JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

We have her statement and if true, then the final pic took place before the fatal shot.
"As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out...'

The pic could have been altered, but if the pic was taken before the fatal shot, then alteration is not necessary.

"Could have" is nothing. You either show evidence the picture was altered or admit you can't.

Either way, you are still producing exactly zero physical evidence to support your narrative.

Why is that Robert? Why do you have a big fat nothing to prove your cherry picked statements correct?

Why do you have a void where there should be evidence of the photographic and filmed record being altered?

(Oh ansd by the way, my words are now recorded here, so by your claim I can not possibly be wrong...

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is only a mountain of evidence of a fatal shot from the Knoll as has been documented. In addition to the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses, there are the numerous on the scene witnesses who claim the shot came from the knoll. And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery. Now all that is left for your and your Amen chorus of naysayers is to do what you have attempted to do with every other witness. Time for the mud. No more need be said.

You are mistaking annectdotes for evidence again.

 

[HSienzant]

There is only a mountain of evidence of a fatal shot from the Knoll as has been documented. In addition to the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses, there are the numerous on the scene witnesses who claim the shot came from the knoll. And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery. Now all that is left for your and your Amen chorus of naysayers is to do what you have attempted to do with every other witness. Time for the mud. No more need be said.

lol.

There are no witnesses to a knoll shooter. None.

There were a number of witnesses on the overpass, including two cops, just around the corner from the knoll and some of them not more than maybe 30 feet from the supposed knoll shooter.

These men were interviewed on 11/22/63 and some of them had run around the corner to the knoll within a minute or less of the shooting. They saw NOBODY there.

YEARS LATER, Ed Hoffman came forward with a "story" of seeing two men, and a rifle, and his described path of the these supposed escaping assassins would have put both men in the clear view of the men known to be on the overpass.
Those legitimate witnesses disprove entirely Hoffman's year's later "story". There was NOBODY there that did what Hoffman describes. There was NOBODY there whatsoever.

So what?

You need to prove it is true, not assume it is true and use it to reject all the physical evidence.

Or were these 11/22/63 witnesses all mistaken or lying and Hoffman the only truthful witness, Robert?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

We have her statement and if true, then the final pic took place before the fatal shot.
"As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out...'

The pic could have been altered, but if the pic was taken before the fatal shot, then alteration is not necessary.

The picture was taken after the fatal shot, as the top of the President's head is already missing, as you can see in her photo.

The picture is not altered and you have provided no evidence it was altered, let alone any evidence there was any motive, means, or opportunity for it to be altered.

The bottom line is the photo, which shows JFK's head is damaged, is a POLAROID, it wasn't altered, and the damaged portion is NOT in the back of the head.

This is consistent with the z-film loop I have cited in the past and you have ignored.

It is consistent with the autopsy photos you yourself cited much earlier in this thread.

It is consistent with evidence like the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors testimony.

It is consistent with numerous witnesses in Dealey Plaza like the Newmans, who placed the wound to JFK in the right side of the head.

It is consistent with witnesses in Parkland like Doctor Jenkins and Malcolm Kilduff, who placed the wound they saw on the right side of the head.

Pretend some more you have the evidence on your side.

Hank

 

[Walter Ego]

The picture was taken after the fatal shot, as the top of the President's head is already missing, as you can see in her photo.

The picture is not altered and you have provided no evidence it was altered, let alone any evidence there was any motive, means, or opportunity for it to be altered.

The bottom line is the photo, which shows JFK's head is damaged, is a POLAROID, it wasn't altered, and the damaged portion is NOT in the back of the head.

This is consistent with the z-film loop I have cited in the past and you have ignored.

It is consistent with the autopsy photos you yourself cited much earlier in this thread.

It is consistent with evidence like the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors testimony.

It is consistent with numerous witnesses in Dealey Plaza like the Newmans, who placed the wound to JFK in the right side of the head.

It is consistent with witnesses in Parkland like Doctor Jenkins and Malcolm Kilduff, who placed the wound they saw on the right side of the head.

Pretend some more you have the evidence on your side.

Hank

The limo driver shot JFK. Case Closed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The picture was taken after the fatal shot, as the top of the President's head is already missing, as you can see in her photo.

The picture is not altered and you have provided no evidence it was altered, let alone any evidence there was any motive, means, or opportunity for it to be altered.

The bottom line is the photo, which shows JFK's head is damaged, is a POLAROID, it wasn't altered, and the damaged portion is NOT in the back of the head.

This is consistent with the z-film loop I have cited in the past and you have ignored.

It is consistent with the autopsy photos you yourself cited much earlier in this thread.

It is consistent with evidence like the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors testimony.

It is consistent with numerous witnesses in Dealey Plaza like the Newmans, who placed the wound to JFK in the right side of the head.

It is consistent with witnesses in Parkland like Doctor Jenkins and Malcolm Kilduff, who placed the wound they saw on the right side of the head.

Pretend some more you have the evidence on your side.

Hank

Damn those Parkland doctors were poor at pathology if they noticed one wound (which is apparently invisible to all forms of film and photography) but ignored another that was already there...

Robert will repeat this is baloney and continue to wrongly assume that verbal statements are some how more accurate than physical evidence. He cant explain how the photo could have faked so he wont. He will probably go into another "baloney" strop.

Remember he has yet to explain how JFKs ejecta defied the laws of physics. He wont admit he was wrong, he wont admit he cant explain it, so he rejects reality .

 

[HSienzant]

Baloney.

You seem to get a lot less wordy when you are stuck for a response, Robert, and have no legitimate rebuttal points to make.

Here is what you 'baloneyed'.

Please explain, in detail, what is wrong with the below.

Is my statement that JFK's was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo incorrect? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Is my statement that a shot from the knoll hitting JFK in the temple would have to exit the left side of his head, not the back of the head, incorrect? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Is my statement that the only rifle found that day was found in the TSBD incorrect? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Is my statement that a shot from the knoll would not have made the wound as described by Crenshaw incorrect? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Is my statement that Crenshaw never touched or moved the head of the late President incorrect? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Is my statement that a shot from the 'sniper's nest' window could have made the path described by Crenshaw, except in reverse? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Is my statement that two fragments from a bullet were traceable to Lee Harvey Oswald's weapon found in the Depository, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, incorrect? If so, why? Please cite the evidence.

Oh, Robert, you are simply assuming what you have to prove -- that there was a grassy knoll shooter at all. There is to date, absolutely no evidence of one. First, establish there was a shooter on the knoll, then we can talk about why he left NO evidence behind (not just the weapon, but no evidence whatsoever).

As I pointed out, and you ignored, the evidence indicates a shot from behind hit the president in the head, and a shot from the knoll doesn't align with the president's known wounds in the head -- whether you believe in the autopsy report or the drawings you cited:

lol. Remember that we've already seen that a bullet track as described above doesn't track back to the Grassy Knoll, as JFK's head was turned to the left of center of the limo at the time of the head shot by 17 degrees. A shot doing the damage you claim Crenshaw described could not have come from the Grassy Knoll, because a shot hitting JFK from the knoll in the right side of the head would have exited the left side of the head, not the back of the head.

Yet Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. Further, Crenshaw claims he KNOWS the bullet went front to back, but there was no rifle found in FRONT of JFK (or to his right, on the Grassy Knoll incline, either). The only rifle found that day was found BEHIND the President, so I suggest Crenshaw, who did not examine the head wound, never touched the head, and had no opportunity to track the wound in any manner, simply made a mistake about the direction the bullet was traveling. Moreover, two bullet fragments were found in the limo, and those fragments were directly traceable to the rifle found BEHIND the president.

Ignore everything I wrote again.
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

There is only a mountain of evidence of a fatal shot from the Knoll as has been documented. In addition to the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses, there are the numerous on the scene witnesses who claim the shot came from the knoll. And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery. Now all that is left for your and your Amen chorus of naysayers is to do what you have attempted to do with every other witness. Time for the mud. No more need be said.

Every other witness? No, that's another falsehood by you. *You* were the one disbelieving and slinging the mud when we were discussing Bill Newman.
Do you not remember *YOU* claimed he could not have seen the back of the head, you placed him and the limo in the wrong locations, you moved where he said he thought the shots came from, etc. etc. Note that Newman's basic story and location can be confirmed by what's in the films and photographs taken at the time of the assassination. You attempted to discredit him anyway, and did a terrible job at it.

