JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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????

Here's where Sam Holland put the smoke (lower circle) and the sniper's nest window (upper circle).

http://simfootball.net/JFK/SMHolland1.jpg

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being 'Hardly any' and 10 being 'A Whole Lot', how much weight do you put on his statements about where he saw the smoke, Robert?

And why?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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????

Robert,

Here's where Holland put the smoke (lower circle)

http://simfootball.net/JFK/SMHolland1.jpg

The upper circle is where numerous witnesses saw a gunman or a rifle in the sniper's nest window in the Depository building.

How much weight do you put on Holland's statement concerning where he saw the smoke, on a scale of 1 to 10, with a 1 being 'hardly any' and 10 being 'a whole lot'?

Why did you choose that number?

 

[Border Reiver]

Not to throw a large monkey wrench in, but all these folks that claimed that they saw "puffs of smoke" in certain areas and are using this as a possible indicator that someone was shooting from that location - modern rifles, including the Mannlicher-Caricano, use smokeless powder which burns fast enough not to leave smoke in any significant quanities.

Having been on rifle ranges in all sorts of conditions (snow and cold, hot and humid, etc) any smoke is practically unnoticable beyond 3m and rapidly dissipates. Why would people presume to think that any some seen after rapidly changing their POV to the area where they suspect they saw something was gunsmoke?

 

[HSienzant]

Not to throw a large monkey wrench in, but all these folks that claimed that they saw "puffs of smoke" in certain areas and are using this as a possible indicator that someone was shooting from that location - modern rifles, including the Mannlicher-Caricano, use smokeless powder which burns fast enough not to leave smoke in any significant quanities.

Having been on rifle ranges in all sorts of conditions (snow and cold, hot and humid, etc) any smoke is practically unnoticable beyond 3m and rapidly dissipates. Why would people presume to think that any some seen after rapidly changing their POV to the area where they suspect they saw something was gunsmoke?

Puffs of smoke were visible when the HSCA shot test shots in 1978 from the sniper's nest window. While it may not leave significant quantities, it is visible to the eye.

 

[HSienzant]

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????

I noticed you skirted over nearly everything I wrote.

Remember that Holland also said he was not sure he heard four shots.

Mr. HOLLAND - ... There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

I noticed you skirted over nearly everything I wrote.

Remember that Holland also said he was not sure he heard four shots.

Mr. HOLLAND - ... There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that.

Hank

My reference to Holland saying it was 'bam,bam" was incorrect. That was Lee Bowers.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert,

Here's where Holland put the smoke (lower circle)

http://simfootball.net/JFK/SMHolland1.jpg

The upper circle is where numerous witnesses saw a gunman or a rifle in the sniper's nest window in the Depository building.

How much weight do you put on Holland's statement concerning where he saw the smoke, on a scale of 1 to 10, with a 1 being 'hardly any' and 10 being 'a whole lot'?

Why did you choose that number?

Considerable weight, since he described 6 to 8 others he was with who saw the same thing in the same place and they all ran to the exact spot behind the picket fence.

 

[HSienzant]

Alright this is getting ridiculous. I dropped out of the conversation quite a awhile ago, but there's some things that have to be said.

One question at a time, please.

You mean like this?

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?

What's the word for someone who demands others to hold to certain standards which they themselves do not hold to?

Robert, you are currently averaging 14.15 (sometimes lengthy) posts a day. Presumably those posts take time to put together and the time you spend on this forum not spent creating your own posts is presumably spent reading the posts of others. This means you spend a not inconsiderable portion of each day on this forum. That's nothing to be ashamed of, lots of us do. It's often a fun and thought-provoking place. Presumably though you aren't just here to blow off steam after a long day at work or school and perhaps sharpen your debating skills using some arbitrary topic drawn out of a hat. The JFK assassination is something you clearly feel strongly about and you've clearly studied and thought long and hard about, even if all that study and thinking has led (IMO) to completely erroneous conclusions. It appears then you here at least in part to convert other forum members to your beliefs, perhaps in hopes that such a conversion could lead to some eventual change in public opinion and perhaps even lead to a new investigation of the assassination. An investigation that could theoretically rewrite the history books and even lead to the prosecution of any conspirators still alive today.

