World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue "on both cheeks" of the shooter." (Breach of Trust - Gerald McKnight, pg 211)

These comparison tests were in direct contradiction to the tests that the Warren Commission reported on by the FBI. It's a near certainty, however, that the Warren Commission was referring to spectrographic testing of paraffin casts by the FBI. The far more sensitive NAA tests always came back positive, according to Dr. Guinn. Because this was exculpatory, these results were buried by the WC, and indeed, they lied by omission.

THEY LIED BY OMISSION...


Gallagher was nearly the last witness called to testify, despite the fact that he'd been in charge of the NAA testing... as McKnight puts it:

If Gallagher could have testified that NAA testing disclosed that all this lead had exactly the same chemical composition, then the Commission would have had an airtight, scientifically rock-hard, incontestable case that the fatal bullet had been fired from Oswald's rifle. Had the Commission had the scientific proof to state this case with confidence, then Gallagher would have been one of its first witnesses rather than slipped in at the fag end of the investigation. (ibid. pg 210)

The Warren Commission lied... and they knew it. Anyone care to defend the Warren Commission's burying of direct testing data that was exculpatory, and their assertion of data instead that was favorable to their hypothesis?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:27 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=109&p=988#p988

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Belin Admits That The Warren Commission Lied...

Amusingly, even one of the Warren Commission staffers admitted that they'd lied in their report.

When the drafts of our final Report were presented for the Commissioners to review, their deference to Governor Connally was so great that they directed a revision in a major conclusion of the Commission that resulted in AN OUTRIGHT MISSTATEMENT OF FACT. This revision involved the single bullet theory; you will find it on page 19 of the Report, Conclusion No. 3. - David Belin, "You Are The Jury", pg 347

Belin recognized, as many do; that the SBT is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (Belin's words!) to the Warren Commission's theory. Without the SBT, conspiracy is PROVEN.

That the Warren Commission lied on much of the evidence is something I've shown time and time again - but here we have an actual Warren Commission Staff lawyer admitting that the Warren Commission KNOWINGLY published a lie.

So... who was lying?

David Belin?

Or the Warren Commission?

And can any WCR Supporter justify the lies told by the Warren Commission?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:17 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=108&p=987#p987

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.


you are wandering, son! Focus.... Case evidence!

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:06 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=986#p986

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.

This will be the only warning I give.

This forum will have posts that are evidence based...

Throwaway lines such as the above that mention no evidence, and cannot be tied to any particular statements will... in the future... simply be deleted.

This forum will not be turned into the nonsense that was found on the Amazon forums.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:02 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=985#p985

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Patrick C wrote:
If you measure the width of the motorcyle wind shields...there is very little in it.

Nigh on "proof" that Chaney would not be in the Z film... he is almost level with Bobby H.....a little forward as you say......

It's quite puzzling what you're claiming is almost "proof" that the Z-film would not show Chaney.

Indeed, there are two separate lines of evidence that show that the Z-film has been altered THAT ARE BASED ONLY ON JAMES CHANEY.

The first is the fact that Altgens shows him alongside the limo - and even you and Mark admit that he's larger in size than the other motorcycle cops, therefore MUST be closer to Altgens.

Yet despite that SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, you still wish to claim that he wasn't where he so clearly is.

The second is the evidential case that James Chaney rode forward to speak with Curry... which is ALSO not seen in the films.

Ironically, believers have asserted that James Chaney did ride forward... yet cannot point to any photographic or video evidence.

Once again Patrick refuses to answer the question about the Railroad yard shot...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:00 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=984#p984

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
If I told you what you could do with your straw men and red herrings, I'd be censored, so I won't. The question is poorly phrased, btw, as "lossy" relates to loss of information, not loss of pixels per se. And it's still breathtakingly dishonest of you to pretend that my arguments depend on pixel perfection. My images are more than accurate enough to bring my points across. What would you say if I demanded atomic clock precision from you? Give me Chaney's exact coordinates, or you lose.


Once again, you run from the question.

It would seem that you're willing to be honest about the lossy format of JPEG compression, yet unwilling to admit the logical fact that is drawn from that...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:49 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=983#p983

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Yes.

But the real question is how much.

I suspect that I'll eventually earn enough to pay the yearly cost of the domain name.

If you want to earn money with a forum, picking a narrow topic such as the JFK case isn't the way to do it.


So it's kind of like a public service?

Worried that you can't accuse me of financial gain?

This forum should be the dream of every WCR Supporter - after all - the constant complaint is that critics use insults & ad hominem to run from the evidence.

But this forum allows lurkers to read about the evidence where no-one can trash the site... (As, for example; Mogul Caste & others did to the Amazon forums, or John McAdams did (and bragged about) to the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum)

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:45 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=982#p982

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:17 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=981#p981

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

If you measure the width of the motorcyle wind shields...there is very little in it.

