Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Believers get really nervous and never seem to have an explanation for the reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.



With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them highly credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were with the limo), believers really can't deny what happened.



So when it's pointed out that this IS NOT SEEN in the extant Z-Film - they all immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:The shots certainly wouldn't have been very difficult at such close range. I'm betting given 8-9 seconds I could have hit a man sized target twice in 3 tries with my bolt action rifle and scope and I had no Marine training.

Giving no indication of his actual skill level, but implying that it's not very high, this believer thinks he's better than the three NRA rated "Masters" who attempted to do exactly this. (and failed...)



Perhaps he's never studied the case well enough to know that the Warren Commission had three real experts try to duplicate the shots.



It's truly amusing to watch believers deny the facts that are right in front of them.



And since I'm quite well acquainted with the evidence in this case, believers cannot debate... they end up looking stupid.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Believer-is-a-World-Class-Shooter

Anthony Marsh Wrote:Some people say that when more than one person is arrested for a crime that is de facto a conspiracy.



Buell Frazier was arrested for the assassination of President Kennedy and taken in for questioning, like Oswald.



Captain Fritz typed up a confession and told him to sign it. When Frazier refused, Captain Fritz took back the piece of paper.



Where is it now? Is it still in evidence in some forgotten safe in Dallas? Or is this yet another example of destruction of evidence?

It's nonsense like this that tends to deride critics... Anthony Marsh pretends to be a critic, then claims that "Some people say that when more than one person is arrested for a crime that is de facto a conspiracy."



Sheerest nonsense!!!



That's never been a definition of conspiracy, and I quite doubt if Anthony Marsh can cite ANYONE making such a claim.



A recent example comes to mind where a terrorist drove a car into a crowd of people, killing a number of them. The police arrested one guy, then released him. Presuming that the real terrorist is arrested, do we now have a "conspiracy?"



The definition of conspiracy has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people are detained, or even arrested for a crime.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Missing-Citations

What looks odd to me is the images in background appear to be a bit larger than they should be. After watching a few synchronizations with the Nix and Muchmore Films, I haven't been able to spot any blatant discrepencies.



I think one should realize when watching the apparent near-constant speed of the Limo that Zapruders line-of sight was nearly orthogonal to to direction of the Limo when it slowed down.



Think about this.



This means that at the time the Limo was travelling at it's slowest speed, the perspective of Zapruder would naturally show the Limo passing at the fastest rate. This issue of perspective would greatly mitigate the apparent deceleration of the Limo.



We know that it slowed down, but were frames removed from the Zapruder Film to hide this?



Maybe so; maybe not.



I'll try a little sketch of the math involved:



Take a Limo moving at constant speed with an observer at a fixed point. I'll assume that the Limo's path (Elm St.) is straight for simlicity. We can lay two dimensional cartesian coordinates over the area and take the Elm St. to be the ordinate; the X-axis.



Orthogonal would be the observer on the abcissa; the Y-axis. Assuming a constant speed in the positive x direction, the apparent speed of the observer on the -Y axis would be the change in the angle. This is how humans estimate and speed with thier senses; ans the change of angle per unit time. It depends on the distance away from the moving body as well.



The speed in an automobile is given ultimately by revolutions per minute; and hence, distance per unit time after the wheel's circumference has been accounted for.



So if we take the Greek letter Theta (θ) to represent the angle, and the dθ/dt to represent the infinitesimal change in angle per unit time, the apparent speed (dθ/dt) is equal to the Limo's speed by this:



tan(θ)=x/y



sec²(θ)dθ=dx/y [taking the derivative]



sec²(θ)dθ/dt=dx/ydt [multiplying both sides by 1/dt. If two things are equal, then they equal eachother still after being multiplied by a constant.}



dθ/dt=dx/ydtsec²(θ) [multiplying both sides by 1/sec²(θ)]



(dθ/dt)=(dx/dt)(1/ysec²(θ)) [rearranging and bracketing]



And we have the apparent speed which is the change in angle (θ) per unit time (dθ/dt) on one side and the Limo's speed via speedometer (dx/dt) on the right. The value of "y" is equal to the closest distance of Zapruder from Elm Street. The inverse of secant is cosine, so it can be rewritten as:



(dθ/dt)=(cos²(θ)/y)(dx/dt)



And where is the rate of change at the maximum? When the angle equals zero; when it is orthogonal. At this angle cos(θ)=1 and at every other angle cos(θ)&t1. If the angle is 90° then the rate of change is zero. This would be an object coming straight at you. If it weren't for enlargement you wouldnt be able to tell that it is moving.



Obviously this does not account for enlargement.



You get the idea. Even with a constant speed (dx/dt), the apparent speed by a stationary observer with a line-of-sight orthogonal to the moving path ranges from the actual speed to zero, depending on whether or not the object is coming at you or moving directly across your point of view. We have all seen a train approach, and then pass. The train is travelling at a near-constant speed but it appears to be moving faster the closer it gets and the more orthogonal it gets to our perspective.



Putting this equation into words:



(dθ/dt)=(cos²(θ)/y)(dx/dt)



(apparent speed) = (cos²(θ)/distance) x (limo's speed)



With a constant distance from Elm St. and a constant Limo Speed we basically have a cos²(θ) equation. Here is a graph:











...to give you an idea. The Y-axis of this graph would be the apparent speed and the X-axis would be the angle. This graph is somewhat misleading since there would only be one cycle in the event we are describing, and the angle would never reach 90°. The angle starts off at about 60° or so I think.



So the upper-part of one of the humps would roughly describe the apparent speed, as defined as the change in angle per unit time (dθ/dt).



So what I am getting at is that the apparent increase in speed as the limo approaches Zapruder partially mitigates the decrease in speed as observed by numerous witnessess. In other words: the Limo slowed down, but from Zapruder's perspective, it did not appear to slow down as much as it really had.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Zapruder-Fakery

(30) Oswald made a clenched-fist salute to reporters. (A political gesture in support of Marxism is the argument VB is employing.)



Or he could merely have been showing that he was handcuffed. Speculation on Bugliosi's part isn't evidence of anything.



Indeed, the speculation of Warren Commission believers is often used as evidence – but would never be allowed in court. Once again, we see the weakness of Bugliosi's case when he's using nonsense like this to 'prove' guilt.



Notice that believers are completely silent now... no way to refute my refutations - so clearly Bugliosi can't be defended even by believers...



Such AMAZING cowardice!



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-30-Refuted

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Can anyone explain Ben Holmes thinking referenced in this post from October 2014?



I can't.



This claim: "If the evidence showed Oswald to be a part of the conspiracy - no-one would have problems so indicting him. But unfortunately for you, the evidence clears him. Scientific evidence."



https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref...NXBPBESUJT



How could any scientific test clear someone of being involved in a *conspiracy*?



It made no sense when Ben said it, which is why he never defended it.



He never posted any evidence for his claim, he never clarified his claim, he never provided any argument for his claim.



Instead, he kept changing the subject every time I asked him about it.



This is just one of the kind of silly arguments Ben would make, that Heisenberg has, in the past, applauded Ben for, lauding Ben as someone I fear.



Which is hilarious, as Ben was and is a typical conspiracy theorist who can't argue the evidence, can't debate the issues civilly, and always resorted to logical fallacies and cites he cribbed from conspiracy websites.



Just like Heisenberg. Within a short time of my rejoining this forum back in June, I warned Heisenberg (then posting as "Magus Maverik") to "don't be like Ben". He has proceeded to be exactly like Ben, but he knows even less about the assassination.



Hank

Henry's a coward and quite the despicable liar.



However, I do applaud him for posting the cite so that everyone can see that I ALREADY ANSWERED HIS QUESTION!!



Oswald could not have fired the rifle, due to the evidence of the cheek cast, which I already stated. There's ZERO evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy of any sort - the only possibility was that he was one of the shooters. If he was not one of the shooters, then he was not part of a conspiracy.



Since the evidence clears him of being a shooter - what did he "conspire" to do??? Where's the evidence of ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER on Oswald's part that would indict him as a conspirator?



Henry can't answer that - so despite knowing that I'm right here, and perfectly willing to answer ANY EVIDENTIAL QUESTION HE CAN POSSIBLY RAISE - Henry's quite content to snip and run in an arena he knows I've been forbidden from.

Quote:1. Headshot from the right front.

2. Magic Bullet Theory is too stupid for words.

3. JFK was pulling out of Vietnam NSAM 263, reversed 11-25-63.

4. Fake SS Agents on the Grassy Knoll.

5. Clay Shaw lied about his relationship with Ferrie and Oswald, though not proven he was a conspirator.

6. The Tramps true identities remain a mystery.

Well stated...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Six-Things-Oliver-Stone-Got-999-Right

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:Since we already know that Oswald killed Kennedy alone and shot Tippit I suggest that we focus on Oswald's motive. It is pointless to watch videos of an imaginary shot at Z-285 or discuss a fictional rogue CIA. This is an announcement. There will be no questions.

This is quite typical for believers... they simply cannot debate the truth or lack of truth when it comes to the Warren Commission's theory - so they want to simply announce that it's correct, and move on to speculation.



Is it surprising that I label so many believers "cowards"?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Cowards-Among-Us

(29) After arrest, Oswald refused to even give his name to arresting officers.



A rather damaging admission on Bugliosi's part... since this establishes that Oswald was NOT carrying ID in the name of Hidell. (note that not a single believer will dare to debate this...)



It was not until 1973 that a refusal to give your name to an arresting officer became a misdemeanor in Texas ( http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Do.../PE.38.htm) – and would never in a court of law be evidence of guilt in a murder case (or any other felony, for that matter)



Bugliosi goes on to state: "As a pretty consistent general rule, when a person is innocent of a crime, he cooperates with law enforcement." But that's simply nonsense... here, for example, is one lawyer's advice:

Quote:If I am innocent, shouldn't I make a statement and tell the police everything I know?



Answer: Absolutely not. When a person is innocent or has a valid defense such as self defense, it is common to want to explain your side of the story to police. However, even if you are innocent it is crucial that you nevertheless invoke your right to an attorney and your right to remain silent.

http://www.agnichlaw.com/yourRights.html

Bugliosi speaks as a prosecutor, and not as a defense attorney. This 'crime' on Oswald's part shows nothing at all.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-29-Refuted

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:Oswald would have said that someone took his rifle out of Mrs. Paine's garage and planted it on the 6th floor of the TSBD in order to frame him.



Oswald said that he didn't own a rifle.



Oswald said that the backyard photos of him holding his rifle were faked.



Oswald denied owning the rifle because he used it to kill JFK.



Why can't you just admit it?

This is the sort of meaningless nonsense that passes for evidence & debate in a censored forum.



No-one is going to point out that this means that everyone who doesn't own a rifle has evidence showing he/she is a murderer.



Rather silly, isn't it?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-You-Don-t-Own-A-Rifle