• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Then "bam,bam" should have been heard with the first shot as well, but it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Are you as much an expert on soundwaves as you are on Newtonian physics, photography and medicine?

Tell me Robert, when you are in a cave, or a cathedral, making a long speech, does the echo play it all back to you verbatum, or do the last few sounds of the last word reverberate? What happens when soundwaves meet other soundwaves?
 
7forever said:
I captured the gape many months ago.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't keep gapes in captivity.

Quick, before you get banned, can you post some high res video of the blobs or orbs or whatever nonsense you're claiming so that we can make out some detail? The ones you found to post look like some idiot has dumbed them down deliberately because they don't want you to make out detail. Kind of like they are being deliberately dishonest. I know you wouldn't have fallen for that kind of lying, deceitful dishonesty.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hoover was in on it. That's enough. One question at a time, please.
Click to expand...

You are assuming what you need to prove, Robert.

As always, conspiracy theorists simply assume another 'convenient fact' (not established by any evidence) to close the gap in their prior assumptions.

Robert is assuming Hoover was in on it, because he's already assumed the FBI lied about Ed Hoffman's statement back in 1967. He had no evidence of that, so of necessity he must close this gap by making yet another assumption.

And round and round we go.

Please post the evidence that "Hoover was in on it", Robert.

We both know you don't have any.

Hank

And note the points Robert failed to respond to with his "one point per post" nonsense:
- No retraction for his false claim that Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke.
- No citation for his claim that Hoffman is more trustworthy than the FBI.
- No retraction for his claim that the Warren Commission should have called Hoffman as a witness, when Hoffman didn't come forward until three years after the Warren Commission concluded their deliberations.
- No evidence provided that establishes that Hoffman wasn't just making it all it, as his own father said.
- No evidence that the FBI agent who took Hoffman's statement in 1967 put anything down that Hoffman did not claim at that time.


HSienzant said:
lol. I noticed you skirted right over your false claim that Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke. Interesting that you would make a false claim like that, then accept Hoffman's account. Not surprising, perhaps, but interesting.

You really need to understand how to read. I said Lee Bowers was a credible witness. That doesn't mean he got everything right. Just that he has not changed his story every day for the past ten years, unlike an Ed Hoffman. Calling him a grassy knoll witness is another falsehood by you, as he never mentioned seeing an assassin there, nor anyone with a weapon that day whatsoever. His "flash of light" (really the only statement of his that even points in that direction) has been interpreted by critics as a muzzle blast, but it really could be anything, and I gave a few more reasonable examples in my prior post.

How could the Warren Commission call Ed Hoffman as a witness when he didn't come forward for the first time until 1967? How would they know that he witnessed anything? That is an ultimately silly charge by you to level, that they didn't call him as a witness.

How do *you* know Hoffman witnessed anything? You have only his word and his story, which has changed on numerous occasions, yet you choose to believe him. I remind you there is no evidence he saw anything, nor any evidence he was even where he said he was on the day of the assassination. This is a credible witness to you? Not to me.

I am sorry you are still clinging to the belief that Hoffman is trustworthy. He is not. His story has changed time and again, as has Jean Hill's.

And I note you also failed to respond to my point about the FBI, which was ... 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.

How come you failed to respond, Robert? Do you really think every FBI agent was in on the conspiracy?

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Bowers flash of light witness is corroborated by Sam Holland who saw and heard the shots. Bowers, Holland and Hoffman all saw suspicious activity. Hoffman, being deaf could not be expected to hear shots. As far as the rifle being dis-assembled, there was plenty of cover in the area, so that one witness might see something another could not. Bowers heard two shots right on top of each other in addition to a 3rd shot proving conspiracy. Holland heard 4 shots and saw the smoke emanating from where at least one shot came from behind the picket fence. Plus the fact that Holland points to six other witnesses that were with him who rushed to the same spot behind the picket fence who saw and heard the same as Holland. This corroborates the shots heard from the Grassy Knoll by Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell riding in the Limo behind JFK, and what the Newmans observed and heard as well, all of which corroborates the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda observing a large blow-out in the back of the head, conclusively proving conspiracy. It's a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

No, Robert.

You are simply picking and choosing separate elements from each man's story (one of whom wasn't a witness to anything that day), and combining those pieces to point to a conspiracy, and avoiding anything that doesn't fit.

Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell said nothing in their testimony about a shot from the knoll. Bill Newman marked the area to the side of the pergola closest to the Depository as the area where he believed the shots were coming from. This is a good 90 degrees from the area of the grassy knoll fence where Hoffman puts his shooter.

You cannot put these disparate witnesses statements together to make a plausible scenario. Bowers heard three shots, but many others in Dealey Plaza also heard three shots, but said the timing was more spread out.