Nigh on "proof" that Chaney would not be in the Z film... he is almost level with Bobby H.....a little forward as you say......

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:11 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=980#p980

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Yes.

But the real question is how much.

I suspect that I'll eventually earn enough to pay the yearly cost of the domain name.

If you want to earn money with a forum, picking a narrow topic such as the JFK case isn't the way to do it.


So it's kind of like a public service?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:26 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=979#p979

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

If I told you what you could do with your straw men and red herrings, I'd be censored, so I won't. The question is poorly phrased, btw, as "lossy" relates to loss of information, not loss of pixels per se. And it's still breathtakingly dishonest of you to pretend that my arguments depend on pixel perfection. My images are more than accurate enough to bring my points across. What would you say if I demanded atomic clock precision from you? Give me Chaney's exact coordinates, or you lose.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:22 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=978#p978

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Yes.

But the real question is how much.

I suspect that I'll eventually earn enough to pay the yearly cost of the domain name.

If you want to earn money with a forum, picking a narrow topic such as the JFK case isn't the way to do it.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:57 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=977#p977

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:This is really a very simple issue.

Do photos LOSE pixels in JPEG compression?

If you're honest and state that the answer is yes, then you know that you cannot measure what is no longer there.

If you're dishonest, and claim that the answer is no, then there's nothing more that needs to be said.

It's interesting that you refuse to help Patrick out...

Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that Ben doesn't want to talk about Chaney anymore. Well, who can blame him? Let's take a final look at his two pet arguments before we lower them into the ground.

Naw... let's see your answer to the above question first.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:54 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=976#p976

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:47 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=975#p975

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that Ben doesn't want to talk about Chaney anymore. Well, who can blame him? Let's take a final look at his two pet arguments before we lower them into the ground.

1) Chaney is closer than Hargis to Altgens.

Yes, Ben, we actually agree with you on that one, but that still doesn't put him alongside JFK:

Image
(Click to enlarge)

2) Ben (and everyone he asks) think Chaney is right up there with JFK in the Altgens photo.

Well, just by eyeballing the photo, it's easy to underestimate the distances involved. Who would think, for example, that the distance from the tip of Chaney's shadow (marked X below) to the curb in the background (B) roughly equals the width of the road?

Image

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:20 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=974#p974

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Mark...

This is really a very simple issue.

Do photos LOSE pixels in JPEG compression?

If you're honest and state that the answer is yes, then you know that you cannot measure what is no longer there.

If you're dishonest, and claim that the answer is no, then there's nothing more that needs to be said.

It's interesting that you refuse to help Patrick out...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:04 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=973#p973

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Real Questions That WCR Supporters Run From...

Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.


How about this?

Ben Holmes wrote:
You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Interestingly, you refuse to point out that I'm referring to the ACCURACY of pixel counts... here's my very first quote on the topic:

It would probably be meaningless to explain to you why jpegs are not something useful to derive precise pixel measurements. You'd only squirm some more...

And it would be senseless of me to quote the many times I've stated that you can COUNT the pixels, that they simply don't mean anything.

In a lossy compression format such as JPEG - the original total of pixels simply aren't there anymore

(And yes, I'm well aware that you could mistake the meaning of that statement too if you wanted...)

You're intentionally lying about what I've said, and you know that you are.

That makes you a very dishonest person, doesn't it?

But arguing a strawman is better than addressing the real questions that WCR Supporters run from... as listed in the original post in this thread.

Patrick does the same thing...


It's typically dishonest of you to pretend that it's completely meaningless to measure distances in JPEGs. Just to set you straight, I did the same measurements in a PNG and a 20% JPEG. Notice that, despite fuzzier edges and colors, the distances between the centres of the objects remain the same.

Image

Let me remind you that pixels, in this context, is simply a convenient measurement unit. I could also have chosen millimetres. Or measured the distances on a printout with an old-fashioned ruler.

Image

The figure 25% seems to scare you for some reason, since you're obviously willing to say anything to make it go away, but this is not the right way to do it. I didn't claim the figure was more than a rough estimate, and my argument doesn't depend on whether the true value is 23%, 25% or 27%. I didn't say it was 25.0000%.

This will be my last word in the JPEG "debate".

Ben Holmes wrote:
Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!


And yet, it was quite clear that it took you more than a post to catch up... you clearly didn't bother reading my first cite on the topic.

Mark Ulrik wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...


No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.


Still no quotes from me saying what you claim...

Do you really think that such dishonesty will convince anyone, Mark? Why can't you point out anyplace where I "complained" about people compressing their images?

