Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Patrick C Wrote:Clearly as Zapruder and his partner Irwin Schwartz had the film in their possession to the point when the first 3 copies were made - this RULES out any possible opportunity to change the film.

A hidden presumption exists here... although it's not really all that hidden.



Patrick is presuming that the copies are still authentic copies of the original film, instead of redone copies of the altered film.



Patrick is almost certainly aware of the evidence that the copies weren't original, but he says nothing.



So the nonsense that the film couldn't be altered due to this silly reasoning shows itself to be nonsense.



Of course, since Patrick accepts that there's evidence for alteration - statements like something 'RULING' out alteration is just silly as well.

Patrick C Wrote:And also note that the Nix film matches perfectly the Zapruder film where the capture the same time line.

Actually, I don't accept that at all. Nor is anyone in the position where they need to accept such a theory, because the Nix film was controlled by the government as well. Nor do we have the original Nix film.

Patrick C Wrote:And it goes without saying that altering the Zapruder film RISKING the chance that another film could have been taken on that day - which would then SHOW that the Z film had been altered would draw massive attention to the problem and put any conspirators under the spot light.

Had the film been released right away for public viewing, such an idea might actually hold water. But Patrick knows very well that the film was tightly controlled for a decade... during which time any other films that might have contradicted it would have had time to surface.



Surely Patrick is intelligent enough to recognize these flaws in his arguments... so why does he post them?



Could it be that he has nothing better?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Zapruder-Film-Invites-Misrepresentation

Henry Sienzant Wrote:I already exposed in previous posts how Mark Lane took advantage of his readership by denying them the full context of many issues he raised. Rather than repeat all those here (you can find them easily enough), I'll ask you to defend this one sentence here, "It is the right to have facts, not hopes or thoughts or wishes or prejudicial opinions, presented", by telling us one fact you believe Mark Lane presented honestly in his book, RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Just tell us one claim pointing to conspiracy that Lane presented honestly, and be willing to defend it. (Original post found here.)

That's strange!?



I've twice posted nearly the entire book, 'Rush To Judgment' - in small paragraph chunks, over 400 posts in total - and the responses I received dealt with 2 or 3 of them.



Indicating that believers are unable to even phrase an argument about the vast majority of 'Rush to Judgment'... yet the frequent claims, as above; are that believers can easily answer Mark Lane, and can easily point to "dishonesty" in his book.



Why are believers afraid to actually do what they claim they can do?

Henry Sienzant Wrote:I can provide solid evidence for the person I understand all the evidence points to as the mastermind of the assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald. I can show you his weapon. I can show you his order for the weapon. I can show you how he paid for the weapon. I can show you how he possessed the weapon. I can show you how his weapon was determined to be missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage shortly after the assassination. I can show you how numerous eyewitnesses outside the building saw a shooter or weapon on one of the upper floors of the Depository during the assassination. I can show you how his weapon was discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository shortly after the assassination. I can show you how the ballistics evidence implicates his weapon in the assassination - how three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet found at Parkland implicate Oswald directly in the assassination. (Original post found here.)

Of course, when challenged to provide this very evidence, believers run.



Nothing they can provide would stand up in court against critical attack.



As just one example, the Money Order allegedly used to pay for the rifle had NO BANK ENDORSEMENTS WHATSOEVER... and thus never traveled through the banking system.



I would enjoy it if someone were to dare try to post the evidence that they think indicts a sole shooter in this case, or that they think indicts Oswald.



The contrary evidence is unexplained.



Indeed, the fact that the NAA testing of his cheek cast exonerates Oswald has never been explained, only denied.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Where-s-The-Beef

That there are many evidential points that are simply unexplainable by those who believe the Warren Commission is indisputable.



My favorite one is James Chaney - whom believers admit the evidence that he went forward of the limo and spoke with Chief Curry - yet are forced by the evidence to put this episode in a completely unbelievable context.



The scenario, as described by the witnesses, is that the Presidential limo slowed dramatically, and even came to a brief stop, during which James Chaney shot forward, and told Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. At that time, AND BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, Chief Curry ordered two things - that the convoy immediately take off for the Hospital, and a search be conducted of the area he believed the shots had come from.



Believers will admit that the Presidential limo was traveling 30-40 mph as it went under the Triple Overpass... they will admit that the evidence shows that the lead vehicle containing Chief Curry WAS NEVER COMPLETELY PASSED by the Presidential limo - then they will explain that Chaney spoke with Curry at a point when the vehicles were exceeding 40 mph. Anyone who's ever ridden a motorcycle immediately realizes the silliness of this claim.



No-one disputes that the shooting of JFK happened at 12:30... the same time to the minute, that Chaney had his conversation with Chief Curry - and Curry issued his radio orders.



Yet if you base the facts ONLY on the photographic evidence, Chaney never spoke with Curry... the only possible time he could have done so was in excess of 40 mph - which is simply not credible.



Other items that simply have no explanation from believers:

Things Believers believe...

It's interesting to see other areas where the shady debate tactics frequently seen in the JFK case are also used.



Really, I suppose any highly controversial area is going to have this problem - but in the Evolution vs Intelligent Design arguments, you can see the same misrepresentations, cherry-picking, cowardice, and outright lying that is so prevalent in the JFK case.



Rather interesting, that.



Since it demonstrates the same sort of faith-based debate that we find in this forum... much of the defense of Evolution isn't based on evidence, but based on misrepresentation and ad hominem attacks.



