[Patrick C]

David Healy Wrote: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.

David Healy Wrote: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.

David Healy Wrote: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.

David Healy Wrote: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.

David Healy Wrote:The film and photo evidence related to this case is in horrible shape.

I simply do not agree.

David Healy Wrote: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!!!

David Healy Wrote: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.

[Patrick C]

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.

[Ray Mitcham]

SBF . Single Bullet Factoid.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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.

What is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

I've asked the question repeatedly, and you've run away every single time. You pick what you think are the easiest questions to answer, and run away from the rest.

That's not what people confident in their knowledge of the case will do... that's a tactic of someone desperately afraid of being nailed on a point they can't explain.

(Of course, judging on how badly you get savaged on issues you're willing to debate, it's no wonder that you're 'topic shy'...)

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

So your theory is that "decent authors" are willing to spend the time writing a book, but unwilling to debate others in a forum that disallows ad hominem attacks... is that your theory???

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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.

You confirm your admission that it's larger - DESPITE YOUR CLAIM THAT HE'S FURTHER AWAY...

So explain it.

Or run away again...

Such as the question on the fairing... which CONFIRMS that Chaney is 'larger' than Hargis... yet you claim Chaney is further away...

This isn't 'opinion' Patrick... this is science... either explain why Chaney is larger than Hargis, or admit that your belief in where you think he was is flat wrong, and he's EXACTLY where your deceiving eyes place him.

[Ben Holmes]

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%

Quote: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.

[Ben Holmes]

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?

[Lee Abbott]

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?

[Patrick C]

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.

[Ray Mitcham]

Quote:Patrick C.
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.

"It didn't travel in a straight line". Hmmm.... please tell us, Patrick ,do you think it travelled in a curved line or changed direction by hitting something solid which deflected this high velocity bullet?

[Mark Ulrik]

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%

Quote: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:

Quote:...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.