The vast majority of the images I upload are very tightly compressed. But then, I'm not dumb enough to try to count pixels on compressed lossy photos, and make an argument based on it.

You've been schooled.

Now, care to pick out another question to answer? Or are you, like Patrick; too "busy" to give credible explanations for the evidence?

Or perhaps you could help Patrick out, and tell us what would differentiate the Grassy Knoll from the Railroad yard as a location for a shot heard from the entrance to the TSBD.


It's been a while since I looked at McAdams' tabulation. Does it differentiate between GK and RY witnesses?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:36 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=972#p972

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Chief Warren Didn't Want An Investigation!

Patrick C wrote:
Wow, I have not been called a liar.....

I reserve labeling someone a liar when they actually post a lie. Did you post something you knew to be a lie, and I missed it?
Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:As is normal with WCR Supporters, you didn't really address the point that was being made, so I'll make it again:
The following facts fit far better with the intention of doing a cover-up...

For at the first meeting of the Warren Commission, here's some of Chief Warren's statements:

He did not want the Commission to employ any of their own investigators.
He did not want the Commission to gather evidence. Instead he wished for them to rely on reports made by other agencies like the FBI and Secret Service.
He did not want their hearings to be public. He did not want to employ the power of subpoena.
Incredibly, he did not even want to call any witnesses. He wanted to rely on interviews done by other agencies.
He then made a very curious comment, "Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.

I know that not a SINGLE believer will step up and defend these facts as the beginnings of a real investigation...

Note that Patrick failed to do what I said no believer will... Patrick cannot defend these actions & statements as the beginning of a real investigation. The Warren Commission was a political operation designed to quash any notion of a conspiracy... and they failed to succeed in doing so...

There were yes I am sure political elements (the avoidance of the Castro plots by the CIA for example), but according to the likes of David Belin, they were absolutely urged to seek out a conspiracy.....problem is they did not fine one....

You've continued to refuse to address the fact that they demonstrated, right from the beginning, that they didn't want to actually do an investigation...
Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:The HSCA admitted to a probable conspiracy, and pointed out a number of flaws in the Warren Commission's handling of the case ... but the HSCA simply doesn't exist to the WCR Supporters...

Yes of course it does and I for one refer to it far more that the WC, but the HSCA concluded Oswald acted alone UNTIL the dictabelt evidence arrived......which IMO has been debunked completely. Blakey of course maintained the "Mob did it", but he never really showed anything but his hunches on that.....

Fonzi came out of it thinking a conspiracy existed and Lopez, but show me the "evidence" from HSCA that indicates a conspiracy....?

Why would you ask me to show you what the HSCA classified?

P.S. Still running from telling everyone how you would differentiate a shot heard from the Railroad yards from a shot heard from the Grassy Knoll.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:37 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=106&p=971#p971

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

Patrick C wrote:
I think you are taking this rather too seriously Garry. You are being tedious.

It really does not matter what we call the theory about the non fatal wounds and whether I call it the SBT or SBF matters not one jot frankly.

It is not a question of shame - that is just SILLY! Yes I am a person of integrity and yes I have had a very privileged education and yes you are being sadly trivial and pedantic.

Perhaps this is why you're labeled a liar so often, Patrick...

Words don't matter to you as much as they do to other people.

Still a coward over the issue of how to differentiate a shot from the Railroad yards from a shot from the Grassy Knoll.

Can you offer a reason other than cowardice for refusing to answer?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:19 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=970#p970

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Chief Warren Didn't Want An Investigation!

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick:

pg16: Harold Weisberg's WHITEWASH III Supressed Kennedy Assassination Photographs:
quote
Worse, most of the available pictures were deliberately refused and are not in evidence at all, as I shall document from the Commission's own files.
In not a single case were the pictures taken by any of the photgraphers properly qualified in evidence. In not one single case was the person who took the pictures on the witness stand to qualify them when they were placed in evidence. Moorman, Willis and Zaprudernever testified before any member of the Commission, andnone was interogated by any member of the staff until a month after the Commission had planned to finish its work. All were questioned in a whirlwind day of deposition-taking by Leibler, in Dallas July 23rd 1964. together with a member of other witnesses, questioned on other subjects. In not a single case did Leibler want the original picture or negative from which it was printed. In not a single case did he ask for the production of the camera or its description or that of the lens...
quote off
to be continued, Patrick

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:27 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=106&p=969#p969

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Chief Warren Didn't Want An Investigation!

Wow, I have not been called a liar.....

"The Warren Commission was a political operation designed to quash any notion of a conspiracy... and they failed to succeed in doing so..."

There were yes I am sure political elements (the avoidance of the Castro plots by the CIA for example), but according to the likes of David Belin, they were absolutely urged to seek out a conspiracy.....problem is they did not fine one....

"The HSCA admitted to a probable conspiracy, and pointed out a number of flaws in the Warren Commission's handling of the case ... but the HSCA simply doesn't exist to the WCR Supporters..."

Yes of course it does and I for one refer to it far more that the WC, but the HSCA concluded Oswald acted alone UNTIL the dictabelt evidence arrived......which IMO has been debunked completely. Blakey of course maintained the "Mob did it", but he never really showed anything but his hunches on that.....

Fonzi came out of it thinking a conspiracy existed and Lopez, but show me the "evidence" from HSCA that indicates a conspiracy....?

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:59 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=106&p=968#p968

Off Topic Forum • Re: Forum Software...

Yes I agree, it is not the easiest of forum formats.......and I work in I.T between my stints with the boys at CIA of course.....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:47 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&p=967#p967

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

I think you are taking this rather too seriously Garry. You are being tedious.

It really does not matter what we call the theory about the non fatal wounds and whether I call it the SBT or SBF matters not one jot frankly.

It is not a question of shame - that is just SILLY! Yes I am a person of integrity and yes I have had a very privileged education and yes you are being sadly trivial and pedantic.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:39 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=966#p966

Monday, July 25, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

Patrick C wrote:
Garry Puffer wrote:Please, Patrick, the Single Bullet Fact? I have you admitting that the SBT cannot be proved, yet you insist on using "fact". Have you no shame at all?


Please Garry, stop being so pedantic and tedious. It's just a play on words....IMO the SBT stands head and shoulders above the other theories for the non fatal wounds. Of course it cannot be proved but I refer to it as the SBF because I think it happened that way.

And it clearly winds you guys up which is amusing.


So it is "pedantic and tedious" to insist that words be used correctly? This is what the fine education you constantly throw in our faces tells you is okay? Cambridge teaches this?

A "fact" is something that is true, not something you think is true. If you are this cavalier with your use of words, just imagine how cavalier is your analysis.

The answer to my question "Have you no shame?" is clearly "NO."

And that one of your purposes is to "wind us up" is quite sad, innit?

pufflogo2.gif
pufflogo2.gif (12.61 KiB) Not viewed yet

Statistics: Posted by Garry Puffer — Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:56 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=965#p965

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

Another day, and Patrick is still showing incredible cowardice by ABSOLUTELY REFUSING to explain how one would differentiate the location of a rifle shot.

It's truly funny when WCR Supporters run from simple questions...

Patrick knows that if one were at the entry to the TSBD, and stated that they heard shots from the Railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD - that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to differentiate that statement from an assertion that they heard the shots coming from the Grassy Knoll.

But rather than face that FACT - Patrick illustrates his extreme cowardice by running, day after day, from saying that...

And although he refuses to publicly defend the McAdams earwitness tabulation - he clearly knows it's wrong... and Patrick doesn't have the honesty to confront that fact.

For unlike Patrick's "facts" - these are real ones.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:47 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=964#p964

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

Busy Patrick had nothing to do on a Monday morning, so he returned after a 20 minute hissy fit and said, "IMO the SBT stands head and shoulders above the other theories for the non fatal wounds. Of course it cannot be proved but I refer to it as the SBF because I think it happened that way."

Then why don't you ask Ben to change this forums's name to "What Patrick C thinks.com"?

Patrick further theorized: "And it clearly winds you guys up which is amusing."

Right, Patrick.... I'm sure we'll all be thinking about your words of wisdom for months.

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:02 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=963#p963

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

"The number of posts you make belies your statement. No one makes 200+ posts in a short period of time if he is not deep in the case."

About 2 to three hours per week......I hardly think that qualifies as being deep into the case.....!

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:57 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=962#p962

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

"Please, Patrick, the Single Bullet Fact? I have you admitting that the SBT cannot be proved, yet you insist on using "fact". Have you no shame at all?"

Please Garry, stop being so pedantic and tedious. It's just a play on words....IMO the SBT stands head and shoulders above the other theories for the non fatal wounds. Of course it cannot be proved but I refer to it as the SBF because I think it happened that way.

And it clearly winds you guys up which is amusing.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:55 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=961#p961

Sunday, July 24, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

Patrick C wrote:
Garry Puffer wrote:Apologies, Patrick. That statement is much less hilarious, although Ben's reply to my previous post makes your statement kind of impossible.

It is amusing that you LNers constantly accuse critics of just making stuff up, and then you do the same thing yourself. In other words, you might have read this somewhere and simply taken it for true rather than checking. Now at this late date you claim to not even remember where you picked up these nuggets. A few minutes searching the internet would be advisable before making such assertions. You have time enough to make all these posts, so you have time enough to do a little searching.


Yes and no Garry, not everything that has been said about the assassination by key people has been recorded on the web.

