Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

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

---

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

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

---

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

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...

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

---

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

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:

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.

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

---

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

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

---

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

"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

---

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

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

---

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

"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

---

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

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

---

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