Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

The only bangs that day came from inside the TSBD, the question is....were there two or three....and that as far as I am concerned is the mystery....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:02 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=789#p789

Anyone interested in the topic would do well to get these two books:



The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - Deceit & Deception in the Death of JFK

The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film



You are recommending Fetzer and Livingstone......!!!



Are you serious........!!!



Dear oh dear oh dear.......

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:59 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=788#p788

Fine post Mark,



Ben will no doubt struggle with that one ....unless he puts on his pro conspiracy sun glasses which block out more logic than UV rays.....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:52 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=787#p787

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Patrick.



There it is again...



You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.



Then lie and claim you haven't.



Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?



You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.



EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...







How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.



Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.



Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

Of course, he's forward of Hargis. No one ever said he wasn't.



There are many problems with your diagram, but thank you for at least trying. The cars, for example, are too big and in the wrong places. Here's a much better attempt by yours truly. (Notice the orange circle with Altgens in the centre.)

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Patrick C wrote:100% correct Ben and I agree 100%



Wrong again. I am NOT stating that at all and I could not have stated it more simply.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Patrick C wrote:

As it is - it is barely 10% bigger 1.1cm rather than 1cm in the 35 x 24 cm photo in the LIFE book I referenced.

There it is again...



You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.



Then lie and claim you haven't.



Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?



You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.



EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...







How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.



Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.



Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:50 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=785#p785

Ben Holmes wrote:

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Ordinary people know that the apparent size will SHRINK as the object is further away...

100% correct Ben and I agree 100%

you're now on record as stating the opposite.

Wrong again. I am NOT stating that at all and I could not have stated it more simply.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Patrick C wrote:

As it is - it is barely 10% bigger 1.1cm rather than 1cm in the 35 x 24 cm photo in the LIFE book I referenced.

There it is again...



You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.



Then lie and claim you haven't.



Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?



You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.



EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:09 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=784#p784

Patrick C wrote:

Lee Abbott wrote:MORE could haves and it's possible, Patrick? ... Under those conditions how can anyone have a sensible discussion with you?

Another clueless post Lee....



The bullet exited JFK and it did NOT strike the spine. It therefore did NOT travel in a straight line and or it passed between the two transverse processes.



There are two possibilities - it is that simple.

This is, of course, untrue.



There are more than simply two possibilities. You wish to posit transit as a fact, and work forward from there...



But transit HAS NEVER BEEN more than a speculation made at LEAST a day later... (and may, in fact, be something that was not proposed for several months... as the Jan 27 Executive session seems to show) It was not deduced during the autopsy and based on evidence from the body.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:15 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=783#p783

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:One way to 'authenticate' the film is quite simple - if it matches what eyewitnesses saw.

Does that include the witness who thought JFK stood up and the one who saw a fluffy white dog in the back seat...?

The "fluffy dog" factoid is one that believers never seem to let go of, despite the fact that there WAS something there that looked "fluffy" and "white".



Clint Hill certainly did stand up...



You see how easy it is to mesh what people saw with the actual facts?



The problem that you have, is that NO-ONE saw the 'back and to the left' movement... all reports had him "slumping" forward or slumping left. This is not the movement currently seen, is it? This is a contradiction you cannot explain... in addition to the slowdown/stop witnesses.

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Simple... logical... and requires no citation for any honest person.



But if the film does NOT match up with what eyewitnesses saw, then this is evidence for alteration.

Absolute tripe. There were many witnesses who did not think the limo stopped...are you ignoring them...?

Nope... this is why I invariably use the phrase "slowdown/stop" - but clearly you're too dishonest to actually debate what I really say... so you simply make up strawmen to attack.



The limo in the Z-film certainly has no stop - and the only slowdown seen was observed in a frame by frame analysis of the film. IT WAS NEVER SEEN PRIOR TO THE ALVAREZ STUDY OF THE FILM.



When you actually analyze the eyewitnesses, many of the closest witnesses reported a stop, to include the most valuable of all witnesses, the motorcycle cops... since they were tracking THEIR movement based on the limo - and would be the most credible witnesses. The "slowdown" witnesses were generally much further away... and if the stop, as the witnesses reported, were only a second or two - then clearly it would only look like a slowdown to those further away with a poor view.



As one person puts it: "Some reported seeing it slow dramatically and others that it came to a complete stop, which makes sense since, from different positions, different witnesses would have seen it slow dramatically as it came to a complete stop."



But this entire issue is a problem for believers - because it's contradictory to what we see in the extant Z-film. DOZENS of people reported the slowdown/stop - yet IT CANNOT BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER OF THE Z-FILM.



For those interested, here's a resource you can read to judge the eyewitnesses for yourself.

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Simply stating that the film shows a limo slowdown will NOT corroborate the eyewitnesses... there's that minor problem of believability here... dozens of witnesses seeing the limo for the first time were able to note OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH a slowdown of the limo.

Nonsense. If the limo had stopped it would be apparent in the Nix and Z films. It is not. People perceived the limo stopped when in fact it slowed down.

You're using the same old tired logical fallacy. You cannot use the film to refute the evidence THAT THE FILM IS NOT AUTHENTIC.

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:You CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report, as you're trying to pass off in this case.

Your point cannot be established unless you show the films have been altered and Mr Zavada, who knows I would think, a lot more about film alteration than you Ben, states the Zapruder film is an in camera original which means there was no limo stop. Period.

Nope. Doesn't mean that at all. Zavada made it quite clear that he didn't examine the actual imagery in the film. His only concern was the film itself. His only EXPERTISE was on the film itself. David Healy, for example; has detailed how the film can be blown up to 35mm, altered, then re-shot in the original camera.



Now, back to what I said, and you ran from: you CANNOT give an example of such a dichotomy between what a film captures, and what people report.



There are many lines of evidence leading to the extant Z-film having been altered.



Anyone interested in the topic would do well to get these two books:



The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - Deceit & Deception in the Death of JFK

The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:44 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=782#p782

Ben Holmes wrote:

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Ordinary people know that the apparent size will SHRINK as the object is further away...

100% correct Ben and I agree 100%

you're now on record as stating the opposite.

Wrong again. I am NOT stating that at all and I could not have stated it more simply.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Patrick C wrote:

As it is - it is barely 10% bigger 1.1cm rather than 1cm in the 35 x 24 cm photo in the LIFE book I referenced.

There it is again...



You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.



Then lie and claim you haven't.



Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?



You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.



EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

B. Holmes screamed:

...you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned...

You're lying, Ben. Chaney is behind the limo in Altgens. His being closer to the camera lens doesn't put him where your faith requires him to be.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:31 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=781#p781

David Healy wrote:

M. Ulrik penned:



*Ray Mitcham wrote:

(If you disagree with the approximate distance of 6" between the shadows then please provide your evidence.)*



I think it's less than 6", but it doesn't matter much either way.

*********

doesn't matter? Of course you can prove that, correct? So, where's your evidence, champ?

Can't you read? It's doesn't really matter whether it took 3, 4 or 5 minutes to snap those pictures. If you disagree, then please feel free to show us why.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:57 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=780#p780