Remember I spent a lot of time in Dallas in the 80s. It is entirely possible I heard that Zapruder did acknowledge that he stopped filming from some one like Mary Ferrell - for example. I know Larry Harris has been in touch with Zapruder's daughter - it is possible that she had said something.

Anyway, the FACT is of course that he DID stop filming. Plain and simple.

So where is the first frame flash that all experts state must be there?

Garry Puffer wrote:
The question now is, will you admit you were wrong about both things, or will you attempt to get out of it somehow?


Oh absolutely I could be mistaken, but the comment was made in good faith. Again, this is not a book, nor a court of law, its an internet blog effectively.

Unlike you Garry - perhaps, I am no longer deep into this case. I was - very much so and probably did a lot more work and local research in Dallas and New Orleans than anyone on this forum, but these days, no it's a 50+ year old murder case that should have been put to bed in 1964.

The number of posts you make belies your statement. No one makes 200+ posts in a short period of time if he is not deep in the case.

And I checked with Mike Majerus and he said he did not have any direct quote from Zapruder stating he stopped filming, so Mike could not back me up either.

Put the shoe on your foot, Patrick, and imagine I had cited a statement but had nothing to back up the truth of the statement. Would you accept it? So you heard something a long time ago that you cannot verify, well, wouldn't it be better not to use that particular statement? How can you even be sure that what you heard is true if you can find no corroboration for it?

It is apparent also that more recent analysis with technology not available to the original investigators has confirmed that the shots were doable - probably over 8+ seconds if three shots and the SB Fact emerges as 100% realistic. Myers debunked the "acoustics evidence" almost beyond doubt.


Please, Patrick, the Single Bullet Fact? I have you admitting that the SBT cannot be proved, yet you insist on using "fact". Have you no shame at all?

pufflogo2.gif
pufflogo2.gif (12.61 KiB) Viewed 1 time

Statistics: Posted by Garry Puffer — Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:33 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=960#p960

Off Topic Forum • Forum Software...

I'm growing increasingly dissatisfied with the difficulty of locating particular posts... and I know that the issue is only going to get worse... This forum's searching ability isn't up to par - and the JFK case is a place where you want to locate other posts... right?

The administration side of this software, PhpBB - also leaves alot to be desired... although that's something that users don't see...

So I've been examining other forum software, and will likely be moving this forum to a new one within the next week or two. No posts will disappear... but if you come to the site one day - and see it looking entirely different - just be take it in stride.

The new forum has very easy and powerful posting - and I think everyone will like the change...

Stay tuned!

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:15 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&p=959#p959

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Did The Limo Stop?

Patrick C wrote:
Patrick C wrote:An opinion that isn't very credible, judging by your previous proven lying on the topic of this case.

Once again you call me I liar. This is getting to become a daily accusation and ill founded. It is thuggish, rather ignorant behaviour on your part Holmes. Not really my cup of tea - and that is being polite.

So I think for the time being at least, enjoy your forum and enjoy the self indulgent back patting with your fellow crackpots. I might check in once in a while for a laugh and I might make a post with the other guys.... But anyway I expect the number of posts will now deservedly drop somewhat!

Not unexpected...

Most WCR Supporters will never enter this forum. John McAdams, for example; learned long ago that he cannot debate me in a forum he doesn't control. David Von Pein has made it clear he'll never post here... I'm sure Henry has dropped in, but knows better than to try to debate in a forum where there's no personal attacks allowed.

This is a frequent tactic of WCR Supporters... when the going gets rough, they simply disappear.

Quite frankly, I think they're doing the only possible thing they can do... and I don't blame 'em at all...

But if the evidence were in their favor, this wouldn't be a useful tactic.

All you're doing, Patrick; is proving that there's no honest way to defend the Warren Commission's theory - using the EVIDENCE in this case...

And I'm happy with that.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:59 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=102&p=958#p958

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Henry Sienzant Steps In It Again...

Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:On what basis do you differentiate a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?

What on earth are you talking about? I have not mentioned the railyard as a source of a shot!

Nor did I.

I asked you on what basis do you DIFFERENTIATE a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?

My wording was quite precise, and implied no such assertion ... I NEVER stated or implied that YOU had mentioned the railyard as a source of the shot.

But, coward that you are, you're simply using every single means at your disposal to avoid answering the question.

You've evaded several times now, and there's nothing one can say other than that your cowardice is stopping you from answering...

I rather suspect that you're smart enough to know that the moment you give the only possible answer to the question, you will have demolished your own implied claims (even if you aren't quite sure where I'm headed with this.)
Patrick C wrote:
Ben Holmes wrote:How many more times need the question be asked before you gather up enough courage to answer it?