Unlike many (most?) of the ephemeral and banal topics debated over on the internet, like say the relative merits of Kirk and Picard or who deserved to win on American Idol, the discussion of the murder of a real human being is serious business, especially when the victim was murdered within living memory of a large portion of the population and the discussion delves into questions of guilt and responsibility of people still alive today. Therefore I'd hope you'd agree that such discussions should be conducted with the utmost seriousness and sincerity. This isn't merely some intellectual parlor game we're playing to pass the time here.

The thing is though that if your mission is to get people to rally around your noble (if misguided IMO) cause, you chose an awfully peculiar place to spend your time. Surely it would be better to spend your time in a forum where the preponderance of people there are prone to believing in conspiracy theories and would accept your theory without months of debate?

But that's not entirely what you want, either, is it?

While I believe you sincerely believe everything you've written in your relatively short time here, I put it to you that you chose this specific forum because you knew going in that most if not all of the other forum members would be predisposed to doubt your theories. This doubt would almost inevitably lead to a lot of people spending a lot of time reading your posts and and responding directly to you. That too is nothing to be ashamed of; we all like seeing others repond to our posts even if (or in some cases especially if) those who respond disagree with us. In other words you are here primarily for the attention lavished on you on a daily basis. This desire for attention clearly trumps your other (no doubt sincere) mission to convince the world of your JFK theories. I won't embarrass him by naming names, but another forum member here who shares some of your beliefs recently attempted to engage me in conversation via private messaging. It was during a fairly fallow period where he wasn't getting a lot of attention in his own CT thread. Both you and the other person I'm alluding to are trolls but you are both (more or less) sincere, well meaning trolls, as far as I can tell. By that I mean you post to garner attention by agitating others but unlike many internet trolls you actually believe everything you post.

The final point which I and several others here have noted is your almost pathological inability to admit to being wr- wr- wrong, even when such admissions would lead others to take you more seriously, not less. You really need to address that. I used to work with a guy like that and not only did that fault make him infuriating to work with, it led to dangerous situations that literally put the lives of his co-workers at risk.

I'm not expecting a response but you might want to ask yourself why you are really here and what are actually trying to achieve. You might also want to ask yourself if you really believe that ignoring your own hypocrisy and errors is allowable if your cause is (in your opinion) sufficiently just. That's known as "the ends justify the means" and I'd hope that you would object to that sort of ruthlessly pragmatic view practiced by you or anyone else?

And yes, I'm aware that I've asked more than one question. To that point I'd refer you back to the top of this post. Have a nice day.

Robert didn't answer because Robert has no answer. Other than 'baloney', of course.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

An altered Z film is not valid evidence. Nor are altered or forged autopsy photos. Ditto x-rays. So where is your physical evidence? In the garbage can with all the rest of your altered, forged, made up crap. And that includes the first autopsy statement burned by Humes. But what of the 24 point ID of a fingerprint of Malcomb Wallace right at the alleged sniper's nest? And what about the unaltered, un-forged observations of the 40 plus on the scene witnesses who described a large blow-out in the back of K's head? I know it's hard to accept the fact that for 50 years or so, you and your fellow Lone Nutters have been duped by a criminal government.

 

[HSienzant]

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?

This hasn't been covered before.

My toaster doesn't always pop up the toast when it should either. I think there should be an investigation. Seriously, though, not every mechanical device works every time the way it was designed to work. We learn to live with it, don't we?

The clip can be seen in the photographs of the rifle taken by news photographers when it was removed from the School Book Depository building on the afternoon of the assassination. No other rifle was photographed in Dealey Plaza that day (some policement had shotguns, which some conspiracy theorists falsely label as additional rifles). There is no doubt this was Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, and there is no doubt there is a clip partially protruding from the weapon. See the image taken by William G. Allen of the Dallas Times Herald on the day of the assassination just outside the Depository.

