Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Patrick C wrote:

Well as the photos are absolutely authentic, it is all a bit academic anyway guys.......

A rather common logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:51 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=859#p859

Well as the photos are absolutely authentic, it is all a bit academic anyway guys.......

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:24 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=858#p858

"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.



"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.....???

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:22 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=857#p857

Ray Mitcham wrote:

Seems i was wrong about the angle of the sun with if the wires are 30 ' away. At that distance it is about 1˚. My mistake.

It's good of you to admit that, Ray. Thanks.

Ray Mitcham wrote:

However regarding the length of Oswald's shadows in both photos, do you agree that Oswald right foot in C133C is about a toe cap's length back from where it is in C133A?



If not what is your estimate for the difference?

Hmm... you saw the comparison image I posted. 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.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:32 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=856#p856

Seems i was wrong about the angle of the sun with if the wires are 30 ' away. At that distance it is about 1˚. My mistake.

However regarding the length of Oswald's shadows in both photos, do you agree that Oswald right foot in C133C is about a toe cap's length back from where it is in C133A?



If not what is your estimate for the difference?

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:14 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=855#p855

David Healy wrote:

7:00 to 12:00+

I'll have to wait for the WCR Supporters to chime in before I go further with this.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:36 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=854#p854

7:00 to 12:00

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:26 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=853#p853

For Patrick - or any other believer who wishes to roll the dice...











If I asked you to locate the direction of the railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD, from what time to what time would be the direction that would encompass the railroad yards?



For example, the overpass would be roughly 6:30 to 7:30.



Or the bright flare on the railroad tracks to the left of the building would be a tad before 9. (Say... 8:45 or so...)



I'm not interested in minute accuracy, I'm interested in the direction from the center of the clock... where you position the railroad yard.



Full Disclosure - the center of the clock is at the front entrance of the TSBD.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:27 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=852#p852

Patrick C wrote:

Nope, a small fraction of the witnesses Ben stated two sources for the shots.



Those that thought all the shots came from front are clearly wrong.



It is that simple.....



There was no shot from the front, it is just nonsense....a complete red herring...



I really struggle to accept how any of you buy into that theory, it's a load of crap.

Once again Patrick refuses to defend the false McAdams tabulation he keeps using.



My crystal ball was, as usual; absolutely correct.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:35 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=851#p851

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:This has been mentioned before... and you've addressed it before... on the Amazon forums. Are you truly forgetting this... or just pretending?

Truly forgetting Holmes 100%.

I note for the record that you were unable to refute anything I stated in this thread...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:33 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&p=850#p850