Here's a pretty good expose of Virgil E. ("Ed") Hoffman's story, and how it has mutated over the years.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

Note his own father didn't confirm his story. Note there's scant evidence that Hoffman saw much of what he says he saw, including the most pertinent part of his whole tale, the fact that there were two men behind the grassy knoll fence who were involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Note his first recorded statement - over three years after the assassination - has him seeing two men leaving the back of the Depository building. Later it mutated to be two men behind the knoll.

An FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:

Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.

The FBI investigated further. An FBI report of about a week later says:

On July 5, 1967, Mr. E. Hoffman, father of Virgil E. Hoffman, and Fred Hoffman, brother of Virgil Hoffman, were interviewed at 428 West Main Street, Grand Prairie, Texas. Both advised that Virgil Hoffman has been a deaf mute his entire life and has in the past distorted facts of events observed by him. Both the father and brother stated that Virgil Hoffman loved President Kennedy and had mentioned to them just after the assassination that he (Virgil Hoffman) was standing on the freeway near the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. Virgil Hoffman told them he saw numerous men running after the President was shot. The father of Virgil Hoffman stated that he did not believe that his son had seen anything of value and doubted he had observed any men running from the Texas School Book Depository and for this reason had not mentioned it to the FBI.

Over the years, Hoffman changed his story a number of times. The above link details the changes. He is NOT a believable witness (except by conspiracy theorists, who in truth don't have much evidence except "witnesses" like Hoffman).

Robert,

Why is it you believe every supposed witness who crawls out of the woodwork years later (like an Ed Hoffman or Beverly Oliver, both of whom are clearly making this stuff up as they go along) and disbelieve the verifiable first day witnesses like Bill Newman, and the photos and films you can see with your own eyes?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

There is only a mountain of evidence of a fatal shot from the Knoll as has been documented. In addition to the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses, there are the numerous on the scene witnesses who claim the shot came from the knoll. And then there is the witness who actually saw two men with the rifle, a puff of smoke, and dis-assemble the rifle, place in a tool box, and casually walk away toward the railroad tracks. That's why there was no rifle found. That witness being Ed Hoffman who claims the FBI tried to shut him up with bribery. Now all that is left for your and your Amen chorus of naysayers is to do what you have attempted to do with every other witness. Time for the mud. No more need be said.

Here's another view of Hoffman's story, written by long-time conspiracy theorist Duke Lane, whom I've had the pleasure of debating back in the 1990's in a different forum. He is much more knowledgeable than Robert Prey and has actually done some good detective work on the assassination here and in a number of areas. As Duke writes in a sidebar near the end of the article, "Here, I should state for the record that I do not believe that Lee Oswald shot Jack Kennedy alone and unaided, and that there was a conspiracy that led to both men’s murders..."

Just note that this article is far more detailed in delving into what Hoffman saw or could have seen than the previously cited article.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/FreeWayman.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's another view of Hoffman's story, written by long-time conspiracy theorist Duke Lane, whom I've had the pleasure of debating back in the 1990's in a different forum. He is much more knowledgeable than Robert Prey and has actually done some good detective work on the assassination here and in a number of areas. As Duke writes in a sidebar near the end of the article, "Here, I should state for the record that I do not believe that Lee Oswald shot Jack Kennedy alone and unaided, and that there was a conspiracy that led to both men’s murders..."

Just note that this article is far more detailed in delving into what Hoffman saw or could have seen than the previously cited article.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/FreeWayman.htm

NO. First state your point.Then give a quote or two. Then, I'll read it.That's how it's supposed to work on this board. Don't waste my time with an excess of dicta.

 

[HSienzant]

NO. First state your point.Then give a quote or two. Then, I'll read it.That's how it's supposed to work on this board. Don't waste my time with an excess of dicta.

lol -- Already stated the point. Already gave the quotes. You ignored it all.

Here it is again:

Every other witness? No, that's another falsehood by you. *You* were the one disbelieving and slinging the mud when we were discussing Bill Newman.
Do you not remember *YOU* claimed he could not have seen the back of the head, you placed him and the limo in the wrong locations, you moved where he said he thought the shots came from, etc. etc. Note that Newman's basic story and location can be confirmed by what's in the films and photographs taken at the time of the assassination. You attempted to discredit him anyway, and did a terrible job at it.

Here's a pretty good expose of Virgil E. ("Ed") Hoffman's story, and how it has mutated over the years.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

Note his own father didn't confirm his story. Note there's scant evidence that Hoffman saw much of what he says he saw, including the most pertinent part of his whole tale, the fact that there were two men behind the grassy knoll fence who were involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Note his first recorded statement - over three years after the assassination - has him seeing two men leaving the back of the Depository building. Later it mutated to be two men behind the knoll.

An FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:

Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.

The FBI investigated further. An FBI report of about a week later says:

On July 5, 1967, Mr. E. Hoffman, father of Virgil E. Hoffman, and Fred Hoffman, brother of Virgil Hoffman, were interviewed at 428 West Main Street, Grand Prairie, Texas. Both advised that Virgil Hoffman has been a deaf mute his entire life and has in the past distorted facts of events observed by him. Both the father and brother stated that Virgil Hoffman loved President Kennedy and had mentioned to them just after the assassination that he (Virgil Hoffman) was standing on the freeway near the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. Virgil Hoffman told them he saw numerous men running after the President was shot. The father of Virgil Hoffman stated that he did not believe that his son had seen anything of value and doubted he had observed any men running from the Texas School Book Depository and for this reason had not mentioned it to the FBI.

Over the years, Hoffman changed his story a number of times. The above link details the changes. He is NOT a believable witness (except by conspiracy theorists, who in truth don't have much evidence except "witnesses" like Hoffman).

Robert,

Why is it you believe every supposed witness who crawls out of the woodwork years later (like an Ed Hoffman or Beverly Oliver, both of whom are clearly making this stuff up as they go along) and disbelieve the verifiable first day witnesses like Bill Newman, and the photos and films you can see with your own eyes?

Hank

Then I added this in the way of an addendum. which is solely what you respond to:

Here's another view of Hoffman's story, written by long-time conspiracy theorist Duke Lane, whom I've had the pleasure of debating back in the 1990's in a different forum. He is much more knowledgeable than Robert Prey and has actually done some good detective work on the assassination here and in a number of areas. As Duke writes in a sidebar near the end of the article, "Here, I should state for the record that I do not believe that Lee Oswald shot Jack Kennedy alone and unaided, and that there was a conspiracy that led to both men’s murders..."

Just note that this article is far more detailed in delving into what Hoffman saw or could have seen than the previously cited article.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/FreeWayman.htm

It is curious you ignore the post with all the "meat" as it were, and then criticize the meal as consisting of mostly vegetables.

We're not fooled by that sort of nonsense.

Robert, your actions here remind me of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink -- and you must be awfully thirsty by now.

The two links above will give you all the background info you need to make an informed judgment on Ed Hoffman's ever-changing story. I merely hit the highlights in my posts. Ignore them at your peril.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's another view of Hoffman's story, written by long-time conspiracy theorist Duke Lane, whom I've had the pleasure of debating back in the 1990's in a different forum. He is much more knowledgeable than Robert Prey and has actually done some good detective work on the assassination here and in a number of areas. As Duke writes in a sidebar near the end of the article, "Here, I should state for the record that I do not believe that Lee Oswald shot Jack Kennedy alone and unaided, and that there was a conspiracy that led to both men’s murders..."

Just note that this article is far more detailed in delving into what Hoffman saw or could have seen than the previously cited article.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/FreeWayman.htm

Each and every witness that proves conspiracy must be denigrated by government cover-uppers and the Lone Nutters who continue to buy into their fable. So you must denigrate all of the 40 plus on the scene witnesses and now others as well. According to Jim Mars, the man was sincere and credible:

As the one who first brought Ed Hoffman and even
walked the Grassy Knoll with Ed, I can assure you he was a credible and
sincere witness. No one who knew Ed has expressed serious doubts about
his veracity. His family early on tried to downplay Ed's testimony but
only out of love. They did not want him subjected to public ridicule.
With his death we lost a valuable witness. --Jim Marrs

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=153.60

But there are still other witnesses that corroborate Ed Hoffman and the Grassy Knoll shot: Lee Bowers who saw two men, a flash of light and smoke.

His interview with Mark Lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izqYhSV9AtY&feature=fvst
Now find some mud to throw at him.

 

[HSienzant]

Each and every witness that proves conspiracy must be denigrated by government cover-uppers and the Lone Nutters who continue to buy into their fable. So you must denigrate all of the 40 plus on the scene witnesses and now others as well. According to Jim Mars, the man was sincere and credible:

As the one who first brought Ed Hoffman and even
walked the Grassy Knoll with Ed, I can assure you he was a credible and
sincere witness. No one who knew Ed has expressed serious doubts about
his veracity. His family early on tried to downplay Ed's testimony but
only out of love. They did not want him subjected to public ridicule.
With his death we lost a valuable witness. --Jim Marrs

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=153.60

But there are still other witnesses that corroborate Ed Hoffman and the Grassy Knoll shot: Lee Bowers who saw two men, a flash of light and smoke. [emphasis added by Hank]

His interview with Mark Lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izqYhSV9AtY&feature=fvst
Now find some mud to throw at him.

You may think I am Hoffman's biggest enemy. But I am not. Ed Hoffman is Ed Hoffman's biggest enemy. He has changed his story too many times to count. Even if you believe Ed Hoffman, which Ed Hoffman do you believe?

You quote Jim Marrs finding Ed Hoffman credible, and think that is persuasive. But you need to find someone with some more credibility than Marrs to persuade any thinking person.
In a universe of JFK conspiracy theorists whose opinion you could have cited, Marrs is the biggest loon in that universe.

He has written books on the supposed 9/11 conspiracy, alien visitation (he believes aliens are among us right now!) and in The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy, 'he posits an enormous "money cult" conspiracy involving New World Order culprits like the Trilateral Commission, John D. Rockefeller, the Illuminati, Bertelsmann, and the TSA.' !!!

Really, you don't get much lower on the credibility scale than Jim Marrs.

And of course, you offer him up as a witness for Hoffman's credibility.

Why am I not surprised?

And what you offer isn't even a verifiable quote from Jim Marrs. It's a post from some poster "Andries" who says he got that response from Jim Marrs after writing to him. Did he? Who knows? You don't. You simply have an unknown person's statement that Jim Marrs told them that.

Yep, that's what passes for solid evidence in conspiracy-ville.

And what Lee Bowers saw is very different than what Hoffman saw. Please read the original link I supplied. Let me know what you dispute therein. Please educate yourself on what makes a good witness. Bowers is a good one. Hoffman is not. For one example, the two men that Bowers saw did not appear to be together according to Bowers, but Hoffman has them talking to each other and has one of them tossing a rifle to the other. Bowers described nothing like that. How come your witnesses didn't both see the same thing? How many different ways did it happen, Robert?

And why do you say Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke?

That is another falsehood by you.

He said, and I quote "....at the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I described were, there was a flash of light or - an - there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. And what this was I could not state at that time, and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light, or smoke, or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."

He said "a flash of light OR smoke". You elevate that to a flash of light AND smoke, implying perhaps a rifle was fired.

Did you not watch the film you cite? I did.

Bowers heard no shot that he associated with this flash of light.

And he saw no rifle.

And he saw a flash of something indistinct, that he could no describe, other than it was something indistinct that he saw that attracted his attention (from his Warren Commission testimony):

Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

He saw a flash of light or smoke or a sort of milling around(!) or something that he could not describe in that general area.

Which could be nothing more sinister than a reflection off the highly-polished limo as it zoomed past, or even seeing Jackie on the trunk of the car as the limo zoomed past. Or the man on the steps in the Moorman photo sprinting back away from the shooting. You can see him in the Nix film, I believe.

I also remind you that you pointed out a different area for the shooter on the map you supplied than the area Hoffman says he saw the shooter.

Were there two shooters in the general area, or was Bowers wrong? Or were you?

When are you going to cite some serious evidence? And actually summarize it accurately?

Oh, all you have is the standard, 50-year stuff that Mark Lane supplied that's not evidence of anything conspiratorial? And witnesses like Ed Hoffman coming out of the woodwork who've changed their stories more frequently than their underwear?

Pfft.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

You may think I am Hoffman's biggest enemy. But I am not. Ed Hoffman is Ed Hoffman's biggest enemy. He has changed his story too many times to count. Even if you believe Ed Hoffman, which Ed Hoffman do you believe?

You quote Jim Marrs finding Ed Hoffman credible, and think that is persuasive. But you need to find someone with some more credibility than Marrs to persuade any thinking person.
In a universe of JFK conspiracy theorists whose opinion you could have cited, Marrs is the biggest loon in that universe.

