Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

The place is shaping up nicely.

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:00 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=919#p919

Henry solves another mystery, " No fragments were found in the limousine that could be determined to have come from a Grassy Knoll shooter."



Gee, could that be because the bullet was traveling away from the limo?

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:13 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104&p=918#p918

Henry Sienzant wrote:

Multiple witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. Not the courthouse, not the overpass. The Knoll.

Well, let's see who is wrong, shall we?



(a) Numerous witnesses (about 10) came forward on 11/22/63 to say they saw a shooter or a rifle, in the Depository immediately before, during, or immediately after the assassination.

- No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say they saw a shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw a cop park his motorcycle in front of the TSBD and run into the building.



No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw Zapruder filming the assassination.



No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw Chaney speed forward to communicate with Chief Curry.



No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw Clint Hill run up to the Presidential limo, and jump on.



No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they found a Mannlicher Carcano on the 6th floor of the TSBD.



However, NUMEROUS witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. I guess we've seen who was wrong...

Henry Sienzant wrote:

(b) Within 30 minutes of the assassination, three expended rifle shells were found at the Depository window from where a shooter was seen earlier.

- No shells were found on the Grassy Knoll.

No knife was found that O.J. Simpson used to murder two people. Therefore, according to Henry's logic, there was no knife... and Simpson couldn't have used a knife to murder anyone.



Poor logic, of course...

Henry Sienzant wrote:

(c) Within 45 minutes of the assassination, a rifle was found in the Depository on the same floor as the witnesses saw the rifle or the gunman during the shooting.

- No weapon was found on the Grassy Knoll."

No knife was found that O.J. Simpson used to murder two people. Therefore, according to Henry's logic, there was no knife... and Simpson couldn't have used a knife to murder anyone.



The same poor logic mentioned earlier...

Henry Sienzant wrote:

(d) Film and photos show the shells and rifle in the Depository on 11/22/63.

- No film or photos shows shells or a weapon on the Grassy Knoll.

And since no film or photo shows the bag on the 6th floor, Henry must admit that the bag was not relevant evidence.



Again, simply poor logic on his part.

Henry Sienzant wrote:

(e) Within about two hours of the shooting, a nearly whole bullet was found at Parkland Hospital. This bullet could be eventually traced to having been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

- No bullet was ever recovered that points to a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Nor were all the bullets found. Even Henry would be forced to admit that bullets are not regularly EXPECTED to be found.



Again, simply poor logic on Henry's part...

Henry Sienzant wrote:

[F} Later that evening, the Secret Service found two large fragments in the Presidential limo. Those two large fragments could be eventually traced to having been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

- No fragments were found in the limousine that could be determined to have come from a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Since there wasn't any search of the limo by a real investigation - this is fairly meaningless. Henry doesn't know what was or was not found in the limo.



We do know that the chain of custody on much of the major evidence in this case is lacking.

Henry Sienzant wrote:

[G} The autopsists that night, with the body in front of them, and the HSCA pathology panel, in a review of the extant autopsy materials, determined that the bullets that struck the President came from above and behind the level of the President. The Depository's sixth floor window was above and behind the President. - The autopsists and the HSCA review panel determined there was no evidence of any shot or shots striking the President from the right front. The Grassy Knoll was to the President's right front during the shooting.

We also know that there was quite a bit of evidence for a shot to JFK's right temple... indeed, even from the medical panels... Henry also knows for a fact that the HSCA, as merely one example; flat lied about the medical evidence... and until Henry can explain these official lies, he's basing his opinions on a faulty foundation.

Henry Sienzant wrote:

(h) Most of the witnesses thought all the shots came from ONE location, and one location only. Some thought all the shots came from the Depository, others said the overpass, and others said the fence area known as the Grassy Knoll. Very few witnesses (Jean Hill for one) said the shots sounded like they were coming from two locations. This means any reconstruction of the event that suggests shots came from multiple locations is rejecting the overwhelming majority of the witness testimony on the source of the shots.

This is perhaps the silliest of all factoids that come from the WCR Supporters... The evidence can best be explained, most credibly be explained... as shots from multiple directions. What Henry is forced to do is to simply disregard over half of the witnesses.



Very poor logic indeed!

Henry Sienzant wrote:

(i) Several witnesses described the assassination location in terms like "an echo chamber". One witness said he had noticed a similarity of sound coming from the Depository and the overpass in the past. For instance, Lee Bowers spoke in his testimony of:

Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?

Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.

Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?

Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?

Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.

Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?

Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.

Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.

Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?

Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.

When believers cannot discredit the eyewitness testimony, they end up believing anything they can that supports their faith. Henry knows that no cross-examination of Mr. Bowers was ever made, and he knows that the Warren Commission had a habit of prepping their witnesses before the testimony - so that witnesses knew what was expected of them to say.



If Mr. Bowers were correct, this would mean that ALL OF THE EARWITNESSES would be equally 'confused' as to the location of the shots.



Mr. Bowers also stated that "I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle they [/b][the FBI][b] reminded me that I wasn’t an expert and I had to agree.



But this is the sort of statement that Henry would absolutely despise... he too would tell Mr. Bowers that he wasn't an expert, and could not have accurately judged that the second & third shots couldn't have been fired from the same rifle.



Yet Henry trusts Mr. Bowers judgement ON HIS HEARING ... even as he disputes Mr. Bowers judgement ON HIS HEARING.



Sounds just a tad hypocritical to me...

Henry Sienzant wrote:

From the evidence, we learn there's no physical evidence of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. And there's no eyewitness to a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. And there's no film or photographic evidence of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. We also learn that some eyewitnesses spoke of the apparent confusion of the sounds that could happen in Dealey Plaza.

And from the evidence, we learn that the majority of people thought that the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll, and that someone flashing Secret Service credentials was there, although he couldn't have been a real SS agent, and that smoke was seen from that area.



In other areas where we have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, such as a bullet transiting JFK's body, Henry has absolutely no qualms at all with the lack of physical evidence.



Once again, sounds a tad hypocritical to me...

Henry Sienzant wrote:

How I put this together: The witnesses who thought a shot came from the Grassy Knoll were mistaken as to the source of the sound. And anyone who thinks shots came from multiple locations must agree, because very few witnesses thought shots came from multiple locations. Most of the "Grassy Knoll" witnesses thought ALL the shots came from there, which means they were mistaken whether you think shots came from multiple locations or you think all the shots came from the Depository.

No Henry... ALL the witnesses except for the few who thought the sounds came from both directions were mistaken. YOU QUOTED MR. BOWERS ON THAT VERY ISSUE - yet it's clear that you really didn't believe him.



Logic doesn't seem to be your forte... does it?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:26 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104&p=917#p917

Patrick C wrote:

Ref first frame flash (lack of) issue that you have raised. I contacted a photographic expert in California who specialises in 8mm and has dozens of films in his collection. Naturally he is familiar with the winding mechanism of the Bell & Howell 414PD as used by Zapruder. He advises that he has examples of film in which the first frame is not over exposed, however as I agreed Holmes one would expect it to occur typically and the photo expert I contacted advised that yes you would normally find that the first frame would be overexposed, but not always. What the explanation for this is - I do not know at this stage, but I am satisfied with that on what is after all a non subject. So you ain't the big photo expert you thought you were Holmes and your armchair physics seems to have failed you.

How ironic... As Roland Zavada has stated: "First frame density difference is seen at ALL tails to head transitions." As Zavada is the expert when it comes to the extant Z-film - it seems strange that Patrick is contradicting Zavada's assertion.



And doing so on the basis of his asserted conversation with an unnamed expert...



Malcolm Townsley, an inventor of the camera mechanisms, wrote: "First Frame Overexposure comes about because it takes a very brief, but real, time to get the mechanism up to speed. This means that the shutter takes more time to make the first turn, and over-exposes the first frame on each scene, and produces a bleached out image. ... The over-exposure of the first frame of a new scene is caused by the fact that it takes a little time on the part of the spring motor in the camera to bring the mechanism up to speed. ... I remember that this was one of the things which did take place in 8mm cameras, and which we worked very hard to overcome."



Herb Farmer, Professor at the USC School of Cinema, states: "I have never heard the term 'First Frame Over-Exposure' although that is what it is. I have always heard and used the term 'stop frame,' or 'flashed frame' used to indicate the overexposed frame apparent between separate 'takes' of regular operation of the camera with film. ... This is a familiar situation with any spring motor driven camera. When you push the 'go' button, it takes at least one frame for the mechanism to get up to operating speed, and the first frame is over exposed."



In another letter, Herb Farmer states: "With the same camera under the same light conditions,, I would say that if one stop-start has an overexposed frame, then all stop-starts should have the same overexposed (fogged) frame at the start."



Now, I quote REAL experts, and you merely mention some mysterious unnamed expert that you cannot even quote. Why can't you quote him, Patrick? Why can't you name him or cite him? You really expect everyone to simply believe you?



And since inertia is the cause, you must believe in miracles Patrick... since you clearly believe that the film comes up to speed INSTANTLY (or at least faster than .025 of a second), somehow avoiding the principles of inertia.



Of course, this is a common tactic that Patrick employs... he quite frequently refers to people he spoke to... most of the time unnamed, and ALL OF THE TIME UNCORROBORATED.



Fortunately, in this particular case, I spoke with that same photographic expert here in California... he agreed that first frame flash is invariably seen, and thought that Patrick must have misinterpreted what he said. He was being quite generous in presuming that Patrick misunderstood. He also mentioned his personal opinion that the Zapruder film was altered, and strangely enough, he based that opinion on the very same topic - that there wasn't any over-exposure on Z-133.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:56 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=103&p=916#p916

Patrick C wrote:

There is "riddle speak" on almost every page of your posts...a fine example is below:-

Ben Holmes wrote:

Patrick C wrote:We live on a spinning globe and as such we have time zones based on shall we say daylight. UK is 8 hours ahead of US west coast....therefore in terms of time of response there is in principle a delay at certain points in the 24 hour clock - namely the night.. Additionally of course some of us work for a living and depending on work loads attention to JFK can vary.

Congratulations Patrick, you've just given excuses that EQUALLY apply to me. Yet *YOU* are the one who keeps showing his cowardice... why is that?

I literally have no idea what you are saying in this example - you seem to be making an unrelated statement yet you feel like you are addressing a point I made with a relevant comment? You are not. Other than that you statement does not seem to make sense in any shape or form. It is hence a riddle.

No "riddle" to be found... Patrick tries to give excuses for not responding to the posts online, then fails to understand that the "excuses" apply equally to EVERYONE, including myself.



But this certainly cannot be hard to understand... I daresay if I had 100 random people read it, 99 out of the 100 would instantly recognize the truthfulness of my statement, and the other person would after a re-reading it.



Patrick pretends puzzlement.



A puzzlement that is directly contradicted by his asserted educational background.



Is there anyone who truly believes that Patrick is being honest here?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:37 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=103&p=915#p915

Patrick C wrote:

Holmes, let me explain to you some simple facts.....

Start with a credible reason why Z-133 isn't overexposed. THAT would be teaching me something I don't know.

Patrick C wrote:

]We live on a spinning globe and as such we have time zones based on shall we say daylight. UK is 8 hours ahead of US west coast....therefore in terms of time of response there is in principle a delay at certain points in the 24 hour clock - namely the night.. Additionally of course some of us work for a living and depending on work loads attention to JFK can vary.

Congratulations Patrick, you've just given excuses that EQUALLY apply to me. Yet YOU are the one who keeps refusing to answer... why is that?

Patrick C wrote:

There is also the question of interest. Am I for example interested in communication with an arrogant extreme pro JFK conspiracy advocate?

Put me on "ignore" anytime, Patrick... doesn't matter to me. You'll be admitting defeat however, and I'm sure you KNOW that. So tell us, why can't you explain your answers on Z-133?

Patrick C wrote:

And am I interested in exchanging views with some one who frequently speaks in riddles? The answer Holmes is yes, but only from time to time. It has nothing to do with hiding or running to use your words.

No 'riddle' about Z-133 Patrick... just a question that you're clearly frightened of... why not try a little harder and actually give a credible answer?

Patrick C wrote:

I would however like to commend you on having probably the most irritating style of writing on Amazon JFK threads - you deserve an award for that.

Yeah, the truth does that to believers...

Patrick C wrote:

It seems you fail to notice that your accusations directed at unanswered - or indeed ignored questions reflects a certain hypocrisy on your part as you Holmes frequently fail to answer questions directed at you and abysmally fail to understand the consequences of your pie in the sky theories.

You're lying again, Patrick.



You know very well that there's NO question about the evidence that I cannot answer. The number of questions that YOU cannot answer are legion.



But do it, Patrick... FORCE ME TO APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING YOU A LIAR...



Ask the question about the evidence in this case that I will refuse to answer... exactly as you're refusing to explain the lack of first frame flash in Z-133.