And Sam Holland, for example, spoke of three shots to the occupants of the car and he believed each struck an occupant, and his spacing can be seen to be consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film between the time JFK raised his arms and the time JFK was struck in the head - in other words, at least six seconds for the shooting. He believed there was a fourth sound, but he vasilated between being certain this was a shot, and being unsure.*

Mr. HOLLAND - And about that time he went over like that [indicating], and put his hand up, and she was still looking off, as well as I could tell.
Mr. STERN - Now, when you say, "he went like that," you leaned forward and raised your right hand?
Mr. HOLLAND - Pulled forward and hand just stood like that momentarily.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand?
Mr. HOLLAND - His right hand; and that was the first report that I heard.
Mr. STERN - What did it sound like?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
Mr. STERN - To his right?
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just standing there, and she turned around facing the President and Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening, I guess.
Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over.

Bowers spoke of reverberations for example, and said he could not tell where the shots were coming from. He also spoke of seeing one or two additional men behind the grassy knoll fence (for a total of three or four). I remind you Hoffman said there were TWO men in this area. The "High Ground" referenced in the questions below is the area at the top of the knoll, behind the fence.

Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?
Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?
Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.
...
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people up on this high ground?
Mr. BOWERS - There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back.
And of course, Bowers saw no rifle in anyone's hand.

Hoffman said he saw only two men. Bowers saw three or four. Bowers said he heard three shots, and from his example you cited of the interview with Mark Lane, it is clear you are assuming that he was denoting the actual time of all three shots, whereas he might have been simply denoting the *relative spacing* of the three shots. Bam ---- Bam, Bam. He did not say how long the shooting took, but it is clear he thought the first shot happened about the time JFK was first struck (as we see in the Zapruder film):

Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area. Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?
Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.

A line of sight from his position to the limo in the Zapruder frame 224 range would put the limo behind the pergola/decorative masonry wall, exactly as he testified. He also said the limo came into view again after the final shot, which would again agree with what we can see in the Zapruder film.

So can you put these claims together in a meaningful way and still point to a conspiracy? I bet you can't.

Instead, you are just picking the nuggets you want out of the entire statement, and discarding the rest. But the evidence indicates there was no shooter on the knoll. The autopsy reveals no damage to the head from a shot from that area, your witnesses statements don't confirm damage consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll, the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza (like Bill Newman) don't put damage anywhere but the right side of the head, the films and photographs don't show any damage to the back or the left side of the head. And of course, no one who came forward on 11/22/63 and was a verifiable witnesses to the assassination (like Bowers and Holland) ever saw a weapon on the Grassy Knoll. The only weapon found that day was found in the TSBD, and that weapon fired the bullet fragments that were found that evening in the limo.

Ignore the hard evidence all you want. It won't make it go away.

Hank

______
*Holland said, at various times:

Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to.
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
...
Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, do you recall making a statement to an agent of of the FBI several days after?
Mr. HOLLAND - I made a statement that afternoon in Sheriff Bill Decker's office, and then the Sunday or the Sunday following the Friday, there were two FBI men out at my house at the time that Oswald was shot.
Mr. STERN - Did you tell them that you heard distinctly four shots at that time?
Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
...
Mr. STERN - ... Now, Mr. Holland, I'm showing you a copy of an affidavit which I am marking as Exhibit D. That is the affidavit you made that you described a few moments ago?
Mr. HOLLAND - That's right.
Mr. STERN - Would you read that.
Mr. HOLLAND - "I am signal supervisor for the Union Terminal, and I was inspecting signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on the top of the triple underpass and the President's car was coming down Elm Street, and when they got just about to the arcade, I heard what I thought for a moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw...
 
Last edited:
Hank wrote:

Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell said nothing in their testimony about a shot from the knoll.

Comment: How many times do we have to go over old ground:

The most important thing about Powers and O'Donnell is what they did not tell the Warren Commission. Here is a passage from Tip O'Neill's Man of the House (1987 - page 178):

I was never one of the use people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission's report on the president's death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O'Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

"That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.

"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

"I can't believe it," I said. "I wouldn't have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth."

"Tip, you have to understand. The family-everybody wanted this thing behind them."

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.

And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack's death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I'm not so sure.
 
Hank wrote:

Mr. HOLLAND - "I am signal supervisor for the Union Terminal, and I was inspecting signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on the top of the triple underpass and the President's car was coming down Elm Street, and when they got just about to the arcade, I heard what I thought for a moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw...

Comment: Which proves what? That he did not hear two shots as bam, bam????
 
Originally Posted by HSienzant
lol. I noticed you skirted right over your false claim that Bowers saw a flash of light AND smoke. Interesting that you would make a false claim like that, then accept Hoffman's account. Not surprising, perhaps, but interesting.

Comment: NO, I skirted right over your nitpicking claim that the word "And" should have been "or". Which proves, what?????
 
Please post the evidence that "Hoover was in on it", Robert.

Comment: Given the magnitude of the cover-up, Hoover had to be its author.
 
Hank wrote:

No evidence provided that establishes that Hoffman wasn't just making it all it, as his own father said.

Comment His uncle said different.
 
HSienzant said:
The only weapon found that day was found in the TSBD, and that weapon fired the bullet fragments that were found that evening in the limo.
Click to expand...

I have not read the entire string, so please forgive me if this has been covered.

The clip on the M/C was a critical element in determining the likelyhood of that particular riflebeing used or not. Early news reported all sorts of rifles but not a M/C... a 6.5 Argentinian Mauser, a 7.65 Mauser, and even a British .303... not one of them utilize clips. Mausers use "chargers" which perform differently than a clip. It wasn't until later in the day that the 6.5mm M/C was determined to be the weapon. What is unusual about this rifle is that the clip falls off when the last cartridge is chambered. The rifle found and photographed had a cartridge in the chamber, none in the clip but the clip was still attached to the weapon. If the M/C was operating properly, the clip would have been ejected yet the Warren Commission stated the rifle that was found had a clip attached.

Under testimony in 1978, one of the HSCA weapons expert Monty Lutz, stated that in this particular case, the cartridge got hung up in the rifle due to the lips opening up on the clip causing it to stick in the rifle. This would explain why the cartridge stayed in the rifle but Commission Evidences 574 and 575 show a perfectly formed cartridge not a bent one(lips were not opened). A photgrapher took a picture of the cartridge with no damage {17H (CE 574) 258, (CE 575) 259. Life magazine, November 1983, pp. 16-17}

Question: How can the clip stay on with the last cartridge chambered yet the clip that was photographed is in pristine condition?
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell said nothing in their testimony about a shot from the knoll.

Comment: How many times do we have to go over old ground:

The most important thing about Powers and O'Donnell is what they did not tell the Warren Commission. Here is a passage from Tip O'Neill's Man of the House (1987 - page 178):

I was never one of the use people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission's report on the president's death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O'Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

"That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said.

"You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

"I can't believe it," I said. "I wouldn't have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth."

"Tip, you have to understand. The family-everybody wanted this thing behind them."

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.

And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack's death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...
Hearsay, but in any event extremely weak evidence. Not worth the paper it's not written on. Anybody who seeks to place reliance on this is clutching desparately at straws.

Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

Mr. HOLLAND - "I am signal supervisor for the Union Terminal, and I was inspecting signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on the top of the triple underpass and the President's car was coming down Elm Street, and when they got just about to the arcade, I heard what I thought for a moment was a firecracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw...

Comment: Which proves what? That he did not hear two shots as bam, bam????
Click to expand...
All it proves, Robert, is that he said what he said (and even that proof relies on an accurate transcript, but I'm prepared to accept is as accurate. Nobody, not even Holland himself, can be certain of what he saw and heard, nor how he interpreted what he believes he saw and heard. Eye witness testimony - the most unreliable evidence there is, by far.

Robert Prey said:
Please post the evidence that "Hoover was in on it", Robert.
Comment: Given the magnitude of the cover-up, Hoover had to be its author.
Click to expand...
That's evidence?! :eek:

Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:
No evidence provided that establishes that Hoffman wasn't just making it all it, as his own father said.
Comment His uncle said different.
Click to expand...
Is that evidence, too?! :eek:
 
Regnad Kcin said:
The school that, presumably, handed this chap a diploma should be sued for incompetence.
Click to expand...

Robert was home schooled. I would be very surprised to learn that he has ever done any college-level academic work. He didn't know what a citation was when he arrived on this thread. He still doesn't know why citations and sources are important. The conspiracy authors write it, he believes it, that settles it. Only the brainwashed want proof.

Why people are still wasting their time "debating" him is beyond me.
 
Southwind17 wrote:

Hearsay, but in any event extremely weak evidence. Not worth the paper it's not written on. Anybody who seeks to place reliance on this is clutching desparately at straws.

Comment:

Let's see. So now we must add Tip O'Neil to your list of liars -- in addition to the 40 plus on the scene witnesses, eh????
 
Add them to any list you want.

It's still hearsay, and as the one who keeps talking about what is or is not a slam dunk in court you should know what is unadmissable by your chosen standard.

Why not prove the eyewitness accounts with physical evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom