Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Patrick, your theories are collapsing by the minute and you're misrepresenting your previous comments. You just stated, for example, "you seem to think that an adult male would NOT use a shoulder or a thigh to shift a pile of boxes a few inches. This is provably incorrect as I have done that exact action when moving house over a ten hour period using the U Haul boxes over in Arizona - I pushed many piles of 3 or 4 boxes a few inches with my legs, shoulder and forearms rather than lifting."



The topic was that few, if any. of Oswald's print were on the sniper's nest boxes, and you originally suggested he moved them while using his forearms. The thighs, shoulders & legs came later after you either realized how foolish you sounded, or you got it mixed up with your list of chicken parts you intended to get at the market. Plus, we're not discussing moving heavy boxes of books "a few inches" which is another misrepresentation of our original discussion.... And stacking boxes on top of one-another isn't done with shoulders and thighs.



The point is you're constantly interjecting "it's possible" with each and every scenario in this matter. In fact, I'm always anxiously waiting for your subsequent comments just to see how desperate you've become supporting your views from last century.

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:32 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=749#p749

"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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=748#p748

"Here's you problem with this line of reaction Patrick, first we assume you're .john's and Mel Ayton's lone nut spokeperson here.



Never spoken to either of them and don't know them. I had at one point thought of meeting Mel Ayton up in Durham, but never got round to it.



Second you're an ardent defender of the 1964 WCR and its lies with noting else other than the devil told you to believe.



Well I certainly think Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt. I think the report is flawed. I think they should have placed more emphasis on the 2 shot only scenario and much less in the 3 shots in less than 6 seconds.



"You've shown no cause for anyone here or otherwise to believe you other than fractured and hard to believe opinion."



Is that supposed to make sense? If you are asking me if I have considered that my opinion is wrong - yes of course and I believed there was probably a conspiracy from 1980 to around 1993 or maybe slightly later.



"You have not authenticated the alleged original, in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA today. Why?"



I have seen the canister in NA in Washington DC, but I have not seen the original film. Nor would I have the skill set to make the evaluation regarding authenticity. But I can read reports of people who have.



The notion that the film was altered is ridiculous. Zapruder had the film with him until he handed it over to Stolly at Time Life - by which time the three copies were made and countless stills issued of the original film. If the film was subsequently altered, ALL of the Zapruder film and photo materials would have to have been found and recalled and destroyed. This is simply impossible.



The film and photo evidence related to this case is in horrible shape.



I simply do not agree.



The best lone nuts can come up with is simple:

"Neither the Z film nor Altgens photos are altered Ben.

They can come up with a lot more than that David and you know it.



A short post from me on this forum is not representative of the counter arguments out there on JFK assassination film forgery and I am certainly not going to waste my time digging into the subject in detail for you guys who will clearly not shift your views a millimetre!!!



"The idea that they are is within the domain of crackpot theories on this case." Sounds familiar Patrick? Sounds lone nut desperate to me, Patrick."



Not at all and I could not disagree more. The notion that the Z film and Nix film have not been altered is everyday common sense - there is nothing crackpot about that.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:02 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=747#p747

"When someone makes a ridiculous statement, then adds, "That's my opinion," it's as good as a lie."



Actually,no it is not Lee. I think I can say hand on heart I am reasonably well informed on the JFK case, sure I do not retain anything like as much as I did when I was deeply embedded in the subject in the 80s, but my opinions are genuine and they are certainly NOT lies.



I have no doubt made errors of recollection and may have posted an inaccurate comment on the odd occasion but I have not made any intention to lie or deceive. Not one jot.



And I have never posted a ridiculous statement, you however disagree - for example you seem to think that an adult male would NOT use a shoulder or a thigh to shift a pile of boxes a few inches. This is provably incorrect as I have done that exact action when moving house over a ten hour period using the U Haul boxes over in Arizona - I pushed many piles of 3 or 4 boxes a few inches with my legs, shoulder and forearms rather than lifting.



I am not saying Oswald DID move boxes that way, I was merely pointing out that perhaps he did not use his fingers and palms as much as you would have expected.



Point made I trust.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:37 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=746#p746

"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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:32 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=745#p745

"Then why are you refusing (as I predicted) to answer the points I raised?"



Not refusing at all, I have not looked at all your points because I have other things to do - like work!



I may or I may not get round to it. I may dip into a few.



There is little point in discussing these crackpot theories - it is why most decent authors on this subject steer clear of forums like this.



"Tell us how identical sized helmets can differ in size depending on the distance..."



I think you have missed my point. I merely stated that we should reasonably expect that Chaney's white helmet would be even larger if he was in the position you think he should be in in the Z film. I disagree. 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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:30 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=744#p744

Patrick C wrote:

Neither the Z film nor Altgens photos are altered Ben.

And yet, you run every time the evidence for Z-film alteration is brought up... why is that, Patrick?

Patrick C wrote:

The idea that they are is within the domain of crackpot theories on this case.

