Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

No. After she was threatened she changed her story several times. A bit like the Parkland doctors who saw a wound in the back of the head and an entrance wound in the throat.

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:45 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=899#p899

Ray Mitcham wrote:

The yellow line through the cops windscreens appears to show that Cheney on the left is well ahead of the the two cops the right.

You're making the mistake of assuming that Altgens held his camera completely level. Let's try rotating the image until the structures in the background become truly vertical:

According to Thompson - WHO IS NO FRIEND OF ANY 'ALTERATION' - the original of the film left Dallas on the MORNING of the 23rd.



So Patrick is quite convinced that no alteration could have been performed during the 19 hours and 30 minutes that Zapruder had the film.



Tell you what, Patrick - I'LL CONCEDE THAT NO ALTERATION HAPPENED IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS.



Now, lets see if you can concede that it was possible after 8am on Saturday, the 23rd.



Unless, of course - you're too busy to defend your position...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:52 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=897#p897

Patrick C wrote:

Well, I just cannot accept that the Z film could be altered when it was with Mr Z till he gave it to Stolley...over that weekend.

'I just cannot accept that the film was altered before it was taken out of the camera...'



'I just cannot accept that the film was altered before it was shot on 11/22/63...'



'I just cannot accept that the film was altered in June of 1934...'



You can make all the silly claims you want - but we have EYEWITNESS STATEMENTS of those who worked on the film on the weekend of the assassination.

Patrick C wrote:

You must appreciate that ALL copies of the film, must have been recalled.....prints from the originals.....recalled and removed from the record...this strikes me as nigh on impossible....

Recalled from WHOM!!!?



The government controlled them all.



And yes, the one that Time Life 'owned' most of all... but even you, were you to be honest, would be forced to admit that the government didn't have to go very far for the Secret Service & FBI copies, eh Patrick?

Patrick C wrote:

If you don't mind me saying - on your forum....you must be absolutely nuts to buy this theory.....I doubt you have even thought it through as you SHOULD to the nth degree.

Then you wouldn't be so afraid of confronting and EXPLAINING the various evidence against the authenticity of the film.



I know... I know... you're too "busy".



But don't make the mistake of thinking that readers & lurkers don't see through such a silly explanation. I've been mentioning the 'First Frame Flash' issue for years... scientific proof that the extant Z-film has been altered.



Indeed, the very same evidence used to prove that the so-called 'Alien Autopsy' film was fraudulent...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:45 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=896#p896

Patrick, there are missing frames from the Z-film when the limo enters Elm Street from Houston. You know this. Then by definition, the Z-film has been altered in at least that spot.

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:26 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=895#p895

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Once again, sheer speculation and un-citable mysterious evidence...



Surely you can do better than this, right Patrick?

Not really Ben,

Not an unexpected answer. I do hope you realize what a coward believers come off as... in the way they constantly run from the evidence, and evade their responsibility to cite.

Patrick C wrote:

This is not a court of law and I simply don't have the time.

If you don't have enough time to cite the evidence for a claim, then you should be smart enough not to make the claim in the first place.

Patrick C wrote:

Try the web - you know it's at your fingertips. I found that set of posts from G Fox which I thought was interesting.

How silly of you, Patrick!!







I'm quite well aware of what happens when I ask a believer to go look up the evidence proving that I'm right... do you perhaps have a different set of standards when it comes to yourself?

Patrick C wrote:

You do not need to be so confrontational all the time - you might actually make progress in coming round to accepting Oswald could have killed JFK acting alone whilst favouring a conspiracy. Your blinkered view of this case reflects on your inability to escape your view no doubt from the get go that Kennedy was killed as a result of a plot and that is that....your approach is extremely amateur and lacking in rigour despite your excellent knowledge of the case.

Simply provide the evidence, and I'll be happy to examine it.



I don't deal with speculation and opinion when I have evidence.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:32 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=894#p894

Patrick C wrote:

What is that supposed to mean...? Are you trying to be a smart ass...?

Citing the evidence that proves you wrong is now "smart ass?"



That would make most critics "smart asses..." - since we do this quite regularly...

Patrick C wrote:

How about TMWKK.....



I actually met him as I recall in 87 very briefly after this interview. We were not sure if he really was there, he probably was, but the feeling was he embellished his story as I have posted several times.

If you're going to cite for your claim, you should do so.



If you're going to refuse to retract a claim you can't cite for, you'll simply be labeled a liar again.



And why are you running from the question: So if someone reported a shot coming from that area, how would you differentiate it from the Grassy Knoll?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:26 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=893#p893

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:No Patrick... you couldn't.



You've had over 50 years to explain that "photographic anomaly" - all believers have had that much time... and there's NO EXPLANATION ANYWHERE FROM ANYONE that makes sense out of that object.



Only the critics can credibly explain who put it there, when it was put there, on who's orders, and provide a credible reason why it was put there.

Yes Ben, I could.

Still making assertions you can't back up.



Didn't explain the fact that NO-ONE in the last 50 years has ever done what you claim to be able to do...

Patrick C wrote:

I just can't be bothered. You are a believer in pro conspiracy nonsense in this case and you are an extreme sensationalist plot supporter. You see a problem under every stone.

Such amazing cowardice, eh Patrick?

Patrick C wrote:

We have been here over and over.

Yep... critics listing the evidence, and believers such as yourself running from it. (even as they claim that they 'could', if they wanted to... answer it.



I do hope that you're not seriously expecting anyone to believe this...

Patrick C wrote:

There was ONE head shot and it came from the rear. Period. If you want to believe in fairy stories that is your prerogative.

And yet, you keep running from anything and everything that demolishes your positions...



Why is that, Patrick?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:22 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=892#p892

Not really Ben,



This is not a court of law and I simply don't have the time.



Try the web - you know it's at your fingertips. I found that set of posts from G Fox which I thought was interesting.



You do not need to be so confrontational all the time - you might actually make progress in coming round to accepting Oswald could have killed JFK acting alone whilst favouring a conspiracy. Your blinkered view of this case reflects on your inability to escape your view no doubt from the get go that Kennedy was killed as a result of a plot and that is that....your approach is extremely amateur and lacking in rigour despite your excellent knowledge of the case.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:21 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=891#p891

Well, I just cannot accept that the Z film could be altered when it was with Mr Z till he gave it to Stolley...over that weekend.



You must appreciate that ALL copies of the film, must have been recalled.....prints from the originals.....recalled and removed from the record...this strikes me as nigh on impossible....



If you don't mind me saying - on your forum....you must be absolutely nuts to buy this theory.....I doubt you have even thought it through as you SHOULD to the nth degree.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:12 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=890#p890