Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

"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...?

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...?



"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 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.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... d/3672031/

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:49 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=769#p769

What is that supposed to mean...? Are you trying to be funny...perhaps?



I certainly don't think they would have heard the phantom and invisible Grassy Knoll gunman though, that is a given.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:38 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=768#p768

"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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:35 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=767#p767

If the pictures were faked, Marina would not remember taking them.



Marina took the pictures and she maintains that to this day. It is a non issue.



The photos are genuine and the subject is a load of pro conspiracy hogwash.



Why on earth would you leave a trail pointing at forgery.......it is a ridiculous theory. As if you would need a photo of Oswald with his weapons to prove he had them! It is utterly silly. He ordered them via mail and his signature is on the order form and the guns were shipped to his PO Box. One more time why would you need a photo....?



Oh wait, you guys are just having a joke right...?

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:30 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=766#p766

If you can prove the photos are fake, then it proves a conspiracy.

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:08 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=765#p765

The back yard photos issue is meaningless. Oswald NEVER went to Mexico City and was also set up to pose with the subsequent alleged murder weapons, even if was him in the pictures



Or as Bugs Bunny would say, "What maroons."

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:41 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=43&p=764#p764

I suppose the pigeons on the TSBD would have remained perched there if the shots had come from any other of the surrounding buildings?

Statistics: Posted by Ray Mitcham — Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:38 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=763#p763

Patrick wrote, "Secondly, the CAT scan does not reveal the gaps in the transverse process through which a bullet COULD have passed without striking bone directly."



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

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:27 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=762#p762

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

No it has NOT!



Firstly the bullet need not take a straight line path - which you are assuming it did.



Secondly, the CAT scan does not reveal the gaps in the transverse process through which a bullet COULD have passed without striking bone directly.



I have explained this to you time and time again on Amazon.



Your statement is incorrect, invalid and is NO viable challenge to the SBT or as I prefer to call it.....



The Single Bullet Fact SBF.

You've already repeatedly demonstrated that your eyes don't see what the rest of the world sees, so your opinion, absent a medical degree we are unaware of, is not very credible... is it?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:08 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=761#p761

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.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:05 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=760#p760