"Courage" what has courage got to do with ! You think an amateur blog on the web is a measure of a person's courage Ben? [ad hominem deleted]

Yep... you're a coward, Patrick.

I've repeatedly asked the same question, and you've repeatedly evaded answering. Can you name any other reason for refusing to answer other than cowardice?

Did you fail to understand the question?

Was I not clear enough?

Then allow me to make it even MORE clear.

Imagine standing at the entrance to the TSBD... imagine that you heard shots, and you stated that it was your impression that they came from the direction of the railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD building. I'm asking you if there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that you could differentiate the railroad yards from the Grassy Knoll.

Now, your cowardice is such that I really don't expect an answer - but I remain hopeful, so I'll give you the opportunity for yet another chance to prove your character...
Patrick C wrote:
The fact is Ben that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from the rear. Period. There is NO disputing that.

Then why are you refusing to answer the question that bears on that issue?

I actually already know the answer... you refuse to answer because while you might not see the exact point I'm about to make, you suspect it has to do with the earwitnesses that you refuse to debate.
Patrick C wrote:
There were a significant number of people who thought ALL the shots came from the front - but we know they were mistaken because we KNOW 2 shots came from the rear.

Nope... we don't "know" that. Indeed, the HSCA found that shots had come from the Grassy Knoll, and didn't rule out even more locations.
Patrick C wrote:
If you want to delude yourself - that is your prerogative - the problem is it is no foundation for a meaningful debate - because you are just making stuff up.

YOU'RE LYING AGAIN, Patrick... I defy you to produce something that I've just 'made up'.

I don't think you've quite thought it through... you don't want to be called a liar, yet you keep making statements THAT YOU CANNOT SUPPORT.
Patrick C wrote:
In any case the witness testimony is not the best evidence as we all know. The medical reports shows two shots from the rear and that is the best evidence.

The medical reports show a shot from the front - and totally undisputed by the autopsy, which never even knew about that bullet wound in the throat.

I'm fully aware that you despise the eyewitness reports, you cannot even name a SINGLE eyewitness whom you accept in all their 1963-64 statements & testimony...

That fact reveals it all... :D

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:50 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104&p=957#p957

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Chief Warren Didn't Want An Investigation!

Patrick C wrote:
Chief Warren wrote:Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.

Yep, that is a very strange statement. I doubt however it is rooted in the notion that a conspiracy could have occurred, rather more the political atmosphere of the time.

Belin , in both his books and Specter in his, are adamant they were given the latitude to seek out a conspiracy. Belin was emphatic about that and he set out to find one. Except he could not find one.

As is normal with WCR Supporters, you didn't really address the point that was being made, so I'll make it again:
The following facts fit far better with the intention of doing a cover-up...

For at the first meeting of the Warren Commission, here's some of Chief Warren's statements:

  1. He did not want the Commission to employ any of their own investigators.
  2. He did not want the Commission to gather evidence. Instead he wished for them to rely on reports made by other agencies like the FBI and Secret Service.
  3. He did not want their hearings to be public. He did not want to employ the power of subpoena.
  4. Incredibly, he did not even want to call any witnesses. He wanted to rely on interviews done by other agencies.
  5. He then made a very curious comment, "Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.

I know that not a SINGLE believer will step up and defend these facts as the beginnings of a real investigation...

Note that Patrick failed to do what I said no believer will... Patrick cannot defend these actions & statements as the beginning of a real investigation. The Warren Commission was a political operation designed to quash any notion of a conspiracy... and they failed to succeed in doing so...

The HSCA admitted to a probable conspiracy, and pointed out a number of flaws in the Warren Commission's handling of the case ... but the HSCA simply doesn't exist to the WCR Supporters...

If it doesn't prove the WCR's theory - Lone Nutters don't want to hear it...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:30 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=106&p=956#p956

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

Patrick C wrote:
Garry Puffer wrote:Apologies, Patrick. That statement is much less hilarious, although Ben's reply to my previous post makes your statement kind of impossible.

It is amusing that you LNers constantly accuse critics of just making stuff up, and then you do the same thing yourself. In other words, you might have read this somewhere and simply taken it for true rather than checking. Now at this late date you claim to not even remember where you picked up these nuggets. A few minutes searching the internet would be advisable before making such assertions. You have time enough to make all these posts, so you have time enough to do a little searching.

Yes and no Garry, not everything that has been said about the assassination by key people has been recorded on the web.

Remember I spent a lot of time in Dallas in the 80s. It is entirely possible I heard that Zapruder did acknowledge that he stopped filming from some one like Mary Ferrell - for example. I know Larry Harris has been in touch with Zapruder's daughter - it is possible that she had said something.

You're lying again - and since Zapruder's initial testimony CONTRADICTING any such yarn has been posted here, you KNOW that you're lying.