(But of course you won't... you can't. Critics have no need to run from the evidence as believers do...)

Patrick C wrote:

You may be familiar with Lewis Carol's works about Alice. She lives in a rather strange world where there is a distorted perspective on reality. Conspiracy theories have something in common with Alice. There is a great but simpler term in the English language that admirably sums you up - its called not seeing the wood for the trees.

Since I've *OFTEN* publicly identified believers with the Queen's advice to Alice about believing in impossible things - yes, I'm quite clearly familiar.



Tell us about Z-133 Patrick...



Or run again...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:29 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=103&p=914#p914

Just for those who aren't following closely, here's the issue that Patrick can't face.



The extant Z-film first shows motorcycles coming up the street, then it abruptly changes to the President's limo. The last frame showing the motorcycles is frame 132 - the first frame showing the limo is frame 133. The contention of believers is that Zapruder stopped filming, then started again when the limo was in view.



Due to the mechanical nature of the spring wound camera, the film, due to inertia, cannot get up to speed instantly, and so is moving slower for the first few split seconds... meaning that the first few frames will be overexposed in comparison to the rest of the film. (as they are traveling slower, and end up receiving more light from the open shutter)



Patrick has admitted that he understands this issue. I've cited for Dale's benefit experts who state that this is the issue, and is known as 'first frame flash' for lack of a better term. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE not to have overexposed frames on a mechanical camera, because inertia will not allow the first frame to be moving at the speed that the rest of the film will very soon be moving at. PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Camera designers work hard to minimize this effect, but it cannot be entirely removed without repealing the laws of inertia.



So Patrick KNOWS that in an unaltered film, when the camera is first started, the first few frames will be over-exposed. He's admitted this.



This was the very same issue that proved the 'Alien Autopsy' film to be a fake - as there wasn't any 'first frame flash' effects where there should have been - thus proving that the film was a spliced together creation.



Patrick has also admitted that he knows that Z-133 does NOT show any overexposure... AS IT ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE. (Zavada is also on record as stating this... that Z-133 shows no overexposure in comparison to Z-132)



So Patrick has, absent any other theory, proven that the extant Z-film has been DELIBERATELY cut and spliced together.



His first attempted solution was so silly that it's worth pointing out again, just for laughs... Patrick speculated that "Hey well perhaps Time Life damaged a preceding frame to Z133 and never mentioned it......."



Of course, Patrick clearly hadn't had his morning cup of tea, since any splicing that was done on the original film could not magically transfer to the copies of the film.



ROTFLMAO!!!



Now, despite understanding that the laws of inertia were not magically overcome in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and despite his admission that the relevant first few frames do NOT show the 'first frame flash' effect, Patrick has decided to pretend that he doesn't understand these two points, and that for Zapruder, on that day, with that camera, was able to do what the designers of the camera were unable to do... completely remove the effects of inertia.



He does so by pretending that if the COPIES made of the film ALSO fail to show the overexposure of Z-133 - then yes, Zapruder overcame the laws of physics that day, and magically overcome inertia.



He has to rely on the official story that the copies were made in Dallas, and that they are the ORIGINAL copies.



In other words, he's relying on the official story that the film is legitimate in order to "prove" that the film is legitimate. (Henry Sienzant must be desperately holding his tongue on this logical fallacy!!)



Patrick knows full well the evidence that the film was at a top secret film processing facility known as "Hawk Eye Works" the weekend of the assassination, so his theory that the film is unaltered because the copies are unaltered is just silly. You cannot logically argue that the film is legitimate because the film is legitimate. Circular arguments like this are just silly.



But that's the best Patrick can do.



He can't admit that first frame flash doesn't exist - he knows full well that I can cite experts stating otherwise... including the original designer of the Bell & Howell Zoomatic camera.



He can't admit that Z-133 shows an overexposure when HIS expert, Zavada, said otherwise - and anyone can look today and see that it doesn't.



So Patrick has to simply straddle the fence - unwilling to directly contradict the laws of physics, unwilling to pretend to see overexposure where none exists - yet unable to provide an alternate CREDIBLE theory...



He's stuck.



And he's not honest enough to admit it.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:06 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=103&p=913#p913

Here's another factoid often repeated by believers:

Patrick C wrote:

How do you explain the fact that Zapruder said he stopped filming to conserve film so he waited for the limo to appear....or is that something you had not thought of.....

