Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

"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%.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:29 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&p=849#p849

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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:26 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=848#p848

Patrick C wrote:

So Smith must have been one of 35% approx who thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll....a view which is known to be wrong.

My crystal ball is telling me that Patrick will decline to defend this incorrect tabulation...



As he has in the past...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:23 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=847#p847

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:In a recent book, it was asserted that Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'crack' shot... but was he?

In what book is that...?

Oswald was a crack shot in the military. (Killing Kennedy - Bill O'Reilly, p. 15)

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

Patrick C wrote:

It is all relative, but I would suggest he was certainly good enough to get off 2 shots in just over 5 seconds and strike the target at 65 and 88 yards approx.

Stop with your opinions, and deal with the actual EVIDENCE I posted...



Or not...

Patrick C wrote:

I would not say he was a "crack" shot as in top drawer - based on his marine records which show he was a marksman and sharpshooter - is that a crack shot...?

Only in the dreams of a true believer... But don't worry about my opinion, ask ANY Marine or former Marine if he thinks a Marksman is a "crack shot". You could also ask about a Sharpshooter - but Oswald was not a Sharpshooter.



That's a factoid from the true faith that simply never appears to die out.

Patrick C wrote:

You should know Ben....!

Of course I do. And I've stated my answer on numerous occasions. But let me be clear again... Expert is the only qualification that could be defined as a 'crack shot'. And I wouldn't even define the lower levels of Expert as crack shots. I'd argue, and I'm sure many in the world of competitive shooting would agree, that you'd need to consistently shoot in the 240's to be considered a 'crack shot'.



I came close...as I averaged between a 238 to 242... but I didn't consistently fire in the 240's... and was regularly beaten in rifle competition by those that I'd certainly define as 'crack shots'.



Oswald was NO-WHERE NEAR that level of shooting ability.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:56 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&p=846#p846

Patrick C wrote:

I would be cautious about making conclusions about where exactly Chaney is based on Altgens 6 - he used a telephoto lens which I think was a 135mm which will squash the images to appear closer together - we all I am sure have used a zoom or telephoto at some point.

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



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

Patrick C wrote:

Zavada is pretty convincing that the Z film is not altered.....so the question "where is Chaney" is behind the JFK limo and not in the Z film.

Zavada himself stated that he didn't look at the imagery on the film... he's only "convinced" that the film ITSELF is authentic.



And ... as I've stated many times before, you cannot make this circular argument that the extant Z-film is authentic because it's authentic.



You have to deal with the evidence that it's not... AND EXPLAIN IT.



It's interesting to note that you ran from the previous debates on the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:35 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=845#p845

"n a recent book, it was asserted that Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'crack' shot... but was he?"



In what book is that...?



It is all relative, but I would suggest he was certainly good enough to get off 2 shots in just over 5 seconds and strike the target at 65 and 88 yards approx.



I would not say he was a "crack" shot as in top drawer - based on his marine records which show he was a marksman and sharpshooter - is that a crack shot...?



You should know Ben....!

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:20 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&p=844#p844

So Smith must have been one of 35% approx who thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll....a view which is known to be wrong.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:14 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=843#p843

I would be cautious about making conclusions about where exactly Chaney is based on Altgens 6 - he used a telephoto lens which I think was a 135mm which will squash the images to appear closer together - we all I am sure have used a zoom or telephoto at some point.



Zavada is pretty convincing that the Z film is not altered.....so the question "where is Chaney" is behind the JFK limo and not in the Z film.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:10 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=842#p842

The correct post office box that the Warren Commission alleges that Oswald received a rifle at - would be box 2915...



The documentation for this box was never produced - BUT THE FBI ACTUALLY SAW IT... either that, or they lied about it. In Commission Exhibit 2585 - the FBI states that:

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell," would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf

But the Warren Commission - despite the fact that they had this Commission exhibit - FLAT LIED and stated:

It is not known whether the application for post office box 2915 listed "A. Hidell" as a person entitled to receive mail at this box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963. - WCR pg 121

It would be interesting to see how any believer tries to explain the fact that the FBI claims to have seen a document that was never produced for the Warren Commission. Or why the Warren Commission PROVABLY lied...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:00 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=100&p=841#p841

Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset



Three years before the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was being investigated by the CIA's Special Investigations Group (SIG), a branch of the agency's Counter-Intelligence (CI) division, headed by James Angleton between 1954 and 1974. This was confirmed in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) questioning of Ann Egerter, a member of Angleton's staff who opened the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald (a "201 file" in US intel lingo) in December of 1960.



The kicker is that the CI/SIG division is only tasked with investigating current CIA agents who are potential security risks. Egerter said her office was known within the CIA as "the office that spied on spies." She further elaborated on SIG as the entity that undertook "investigations of agency employees where there was an indication of espionage."



Because CIA agents are forbidden to disclose the identity of any other agents, Oswald's true occupation could only be discerned through indirect questions directed at Egerter. One HSCA interviewer asked her what the purpose of the CI/SIG was within the agency. Through this line of questioning, it can be discerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen in 1960 as a security risk, making him easy to burn, for example, as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.



Interviewer: "Please correct me if I'm wrong … it seems that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited and that limited purpose was to investigate agency employees who for some reason were under suspicion."



Egerter: "That is correct."



Interviewer: "When a 201 file is opened, does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?"



Egerter: "Well, in general, I would say that would be correct."



Interviewer: "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?"



Egerter: "No, I can't think of one."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:51 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=99&p=840#p840