Tell us Patrick - if your case is so strong, why do you need to rely on lies about the evidence in this case?

You KNOW what Zapruder testified to... yet you're willing to pretend that you have an "opinion" that contradicts it.
Patrick C wrote:
Anyway, the FACT is of course that he DID stop filming. Plain and simple.

Once again, you're substituting your opinion for fact. You KNOW the evidence that contradicts this - and refuse to address it.

Why the cowardice, Patrick?

Do you really suppose that it's fair to argue for a "fact" that's contradicted by the very evidence you absolutely REFUSE to address?
Patrick C wrote:
Garry Puffer wrote:The question now is, will you admit you were wrong about both things, or will you attempt to get out of it somehow?

Oh absolutely I could be mistaken, but the comment was made in good faith. Again, this is not a book, nor a court of law, its an internet blog effectively.

You already know by now that you cannot cite for your claim. "Mistaken" isn't the right word at this point... this means that you KNOW you're lying.

You've admitted that you have NO SOURCE YOU CAN CITE for this claim, yet you continue to double down on it.

I'm quite surprised that you complain about being called a liar, then go right ahead and continue doing so...
Patrick C wrote:
Unlike you Garry - perhaps, I am no longer deep into this case. I was - very much so and probably did a lot more work and local research in Dallas and New Orleans than anyone on this forum, but these days, no it's a 50+ year old murder case that should have been put to bed in 1964.

And I checked with Mike Majerus and he said he did not have any direct quote from Zapruder stating he stopped filming, so Mike could not back me up either.

It is apparent also that more recent analysis with technology not available to the original investigators has confirmed that the shots were doable - probably over 8+ seconds if three shots and the SB Fact emerges as 100% realistic. Myers debunked the "acoustics evidence" almost beyond doubt.

More 'opinion' - and not a citation in sight...

Nor the retraction that an honest person would proffer...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:21 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=955#p955

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Patrick C wrote:
Yes, the figures are encouraging. Just a shame there aren't a couple more pro lone gunman supporters around too give you all more of a run for your money.....like Henry!

The reason that there aren't any more believers has nothing to do with this forum.

They are quite rightfully afraid of trying to defend the Warren Commission in a forum where there are knowledgeable critics, and who's rules do not allow the nonsense that covers up their lies & cowardice.

As you are discovering, Patrick.

Believers are more than welcome in this forum - but there's only one credible reason why they aren't here...

And it has nothing to do with ad hominem, does it Patrick?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:10 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=954#p954

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Did The Limo Stop?

"An opinion that isn't very credible, judging by your previous proven lying on the topic of this case."

Once again you call me I liar. This is getting to become a daily accusation and ill founded. It is thuggish, rather ignorant behaviour on your part Holmes. Not really my cup of tea - and that is being polite.

So I think for the time being at least, enjoy your forum and enjoy the self indulgent back patting with your fellow crackpots. I might check in once in a while for a laugh. But anyway I expect the number of posts will now deservedly drop somewhat!

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:53 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=102&p=953#p953

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Did The Limo Stop?

Neither the Nix film nor the Zapruder film show the limo stop.

The majority of witnesses who commented on this specific point said the limo slowed right down.

If it did stop, as you seem to think, we would be looking at say 2 seconds or some 36 Z frames....missing!

This would be entirely obvious and would mean other people in the film would suddenly jump positions. This is not evident.

It is categorically a ridiculous theory and in it is the even more ridiculous notion that it was deliberate because elements of the Secret Service were in on a plot. A notion that extends the degree of stupidity regarding conspiracy theories in this case to Himalayan proportions.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:45 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=102&p=952#p952

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Henry Sienzant Steps In It Again...

"On what basis do you differentiate a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?"

What on earth are you talking about? I have not mentioned the railyard as a source of a shot!

"How many more times need the question be asked before you gather up enough courage to answer it?"

"Courage" what has courage got to do with ! You think an amateur blog on the web is a measure of a person's courage Ben? Then you are a fool if you do.

The fact is Ben that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from the rear. Period. There is NO disputing that.

There were a significant number of people who thought ALL the shots came from the front - but we know they were mistaken because we KNOW 2 shots came from the rear.

If you want to delude yourself - that is your prerogative - the problem is it is no foundation for a meaningful debate - because you are just making stuff up.

In any case the witness testimony is not the best evidence as we all know. The medical reports shows two shots from the rear and that is the best evidence.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:31 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104&p=951#p951

Off Topic Forum • Re: The Forum...

Yes, the figures are encouraging. Just a shame there aren't a couple more pro lone gunman supporters around too give you all more of a run for your money.....like Henry!

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:26 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=950#p950

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: Chief Warren Didn't Want An Investigation!

"Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation."

