Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

I think this analysis has been made using the Altgens location on Elm St, the position of the limo and the DPD guys and factoring in the 135mm telephoto ....I cannot recall where however.



Maybe Mike Majerus would know - he seems to know pretty much everything about the case - which could be why he rightly concludes that Oswald acted alone.....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:31 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=869#p869

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



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

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:27 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=868#p868

"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.



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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:24 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=867#p867

Around 8 to 10...

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:19 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=866#p866

Nobody. Nobody and Nobody.....



Unless you count the three people at the base of the steps one of which is Gordon Arnold.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:14 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=865#p865

Looks like my prediction was correct.



Now that Patrick has opined that the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray was a "photographic anomaly" - he's disappeared... and will refuse to deal with this issue.



Understandable - of course... it's a losing issue for any believer...



There's simply no credible way to explain why no-one saw that object on 11/22 - thus proving that it was a photographic ALTERATION. Were it an 'anomaly', as Patrick suggests - it still wouldn't explain why no-one saw it!



But if it were added later, then the explanation of why the prosectors (and all the rest of the witnesses at the Autopsy) never saw it is naturally understandable. IT DIDN'T EXIST ON 11/22.



It was a forgery... added to the X-rays for two reasons...



To move the entry wound up, to a more realistic trajectory for a shooter from the 6th floor... and to further indict Oswald as the shooter (hence the 6.5mm diameter)



And since the photos were (and still are) in the hands of the government - there's only one possible suspect to indict for evidence forgery... the U.S. Government.



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



This is why John McAdams refuses to address it as well...



They can't.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:58 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=864#p864

Hmm... you saw the comparison image I posted earlier. You have to consider where the shoe meets the ground, so I'd say up to half a foot. I also think he might be standing slightly more erect in 133C, but I admit it's subjective.

I think you are being generous by saying half a foot, but I'll go with that.



If Oswald was standing 6" further back in C133C than he is in C133a, then, I think you would have to agree that his shadow should also be about six inches longer.



It is about a foot longer (the size of the shadow of his head on the palings.)



This despite the fact that as the sun has moved, which should have made his shadow longer in C133A.

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:56 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=863#p863

Lee Abbott wrote:

What's really "academic", Patrick, is the moment David Atlee Phillips announced Oswald never was in Mexico City 7 weeks before the assassination, your lone nut party was over ... ended ... completed .. finished .... kaput ....bye-bye...hasta la vista, baby ... down the toilet (the loo in England).

The strongest evidence that Oswald was never in Mexico City comes from, ironically; the very CIA that attempted to frame him.



It's the fact that despite numerous visits to two embassies, the CIA was unable to produce even a single photo of Oswald.



This beggars the imagination... and is the strongest evidence that Oswald wasn't in Mexico...



I'm an agnostic on the issue, as there's strong evidence in both directions. The only problem is that while critics can easily give credible explanations for the known evidence, WC Supporters cannot... and often refuse to even try.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:39 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=862#p862

What's really "academic", Patrick, is the moment David Atlee Phillips announced Oswald never was in Mexico City 7 weeks before the assassination, your lone nut party was over ... ended ... completed .. finished .... kaput ....bye-bye...hasta la vista, baby ... down the toilet (the loo in England).

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:25 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=861#p861

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:However, as you've already asserted that Chaney is larger than the other two motorcycle cops, this means absolutely nothing.

Yes he is just under 10% larger than Hargis.

Ben Holmes wrote:

Unless, of course, you're now trying to backtrack from that assertion...

NOPE.....it is what it is



But as I stated......if Chaney really was where you think he should be, his image would be even larger. This is the point I made very clearly. I am not sure why you have difficulty in understanding that simple point.....???

Indeed, I have no problem at all analyzing that "simple point".