Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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?

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

---

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

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

---

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

"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

---

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

"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

---

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

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?