Patrick will not, of course; cite anyplace where Zapruder said this... he can't - it's a lie.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:58 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=912#p912

Henry Sienzant wrote:

Now, what's the evidence the Z-film is altered again?

We've just covered one of them - to wit, that no-one ever noted a limo stop in the film prior to Alvarez.

Henry Sienzant wrote:

What's the evidence the witnesses that saw a limo STOP were correct, especially since others only mentioned a limo slow-down, and the film shows a slow-down, not a stop?

Simple common sense... tell us Henry, what would be the characteristics of those witnesses whom you'd accept as more credible?



HONEST people would state that Police Officers are generally more credible.

HONEST people would accept that closer eyewitnesses are generally more credible.

HONEST people would accept that when a person is DIRECTLY AFFECTED by the conditions, they would be more credible.



All four of the motorcycle police who were TRACKING THE LIMO TO SET THEIR OWN SPEED stated that the limo stopped.

Henry Sienzant wrote:

Ben will argue that the limo STOP and SLOW-DOWN witnesses should be treated as a group, but there's obviously a difference between a stop and a slow-down, so Ben's argument is not persuasive.

This is not too unlike arguing that water is a deadly poison. Of course, it actually IS - but there's the slight problem, rarely do people encounter conditions where it's deadly. But it's not unknown to drink too much, and die.



It's obvious even to a moron that there's a TREMENDOUS difference between a car that parked in a parking spot all day long, and someone who pulled to the curb to pick up someone. No-one would confuse the two at all.



But a limo that came to a stop of roughly 2 seconds? And witnesses dozens or hundreds of feet away, in crowded conditions?



Henry has a huge credibility problem here.



This is actually a tactic quite favored by the WCR Supporters... The INTENTIONAL misinterpretation of witnesses. The limo didn't stop, because eyewitnesses reported that it slowed down.



Henry cannot imagine that witnesses could observe the same event, and depending on their distance or acuteness of observation, describe it differently.



Does it sound familiar? The shots came from the TSBD... because almost EVERYONE reported a single location for the shots. The ones that reported the Grassy Knoll are all wrong, because we know that the shots came from the TSBD.



A limo that stopped for 2 seconds could EASILY be described as one that slowed down dramatically. And indeed, this explanation EXPLAINS ALL THE KNOWN EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS.



If the limo merely slowed dramatically, it fails to explain the most credible witnesses of all, who state that it came to a very brief stop.



The fact that NONE of this is seen in the extant Z-film to the casual viewer is something believers still cannot explain. It took Alvarez to do a frame by frame analysis to detect a slowdown.



And nothing Henry can do will change that historical fact.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:46 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=102&p=911#p911

My guess is that Henry is going to pull another disappearance act for a few weeks. Since he's just been slapped silly by the truth that his claim that someone viewed a limo slowdown in the film PRIOR to the Alvarez study.



Here's your "mistaken" statement again:

Henry Sienzant wrote:

And the slowdown in the Z-film was pointed out in 1966, to the best of my recollection. The Alvarez study was a decade later, according to your own cite.



Now, are you aware of where the limo was pointed out to have slowed down in 1966, or not? If you admit your ignorance of this matter, I'll provide the citation.

Now, a "mistake" not corrected after it's clear that it IS a "mistake" turns into a lie. Henry's LYING right now, because he KNOWS FOR A FACT that his statement is totally wrong.



Which is why I can predict he'll disappear for a few weeks... he's got a habit of doing exactly this after he gets caught in an obvious lie.



Now, although *I* don't have to cite for *HIS* claims, I'll throw Henry a bone.

Henry Sienzant wrote:

We'll await his evidence for this 1966 study. We'll also await his evidence Mark Lane "borrowed" without attribution any of Alvarez' supposed claims from this supposed 1966 study.

It's NOT incumbent on me to prove that Mark Lane didn't borrow Alvarez's work... since Henry's claim was that Mark Lane's book was written before the study... and it provably isn't. And I'm not required to cite for HENRY'S claim.



But if Henry wants more egg on his face, I'll be happy to do it as a free service... Anyone can turn to their copy of "A Citizen's Dissent" and look up "Luis Alvarez" in the index. Rather stupidly, Henry challenged me to do this without verifying for himself that Mark Lane had used Alvarez. Turn to chapter 17, "The Camera Test" ... and have someone read it to you.



Henry provably lied.



It's that simple.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:32 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=101&p=910#p910