Based on what, Patrick? Are you seriously suggesting that the CIA never fudged a photo??? How silly!!!

Patrick C wrote:

IMO, the case I made is strong.

Then why are you refusing (as I predicted) to answer the points I raised?



Tell us how identical sized helmets can differ in size depending on the distance...



Ordinary people know that the apparent size will SHRINK as the object is further away... you're now on record as stating the opposite.



Why is that, Patrick?



Can you cite ANY evidence for this magical theory of yours?

Patrick C wrote:

That you think differently, merely highlights your lack of scientific method. I bet you NEVER once considered measuring the DPD helmets - it never occurred to you ....

Nope... never did. I considered that the width of the motorcycle fairing was a much better object to measure. And did so, many years ago. But rather than tell you my results, I'll let YOU do the measurement.



Then tell us why YOUR measurement of a further away object shows a larger image than an identically sized object that is closer to the camera.



Or, of course, you can run again...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:24 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=743#p743

Patrick C wrote:

Neither the Z film nor Altgens photos are altered Ben.



The idea that they are is within the domain of crackpot theories on this case.



IMO, the case I made is strong. That you think differently, merely highlights your lack of scientific method. I bet you NEVER once considered measuring the DPD helmets - it never occurred to you ....

Patrick C wrote:

Neither the Z film nor Altgens photos are altered Ben.

Here's you problem with this line of reaction Patrick, first we assume you're .john's and Mel Ayton's loon nut spokeperson here. Second you're an ardent defender of the 1964 WCR and its lies with noting else other than the devil told you to believe. You've shown no cause for anyone here or otherwise to believe you other than fractured and hard to believe opinion. You have not authenticated the alleged original, in-camera Zapruder film currently housed at NARA today. Why?

The film and photo evidence related to this case is in horrible shape. The best loon nuts can come up with is simple:

"Neither the Z film nor Altgens photos are altered Ben. The idea that they are is within the domain of crackpot theories on this case." Sounds familia Patrick? Sounds loon nut desperate to me, Patrick.

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:13 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=742#p742

Neither the Z film nor Altgens photos are altered Ben.



The idea that they are within the domain of crackpot theories on this case.



IMO, the case I made is strong. That you think differently, merely highlights your lack of scientific method. I bet you NEVER once considered measuring the DPD helmets - it never occurred to you ....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:20 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=741#p741

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Oh, I'm sure you already know, Patrick. It's quite clear that Chaney is riding FORWARD of the limo's rear bumper.

I disagree. In the large format 2013 Life book "The Day Kennedy Died" there is a 36 x 24 cm high quality reproduction of Altgens 6.



Whilst this is not 100% scientifically provable, if one measure the size of the white police helmets of Chaney who is to Altgen's left and Hargis who is to Altgen's right, the helmets are 1.1 cm and 1.0 cm in width respectively.

You either incorrectly stated the facts, or you just added the proof that Chaney is closer.



By your faith, Chaney is FURTHER AWAY from Altgens... yet you've just asserted that the width of his helmet is LARGER than a helmet closer to the camera.



So tell us Patrick... did you misstate the facts?



Or did you fail to interpret their meaning?

Patrick C wrote:

As you can clearly see that Hargis's cycle's shadow is slightly behind the front wheel of the follow up car - level with Hill, it would seem logical to conclude that Chaney's position was almost the same as Hargis's ie behind the JFK limo and NOT forward of the rear bumper.

This is totally nonsensical. Speculating as to the position of one person based on the position of ANOTHER person ... who isn't handcuffed to the first... is just downright silly!!!



I defy you to quote this claim, my rebuttal, then GIVE A 'LOGICAL' REASON TO PRESUPPOSE WHAT YOU CLAIM IS 'LOGICAL'.



My crystal ball tells me that you'll run again...

Patrick C wrote:

The photo is taken with a 35mm Nikkorex-F single lens reflex camera with a 105mm telephoto lens, ...hence there is a small element of zoom which will squash the images somewhat, but I do not see how YOU can conclude from this image that the position of Chaney is where you think it is other wise his helmet would almost certainly appear to be bigger than it is because he would be some 6ft or so closer to Altgens.

It would be simple enough to take a limo and a motorcycle, and a camera - and prove to the world your faith. But it's never happened in 50 years, and never will.

Patrick C wrote:

The Zapruder film does not show Chaney to Zapruder's left because Chaney was NOT far enough forward.



Holmes your interpretation is wrong again.

I knew it was only a matter of time until you tried to use the Zapruder film ... yet logically, YOU CANNOT DO SO!!!



It's the authenticity of the Zapruder film that is the issue... I suspect that even you would admit that there wasn't any time to make any alterations to the Altgens' print... unlike the time available to alter the extant Z-film.



Now that you've eliminated Chaney as forward of the rear bumper of JFK's limo - all you have to do is explain the shadow seen to the left of the limo just under the headlight...



But you won't. (Nor will you tell everyone what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray is... John McAdams can't help you here...)

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:23 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=740#p740