Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Yeah, when she was in the world's spotlight - weekend of 22 Nov.....! Trying to defend her husband...





Did she stick with that story.......?

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:06 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=889#p889

Yes Ben, I could.



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.



We have been here over and over.



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

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:34 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=888#p888

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



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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:31 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=887#p887

Patrick C wrote:

Which bit of "unless you include the 3 guys at the bottom of the steps - one of which was Gordon Arnold" do you not comprehende hombre......?

How about the part where you cite for your claim that Gordon Arnold was one of the three guys at the bottom of the steps???



object

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:19 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=886#p886

Which bit of "unless you include the 3 guys at the bottom of the steps - one of which was Gordon Arnold" do you not comprehende hombre......?

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:02 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=885#p885

Taking time from his ultra-busy workload, Patrick C wrote, "Nobody. Nobody and Nobody..... Unless you count the three people at the base of the steps one of which is Gordon Arnold."



Of the 6,493 books you've read on this topic, Patrick, it's a pity Michael Benson's "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination" apparently wasn't among them. Gordon Arnold (Gordy to his friends) was standing in front of the wooden fence by the grassy knoll (pgs. 18 & 19).

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:14 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=884#p884

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Patrick can't touch this topic - it makes nonsense of all his beliefs & faith in the Warren Commission.

I could if I wanted to. The issue I have is that I have little spare time these days and I find other things more interesting than the JFK case.

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.

Patrick C wrote:

Kennedy was struck once in the head and that bullet fragmented, the base of which ended up in the limo foot well - CE569.



There is then no room for an additional bullet or significant part of a bullet. period. Just traces of minute fragments and metal powder.

You're disputing the expert opinions held by the Clark Panel and the HSCA.



On what are you basing your contradiction of expert opinion, Patrick?



Sheer speculation again???

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:09 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=883#p883

Patrick C wrote:

But Marina remembered taking the photo right....?



That sort of makes the whole "issue" disappear.......

Marina also reported that Oswald didn't own a rifle.



So that makes the whole "issue" disappear - ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC!!!



Congratulations Patrick! You've left the 'dark side'...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:01 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=882#p882

Patrick C wrote:

Around 8 to 10...

So if someone reported a shot coming from that area, how would you differentiate it from the Grassy Knoll?



Or would you like to argue that the Grassy Knoll doesn't appear in that direction?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:59 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=881#p881

Patrick C wrote:

I am not sure how the yellow line shows that.....

Well!!!



Finally we have some agreement!



Sorry Ray, but I don't see how that line on a two dimensional representation can show Chaney to be forward of the other cops (even though we know from the evidence that he is.)

Patrick C wrote:

But no doubt Chaney appears to be bigger and therefore closer - based on the hat - by around 10%, but my view is that if he were indeed where Ben Holmes wants him to be, he would even larger.



Anyway, he is not in the Z film during the shooting and therefore he was not foreword of the limo bumper. He is not even in the sprocket holes.....

Again, sheer speculation and opinion on your part, Patrick.



Why can't you give any REAL EVIDENCE for your claim?



You're doing the rather infamous 'limited hangout' - admitting that the evidence shows that Chaney is forward of the other cops - but merely denying - BASED ONLY ON YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION - that he's not where he's clearly seen in the photo.



Once again Patrick, you cannot use the extant Z-film to prove the evidence AGAINST it's authenticity to be wrong.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:56 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=880#p880