He has written books on the supposed 9/11 conspiracy, alien visitation (he believes aliens are among us right now!) and in The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy, 'he posits an enormous "money cult" conspiracy involving New World Order culprits like the Trilateral Commission, John D. Rockefeller, the Illuminati, Bertelsmann, and the TSA.' !!!

Really, you don't get much lower on the credibility scale than Jim Marrs.

And of course, you offer him up as a witness for Hoffman's credibility.

Why am I not surprised?

And what you offer isn't even a verifiable quote from Jim Marrs. It's a post from some poster "Andries" who says he got that response from Jim Marrs after writing to him. Did he? Who knows? You don't. You simply have an unknown person's statement that Jim Marrs told them that.

Yep, that's what passes for solid evidence in conspiracy-ville.

And what Lee Bowers saw is very different than what Hoffman saw. Please read the original link I supplied. Let me know what you dispute therein. Please educate yourself on what makes a good witness. Bowers is a good one. Hoffman is not. For one example, the two men that Bowers saw did not appear to be together according to Bowers, but Hoffman has them talking to each other and has one of them tossing a rifle to the other. Bowers described nothing like that. How come your witnesses didn't both see the same thing? How many different ways did it happen, Robert?

And why do you say Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke?

That is another falsehood by you.

He said, and I quote "....at the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I described were, there was a flash of light or - an - there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. And what this was I could not state at that time, and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light, or smoke, or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."

He said "a flash of light OR smoke". You elevate that to a flash of light AND smoke, implying perhaps a rifle was fired.

Did you not watch the film you cite? I did.

Bowers heard no shot that he associated with this flash of light.

And he saw no rifle.

And he saw a flash of something indistinct, that he could no describe, other than it was something indistinct that he saw that attracted his attention (from his Warren Commission testimony):

Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.

He saw a flash of light or smoke or a sort of milling around(!) or something that he could not describe in that general area.

Which could be nothing more sinister than a reflection off the highly-polished limo as it zoomed past, or even seeing Jackie on the trunk of the car as the limo zoomed past. Or the man on the steps in the Moorman photo sprinting back away from the shooting. You can see him in the Nix film, I believe.

I also remind you that you pointed out a different area for the shooter on the map you supplied than the area Hoffman says he saw the shooter.

Were there two shooters in the general area, or was Bowers wrong? Or were you?

When are you going to cite some serious evidence? And actually summarize it accurately?

Oh, all you have is the standard, 50-year stuff that Mark Lane supplied that's not evidence of anything conspiratorial? And witnesses like Ed Hoffman coming out of the woodwork who've changed their stories more frequently than their underwear?

Pfft.

Hank

So is Lee Bowers lyiing too? Is there a single grassy knoll witness who in your opinion is not either mistaken or lying? Is Lee Bowers lying? Did Dave Powers lie when he stated the fatal shot came from the knoll? Was he lying when he said the FBI pressured him to keep quiet? Is the FBI more credible than Ed Hoffman? Do you understand sign language? Did the FBI understand sign language?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Damn those Parkland doctors were poor at pathology if they noticed one wound (which is apparently invisible to all forms of film and photography) but ignored another that was already there...

Robert will repeat this is baloney and continue to wrongly assume that verbal statements are some how more accurate than physical evidence. He cant explain how the photo could have faked so he wont. He will probably go into another "baloney" strop.

Remember he has yet to explain how JFKs ejecta defied the laws of physics. He wont admit he was wrong, he wont admit he cant explain it, so he rejects reality .

More simple is that he doesn't believe any of this conspiracy stuff, and is simply responding so that the rest of us will in turn respond to him.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So is Lee Bowers lyiing too? Is there a single grassy knoll witness who in your opinion is not either mistaken or lying? Is Lee Bowers lying? Did Dave Powers lie when he stated the fatal shot came from the knoll? Was he lying when he said the FBI pressured him to keep quiet? Is the FBI more credible than Ed Hoffman? Do you understand sign language? Did the FBI understand sign language?

Why have you been unable to supply a single piece of physical evidence to support these claims?

 

[Walter Ego]

More simple is that he doesn't believe any of this conspiracy stuff, and is simply responding so that the rest of us will in turn respond to him.

