Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

"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

---

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

"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

---

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

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.

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."

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

---

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

Was the Warren Commission even intended to be an investigation?



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.

As a website owner, it might be interesting to compare this site to another...



There's another JFK conspiracy forum - which shall be unnamed... it started almost a year ago. As of today, it says:

89 Posts in 30 Topics by 123 Members.

To compare - this forum has 900 posts in 92 topics... and has been online for less than 60 days...



A quick search of the term "JFK Conspiracy Forum" reveals the following:



Google:

Other forum: positions 12,13

This forum: position: 18



Yahoo:

Other forum: position: 4

This forum: positions: 5,6



Bing:

Other forum: position: 2

This forum: position: 4,5,7



Not bad ratings for a website that's been around not even two months yet... so yes, I think this forum is doing quite well... here's a graphical comparison to the other forum when it comes to the last 10 message threads:

Garry Puffer wrote:

Patrick C wrote:I wrote Zapruder had said he stopped filming over a concern over running out of film which is what I thought for many years. I then discovered that actually he was more concerned about the winding mechanism.

Patrick, this statement is beyond funny. It was a winding mechanism. How could that be of concern? Was he worried that the number of turns had an upper limit or what? Did you even think before you wrote this nonsense? It seems rather unlikely that he would have been concerned about running out of winds (long i). Hilarious.



pufflogo2.gif

I actually have several of the cameras, and you wind the spring up when you load the film - the spring will serve to run UNTIL YOU RUN OUT OF FILM.



Indeed, it would be rather silly to design and manufacture a camera where you needed to wind up the spring before you finished filming...



Patrick is lying, of course.



He's been unable to document ANY of these lies about Zapruder. The simple fact is that Zapruder testified that he'd wanted to begin filming as the limo turned from Houston - AND HAD NO EXPLANATION - nor, to be honest, was he asked - why the film didn't start there.



Patrick is quite desperate to provide an explanation that doesn't involve the film being cut & spliced... but then runs from the evidence that it was.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:02 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=943#p943

Patrick C wrote:

I wrote Zapruder had said he stopped filming over a concern over running out of film which is what I thought for many years. I then discovered that actually he was more concerned about the winding mechanism.

Patrick, this statement is beyond funny. It was a winding mechanism. How could that be of concern? Was he worried that the number of turns had an upper limit or what? Did you even think before you wrote this nonsense? It seems rather unlikely that he would have been concerned about running out of winds (long i). Hilarious.

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:And from the evidence, we learn that the majority of people thought that the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll...

Absolute delusional nonsense and utter tripe.

Then one could wonder why you prove quite the coward and refuse to address that evidence?



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



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



Do you really think it's fair to run from such evidence, then make the assertion that such evidence is "absolute delusional nonsense and utter tripe?"

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:31 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104&p=941#p941

Patrick Cwrote:Lee Ben Holmeswrote:However NUMEROUS witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. I guess we've seen who was wrong... Yes but almost ALL of them thought ALL of the shots came from the Knoll...! Which is clearly WRONG.....!How many more times does this have to be emphasised to you ......? Based on what?What is the proof that the Grassy Knoll witnesses were all wrong?Indeed the last government investigation - the HSCA accepted the evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter... that makes you wrong doesn't it?On what ballistics medical or other expertise are you contradicting the HSCA's expert panels? Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes Sat Jul 23 2016 5:25 pm via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104amp;p=940p940