Yep, that is a very strange statement. I doubt however it is rooted in the notion that a conspiracy could have occurred, rather more the political atmosphere of the time.

Belin , in both his books and Specter in his, are adamant they were given the latitude to seek out a conspiracy. Belin was emphatic about that and he set out to find one. Except he could not find one.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:24 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=106&p=949#p949

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

"Apologies, Patrick. That statement is much less hilarious, although Ben's reply to my previous post makes your statement kind of impossible.

It is amusing that you LNers constantly accuse critics of just making stuff up, and then you do the same thing yourself. In other words, you might have read this somewhere and simply taken it for true rather than checking. Now at this late date you claim to not even remember where you picked up these nuggets. A few minutes searching the internet would be advisable before making such assertions. You have time enough to make all these posts, so you have time enough to do a little searching."

Yes and no Garry, not everything that has been said about the assassination by key people has been recorded on the web.

Remember I spent a lot of time in Dallas in the 80s. It is entirely possible I heard that Zapruder did acknowledge that he stopped filming from some one like Mary Ferrell - for example. I know Larry Harris has been in touch with Zapruder's daughter - it is possible that she had said something.

Anyway, the FACT is of course that he DID stop filming. Plain and simple.

"The question now is, will you admit you were wrong about both things, or will you attempt to get out of it somehow?"

Oh absolutely I could be mistaken, but the comment was made in good faith. Again, this is not a book, nor a court of law, its an internet blog effectively.

Unlike you Garry - perhaps, I am no longer deep into this case. I was - very much so and probably did a lot more work and local research in Dallas and New Orleans than anyone on this forum, but these days, no it's a 50+ year old murder case that should have been put to bed in 1964.

And I checked with Mike Majerus and he said he did not have any direct quote from Zapruder stating he stopped filming, so Mike could not back me up either.

It is apparent also that more recent analysis with technology not available to the original investigators has confirmed that the shots were doable - probably over 8+ seconds if three shots and the SB Fact emerges as 100% realistic. Myers debunked the "acoustics evidence" almost beyond doubt.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:21 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=948#p948

Saturday, July 23, 2016

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids

I misunderstood Patrick's comment about the winding mechanism, because I missed the post where he wrote this:

"He may have said he was worried about running out of "power" from the winding mechanism.....I will check with Mike Majerus."

Apologies, Patrick. That statement is much less hilarious, although Ben's reply to my previous post makes your statement kind of impossible.

It is amusing that you LNers constantly accuse critics of just making stuff up, and then you do the same thing yourself. In other words, you might have read this somewhere and simply taken it for true rather than checking. Now at this late date you claim to not even remember where you picked up these nuggets. A few minutes searching the internet would be advisable before making such assertions. You have time enough to make all these posts, so you have time enough to do a little searching.

The question now is, will you admit you were wrong about both things, or will you attempt to get out of it somehow?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, they claimed they told me it was about 2 frames fast--instead of 16 it was 18 frames and they told me it was about 2 frames fast in the speed and they told me that the time between the 2 rapid shots, as I understand, that was determined--the length of time it took to the second one and that they were very fast and they claim it has proven it could be done by 1 man. You know there was indication there were two?
Mr. LIEBELER - Your films were extremely helpful to the work of the Commission, Mr. Zapruder.

pufflogo2.gif
pufflogo2.gif (12.61 KiB) Viewed 3 times

Statistics: Posted by Garry Puffer — Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:08 am




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=947#p947

JFK Conspiracy Main Forum • Re: LN Factoids


Well that is not going to happen as I simply don't care to spend that time researching for you - and your co fairy tale believes , but I am NOT a liar Mr Mitcham. I suggest you take up some English comprehension classes - it is never too late to learn.


Holmes sated [sic]I could not essentially cite for that and I said I would check with Mike Majerus who I think will know. I also stated I could be mistaken.


It seems it is your comprehension which is lacking, Mr C. Nowhere did I say you were a liar. My actual words were "If you don't wish to be called a liar, then stop posting factoids."

It is normally only good manners for a poster who is corrected on an incorrect statement (or factoid as your hero calls them) to apologise, or admit he was wrong. It seems that you don't have the cajones to do either.

In this case, you stated as a fact, that ""Zapruder said he stopped filming". Nowhere is Zapruder on record of saying anything of the sort. When this was pointed out to you, you immediately changed tack and wrote "He may have said he was worried about running out of "power" from the winding mechanism.....I will check with Mike Majors." :D


That is NOT lie. It would seem however to be ignorance on your part Ray. But then again I suppose I do have the advantage of a very fine education which helps me engage in debate in a sensible manner in my first language - English."


Bully for you. It seems, however, that your very fine education didn't stretch to correct punctuation.

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:59 pm




from ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=946#p946