Bottom line: This thread which has gone on past the point of insanity with nothing new having been introduced for the past two months (at least) will continue with no end in sight as long as Robert's enablers keep responding to him. There's no longer anything to be seen or discussed here. Allow Robert his little victory and move on.

 

[HSienzant]

So is Lee Bowers lyiing too? Is there a single grassy knoll witness who in your opinion is not either mistaken or lying? Is Lee Bowers lying? Did Dave Powers lie when he stated the fatal shot came from the knoll? Was he lying when he said the FBI pressured him to keep quiet? Is the FBI more credible than Ed Hoffman? Do you understand sign language? Did the FBI understand sign language?

No, Lee Bowers is a credible witness. But his flash of light or something does not translate into an assassin, despite your fervent wish that it were so. Maybe if you had a pair of Ruby slippers and clicked them hard enough...

Remember as well that Bowers only heard three shots. That is consistent with the vast majority of witnesses and conforms well to the physical evidence, like the three shells found in the snipers nest window. It does not implicate a second shooter. But conspiracy authors like Mark Lane don't point that out, they only emphasize the points that conflict with the one shooter scenario.

So do you understand the problem with Ed Hoffman's stories now? You appear to be abandoning Ed Hoffman as a grassy knoll witness. If that is the case, congratulations and welcome to the real world. But if you are merely switching gears to argue someone else's testimony, while retaining Hoffman as a grassy knoll witness, I'd prefer to iron out our differences concerning Hoffman before moving on to someone else.

But maybe you are not abandoning Hoffman, because you are asking if the FBI is more credible than Hoffman. I think to ask that question is to answer it.

But let me ask you a question that I think will answer yours: I know you think there was a conspiracy, but do you really think that every FBI agent was in on it? If not, then please consider what the odds are that Hoffman would walk into the FBI office and just happen to talk to an agent who was in on the conspiracy, who then deliberately took down a false story about the Depository (remember Hoffman's initial story said nothing about seeing men on the knoll). If you understand anything about probability, you will understand that Hoffman's first FBI statement, as well as the followup FBI interviews a week later with Hoffman's father and brother, are most likely the closest thing to the truth you can find. Relying on his current story, with all its additions and permutations, is not the best approach.

He appears to be adding stuff as he reads about it in conspiracy books, a point made throughout the literature. Remember as well that many earnest conspiracy believers -- like Duke Lane -- doubt the legitimacy of Hoffman's story.

Let me know how we should proceed here. Like I said, I prefer to convince you of the incredibility of Hoffman before moving on to other witnesses.

I am surprised you haven't brought up Jean Hill and Beverly Oliver yet. Both were featured witnesses in the Oliver Stone movie, JFK.

Thanks!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Bottom line: This thread which has gone on past the point of insanity with nothing new having been introduced for the past two months (at least) will continue with no end in sight as long as Robert's enablers keep responding to him. There's no longer anything to be seen or discussed here. Allow Robert his little victory and move on.

Feel free to check out at any time.

But I will continue to attempt to enlighten Robert.

I went through this with my brother about 20 years ago, who like Robert, was convinced of a conspiracy to kill JFK after reading four or five conspiracy books. It took about a year of constantly pointing out how many assumptions and suppositions are built into the conspiracy argument before he saw the light.

It may be that Robert won't take that long, but that remains to be seen.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Lee Bowers is a credible witness. But his flash of light or something does not translate into an assassin, despite your fervent wish that it were so. Maybe if you had a pair of Ruby slippers and clicked them hard enough...

Remember as well that Bowers only heard three shots.

So!!! Now we have a credible Grassy Knoll Witness, but not for a flash of light, nor smoke. But in his interview, he clearly heard three shots!! But the last two shots he described as being right next to each other as in Bam,Bam. That would, of course, prove conspiracy for the alleged weapon is incapable of such a feat. So thanks for confirming a conspiracy based on your one Grassy Knoll Witness. As for Ed Hoffman, No, I have not abandoned him. I've yet to even read all your junk. But I do note that he was not called before the Warrren Commission, and as far as I know his accounts were interpreted by the most un-trustworthy of agencies in this case -- The FBI. And did he change his story, or did the FBI change his story? Stay tuned. If you want faster answers you really need to learn who to be more concise. A lot of your garbage is just that.