Interestingly, one of the early posters on the JFK case... Michael Griffith, has also written against Evolution.



There are similarities beyond debate tactics... faith in the Warren Commission is mirrored by faith in Darwinian Evolution, both are subjects that are beyond dispute, in the eyes of supporters.



In both topics, believers in the Warren Commission, and believers in Evolution: proclaim critics of their faith to be ignorant or stupid...



Come to think of it, Climate Change is another controversial topic where the faithful misrepresent and lie to defend their faith...



The point is really a simple one... when you don't have the facts & truth on your side, you will literally do anything, no matter how despicable, to maintain your faith.



And if you find yourself lying to support your "side"... perhaps you're on the wrong side...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Debate-Tactics-In-Evolution

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:

Quote: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 as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.



More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.



Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

---

This is an EXTREMELY common tactic that WCR Supporter's use... they simply twist and lie about what critics say. Henry knows I said no such thing - yet what I did say is indisputable...



This is merely one of a number of quite dishonest debate tactics that believers utilize to avoid the truth.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Common-Tactics-of-Believers

John Titus had several interviews with David Slawson, who served on the Warren Commission. It's interesting for this tidbit, which shows that it wasn't only the FBI who intimidated people ... the CIA got in on the intimidation game as well.

John Titus Wrote:After the conclusion of the Warren Commission a researcher had discovered a memo that states that someone was using Oswald’s name and identification while he was in Russia. Howard Willens took a poll of the investigators as to how many of them thought this aspect should be re-investigated. Slawson said he was the only one that said yes, we should look into it. On a Sunday morning Slawson received a phone call at his house.



It was none other than James Angleton, the creepy head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton began with a pleasant greeting and asked Slawson to please say hello for him to the President of USC, where Slawson taught law. That man had been CIA station chief in India, and Angleton knew him.



Then Angleton got to the point; He said "Are you still loyal to us?" I asked Slawson what he thought Angleton meant by "us". Slawson said "The CIA. Am I still loyal to the CIA."



He told Angleton – Yes. It scared Slawson’s wife to death. Slawson said he was too cocky to think they would try and kill him, but he knew that if he had crossed them they would destroy his reputation and career. (original article here.)

via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-CIA-Intimidation-of-the-Warren-Commission

Dale Wrote:What's amusing and revealing is that the WC staffers, many of whom were trained investigators, encountered some of the same theories Ben Holmes preaches as the gospel truth and after REALLY investigating these theories, determined there was no substance to them. (original post here.)

There was, of course, NO-ONE who was a "trained investigator" on the Warren Commission. Dale cited a few lawyers, but of course, law schools offer no courses on investigations. Indeed, many of the staff lawyers were just a few years out of schooling, and had virtually no experience in such matters.



Despite the fact that Dale simply lied, not a single believer stepped up to the plate to correct him.



Lies are consistently told by one side in this issue... that is all you really need to know to determine the truth.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Trained-Investigators

It's long been my contention that when people find it necessary to lie to 'prove' their theory, that perhaps their time would be better spent finding a better theory that doesn't need lies to support it.



An excellent example can be found in David Wrone's book on the Zapruder film. An otherwise excellent book, Wrone's misrepresentations of those he disagrees with are rather obvious and mind-boggling. I'll illustrate with just four paragraphs below, interspersed with my comments:

David Wrone Wrote:Twyman provides five primary conclusions concerning the Zapruder film. First, he says, it was altered, or forged in his terminology, by having frames spliced out. He fails to explain precisely which frames were removed and how removal would have been detected. The reader is left to accept his assertion as fact. Nor does he explain exactly what evidence the conspirators removed, which is also left to the reader to surmise.

Twyman gives precise examples of where frames were removed... see page 165, as merely one example, where he specifies that frames were removed between frame 302 and 303... along with how it was detected.

David Wrone Wrote:Second, he contradicts himself. At one point, he states he could not decide whether 'JFK was first hit either just before or after he passed behind the freeway sign.' But he also states, 'When he emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit.'

This is just silly. Twyman clearly states that he cannot decide whether JFK was first hit either just before, or just after he passed behind the sign. The Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit after he was hidden by the sign, there's persuasive evidence that he was hit before that point. It matters rather little at which point you believe he was hit ... For neither is contradicted by his statement of fact that when JFK emerged from behind the sign, he had already been hit. Wrone finds contradictions where there simply are none. This doesn't bode well for Wrone's ability to reason from the evidence.

David Wrone Wrote:Third, he draws upon the 'sworn testimony' of allegedly credible eyewitnesses to back up his claim that the Zapruder film shows JFK's limousine came to a 'virtually complete stop.' Those witnesses, however, are never identified, and the film does not support his claim.

An outright lie here... at no point does Twyman state that eyewitnesses state that the Zapruder Film shows a limousine stop – quite the opposite, in fact. He quite clearly states on page 118: "The Zapruder film, when projected on a screen, does not show the limousine slowing down or stopping, contrary to the sworn statements of credible eyewitnesses."



Wrone also claims that these "witnesses, however, are never identified" – but anyone who reads pages 129-132, conveniently titled "EYEWITNESSES: LIMOUSINE SLOWS ALMOST TO A STOP", would perhaps wonder at Wrone's accuracy here. Wrone simply lied. Not only were a number of credible eyewitnesses specifically named, their applicable WC testimony was QUOTED!



Note also that Twyman called them "credible" eyewitnesses... let's examine who he quoted: