[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I am not threatening anything - that is an odd choice or word....

You need to be mindful that there is a distinct difference between opinion and deliberately misleading some one!

I disagree with you on the neck wound - IMO there is zero evidence that the wound was an entry. There is speculation based on Perry's initial interpretation of the wound looking like an entry.

In other words, he said it was an entry wound, and this is not evidence that it was an entry wound.

It looked like an entry wound, and this is not evidence that it was an entry wound.

The prosectors were completely unable to track any path through the body, and this is not evidence that it was a throat wound.

The shrapnel wounds in the face aren't evidence of a frontal shot either, right?

Patrick C Wrote:Common sense should tell us all that the MC projectile that struck JFK in the back would exit if id did not strike the spine - which it did not. It enters at approx 2000 ft per second.

Then simply provide the evidence for your speculation...

But you won't. You can't.

Patrick C Wrote:Whether or not it was CE399 is another matter, but to suggest that the neck wound was an entry is clutching at straws. I would go as far as saying it is preposterous.

Then all you need to do is support that statement with evidence. I predict that you won't...

I predict you'll offer speculation rather than evidence...

Patrick C Wrote:I accept that there could have been a shrapnel wound to JFK's face - but it could have been from a head shot fragment causing a glass splinter to fly back.

I've often pointed out that believers are forced by their faith to believe in the silliest of things.

Tell us Patrick, in a hypothetical case - if you KNEW that facial wounds were caused by glass to a person sitting in the back of a limo - what would be the most likely direction of a bullet striking the windshield to cause such wounds?

Patrick C Wrote:I think it far more likely that there was no such wound to the face and that the mortician was simply wrong. I think it would have drawn attention form other persons attending the autopsy and it would have been duly noted in the report. It was not......

You're entitled to your own opinions... you're not entitled to your own evidence...

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:A simple example is James Chaney... the closest police eyewitness to the murder - captured in a photo looking directly at JFK at the time of the crime from less than a dozen feet away.

In the Altgens photo, Chaney appears to be looking in the direction of Hargis and Martin, but perhaps Ben has some other photo in mind.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:A simple example is James Chaney... the closest police eyewitness to the murder - captured in a photo looking directly at JFK at the time of the crime from less than a dozen feet away.

In the Altgens photo, Chaney appears to be looking in the direction of Hargis and Martin, but perhaps Ben has some other photo in mind.

A rather strange opinion to hold... no doubt influenced by your belief that the photo shows Chaney several feet behind the limo... But Chaney himself says otherwise, several times referring to his looking at the President, not fellow officers:

James Chaney Wrote:When the second shot came, I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gcAQNunbM[/youtube]

Now, the question becomes, why did the Warren Commission completely ignore a police officer, less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, WHO WAS FILMED STATING THAT HE WAS WATCHING THE MURDER VICTIM AS HE WAS BEING MURDERED...

I can well understand why you refuse to answer... there isn't one from the believer's side.

The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

And how exactly would he have done that Ben...?

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

And how exactly would he have done that Ben...?

I'm always happy to help you by citing evidence that you imply you aren't familiar with:

Quote:Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

I'm sure I don't have to explain this...

And, as I previously stated:

The testifying eyewitnesses to the Warren Commission - both the ones who did testify, and the ones not called to testify, is completely inexplicable on the basis of a belief in the WCR.

Calling someone who once knew someone who babysat a 2 year old Lee Harvey Oswald, yet refusing to call James Chaney is complete nonsense, and you know it, whether or not you're willing to publicly admit it.

[Patrick C]

Quote:Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Funny he did not say that on the TV Ben hey.....?

Does it not strike you as odd that Chaney thought JFK was effectively shot dead and then JC was hit, when we all know this is clearly NOT what happened......

So why would THAT conversation with Baker have an evidentiary value Ben......? He was obviously wrong!

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Quote:Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Funny he did not say that on the TV Ben hey.....?

There's a lot of things he didn't say in that very short T.V. segment... do you really want to argue that if he didn't say it on T.V., it isn't true?

Patrick C Wrote:Does it not strike you as odd that Chaney thought JFK was effectively shot dead and then JC was hit, when we all know this is clearly NOT what happened......

No, we don't know that this is not what happened. You're desperate to twist Chaney's statement into some preconceived mold...

Let's get back to the original claim you made by implication - that James Chaney wouldn't have testified in a manner that would hurt the Warren Commission.

Let's hear you admit that you either knew of Baker's statement, or you're learning of it for the first time.

Patrick C Wrote:So why would THAT conversation with Baker have an evidentiary value Ben......? He was obviously wrong!

Nope.

This is the common tactic... proven wrong, instead of admitting that Chaney's testimony would not have been desired by the Warren Commission for good and valid reasons, you take to arguing that the closest Police eyewitness to the crime was wrong.

Without any ability to order his thoughts, and cross-examination to bring out essential points...

let's get back to the topic...

Here it is again:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

And how exactly would he have done that Ben...?

Are you willing to admit that I answered your question in a credible and reasonable manner?

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:A simple example is James Chaney... the closest police eyewitness to the murder - captured in a photo looking directly at JFK at the time of the crime from less than a dozen feet away.

In the Altgens photo, Chaney appears to be looking in the direction of Hargis and Martin, but perhaps Ben has some other photo in mind.

A rather strange opinion to hold... no doubt influenced by your belief that the photo shows Chaney several feet behind the limo... But Chaney himself says otherwise, several times referring to his looking at the President, not fellow officers:

James Chaney Wrote:When the second shot came, I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face.

Selective quoting? How deceptive of you. There is a difference between looking back (opposite of ahead) and away, then back (in the direction you were looking before you looked away). Here is, in context, what Chaney said:

James Chaney Wrote:We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet.

Notice that he first looked away from and then back at the President. As we all know, the Altgens photo corresponds to Z frame 255 and the head shot to Z-313 (about 3 seconds later). Since Chaney is out of the frame in Z-255, he must be behind the limo, which is also what we see in Altgens. He's not looking ahead (in the direction of JFK) in the photo, but to his left (in the direction of Hargis and Martin).

Ben Holmes Wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gcAQNunbM[/youtube]

Now, the question becomes, why did the Warren Commission completely ignore a police officer, less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, WHO WAS FILMED STATING THAT HE WAS WATCHING THE MURDER VICTIM AS HE WAS BEING MURDERED...

I can well understand why you refuse to answer... there isn't one from the believer's side.

The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In the Altgens photo, Chaney appears to be looking in the direction of Hargis and Martin, but perhaps Ben has some other photo in mind.

A rather strange opinion to hold... no doubt influenced by your belief that the photo shows Chaney several feet behind the limo... But Chaney himself says otherwise, several times referring to his looking at the President, not fellow officers:

James Chaney Wrote:When the second shot came, I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face.

Selective quoting? How deceptive of you. There is a difference between looking back (opposite of ahead) and away, then back (in the direction you were looking before you looked away). Here is, in context, what Chaney said:

James Chaney Wrote:We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet.

So where's the "deceptive quoting?"

I stated that Chaney said he was looking at the President, then I quoted his words saying this.

You also quote his words saying this.

WHO DID JAMES CHANEY STATE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Notice that he first looked away from and then back at the President. As we all know, the Altgens photo corresponds to Z frame 255 and the head shot to Z-313 (about 3 seconds later). Since Chaney is out of the frame in Z-255, he must be behind the limo, which is also what we see in Altgens. He's not looking ahead (in the direction of JFK) in the photo, but to his left (in the direction of Hargis and Martin).

Nope... speculation will not change James Chaney's position... nor who he stated he was looking at.

Ben Holmes Wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gcAQNunbM[/youtube]

Now, the question becomes, why did the Warren Commission completely ignore a police officer, less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, WHO WAS FILMED STATING THAT HE WAS WATCHING THE MURDER VICTIM AS HE WAS BEING MURDERED...

I can well understand why you refuse to answer... there isn't one from the believer's side.

The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

Dead silence...

Mark couldn't answer this question...

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

A rather strange opinion to hold... no doubt influenced by your belief that the photo shows Chaney several feet behind the limo... But Chaney himself says otherwise, several times referring to his looking at the President, not fellow officers:

Selective quoting? How deceptive of you. There is a difference between looking back (opposite of ahead) and away, then back (in the direction you were looking before you looked away). Here is, in context, what Chaney said:

James Chaney Wrote:We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet.

So where's the "deceptive quoting?"

I stated that Chaney said he was looking at the President, then I quoted his words saying this.

You also quote his words saying this.

WHO DID JAMES CHANEY STATE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT?

He said he was looking back over to his left. That would be in the general direction of Hargis and Martin (which is consistent with what we see in the Altgens photo).

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Notice that he first looked away from and then back at the President. As we all know, the Altgens photo corresponds to Z frame 255 and the head shot to Z-313 (about 3 seconds later). Since Chaney is out of the frame in Z-255, he must be behind the limo, which is also what we see in Altgens. He's not looking ahead (in the direction of JFK) in the photo, but to his left (in the direction of Hargis and Martin).

Nope... speculation will not change James Chaney's position... nor who he stated he was looking at.

I wasn't speculating. You're just wrong. Chaney isn't looking at JFK in the Altgens photo. He's looking to his left, in the direction of his fellow officers.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gcAQNunbM[/youtube]

Now, the question becomes, why did the Warren Commission completely ignore a police officer, less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, WHO WAS FILMED STATING THAT HE WAS WATCHING THE MURDER VICTIM AS HE WAS BEING MURDERED...

I can well understand why you refuse to answer... there isn't one from the believer's side.

The critics can easily and credibly explain why the Warren Commission was afraid of James Chaney's testimony... James Chaney would have undercut their SBT - without which would have proven a second shooter.

Dead silence...

Mark couldn't answer this question...

Oh, I thought you hated speculation. I don't know why Chaney wasn't allowed to testify (and neither do you).