[Ben Holmes]

The real question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?

So why do *YOU* care?

And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are believers famous for not supporting their own words?

Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:

Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most believers today?

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray? (John McAdams absolutely HATES this question...)

What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

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

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly not bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...

Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?

Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's never seen in the extant Z-film?

Why do dozen's of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

Why do dozens of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (And why can't even a single believer ADMIT that the Autopsy Report contradicts the BOH photo?)

When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?

And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.

Watch as believers absolutely REFUSE to respond to these questions... (no need to answer 'em all - that's something believers can't do... so pick your favorite, and let the apologetics begin...)

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's never seen in the extant Z-film?

Please elucidate .....thanks

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's never seen in the extant Z-film?

Please elucidate .....thanks

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

I'm amused that you picked an item that relies on sight... but as we already know, you can look straight at two weapons, and fail to see one of them... so you won't be able to credibly make any argument at all based on what is seen.

Tell us Patrick - why do you avoid the issues where there's simply no debate? Such as what the largest foreign object that can be seen in the AP X-ray?

Oops... that's another vision problem...

Forget it...

[Patrick C]

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.

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.

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.

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

Holmes your interpretation is wrong again.

[Ben Holmes]

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...)

[Patrick C]

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 ....

[David Healy]

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 lone 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 lone 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 familiar Patrick? Sounds lone nut desperate to me, Patrick.

[Ben Holmes]

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...

[Patrick C]

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.

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

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.

[Patrick C]

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.