J.C.Day executed a memorandum for the record on the afternoon of the assassination stating the particulars of the clip he removed from the rifle. That is below.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/dpd-1242.gif

There is no doubt the clip was in the rifle.

I trust that answers your question. Let me know.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

An altered Z film is not valid evidence. Nor are altered or forged autopsy photos. Ditto x-rays. So where is your physical evidence? In the garbage can with all the rest of your altered, forged, made up crap. And that includes the first autopsy statement burned by Humes. But what of the 24 point ID of a fingerprint of Malcomb Wallace right at the alleged sniper's nest? And what about the unaltered, un-forged observations of the 40 plus on the scene witnesses who described a large blow-out in the back of K's head? I know it's hard to accept the fact that for 50 years or so, you and your fellow Lone Nutters have been duped by a criminal government.

Lol. You need to prove they are altered, not just allege they are.

But you know this. You are just pretending you have evidence on your side, but in truth, your evidence doesn't exist. It is merely allegations without substance.

You might as well tell us the Easter Bunny exists. You've advanced as much evidence for that as for any of your claims above. You've advanced no evidence for the alteration of the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, or the x-rays.

The only one being duped here is you. By the conspiracy authors out to make a buck.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert didn't answer because Robert has no answer. Other than 'baloney', of course.

The John G post was simply off topic. Read the membership rules.

 

[HSienzant]

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?????

It proves you were making the evidence for a knoll shooter appear greater than it was.

Here's the photo of Sam Holland taken a few years after the assassination standing where he stood on the day of the assassination. The lower circle is where he saw the smoke, the upper circle is where the Warren Commission placed the shooter.

Are you going to insist, in the absence of physical evidence, that Holland was absolutely correct, no doubt about it? Based on what?

 

[Tomtomkent]

An altered Z film is not valid evidence. Nor are altered or forged autopsy photos.

Well, you are right, those would not be admissable.

But as you have yet to prove any photograph,or film to be altered or forged I have no reason to discount those submitted.

None of which answers the question I asked. I know you are having a hard time grasping this Robert, and it is ever so boithersome to have to keep repeating it, but never mind. See if you can understand it this time:

Making further unsubstantiated assertions that evidence you don't agree with is fake is not the same as supplying physical evidence to support your views.

If you want to call something altered, faked or forged, prove it with more than "my witness disagrees".

In the meantime try supplying actual physical evidence to support your claims instead of trying to dismiss that which opposes you.

You could even supply physical evidence for the assertions you just made. Show me evidence of a frame of the Z film being changed. Show me a sign of the polaroid being tampered with. Or stop making claims you can't back up.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The John G post was simply off topic. Read the membership rules.

By discussing the comments made so far?

A tenuous claim. Feel free to ask a mod.

 

[HSienzant]

My reference to Holland saying it was 'bam,bam" was incorrect. That was Lee Bowers.

Then you skirted over my points about Holland entirely.

How do you put this together, Robert?

You claim Bill Newman is a grassy knoll witness as is Sam Holland as is Lee Bowers as is Ed Hoffman.

But you gloss over the differences.

Bill Newman's source of the shots was behind the pergola, toward the TSBD-end of the pergola. His source of the shots doesn't jibe with Ed Hoffman's. Which of these two men were mistaken?

Lee Bowers saw nobody with a rifle behind the fence, yet he had almost a perfect view of the back of the fence and was a heck of a lot closer to the fence than Ed Hoffman says he was. Which of these two men were mistaken?

Sam Holland ran around the corner to the knoll and saw nobody with a rifle. From his perch on top of the overpass, if a rifle had been tossed to another man as described by Ed Hoffman, Holland could not have missed it. Which of these two men were mistaken?

These three men (Bowers, Newman, and Holland) came forward on 11/22/63.

There's no evidence Hoffman came forward before 1967 at the earliest. Yet you believe Hoffman's more detailed account, despite the fact that verifiable witnesses dispute large portions of it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Considerable weight, since he described 6 to 8 others he was with who saw the same thing in the same place and they all ran to the exact spot behind the picket fence.

And when they got to that spot, they tackled the rifleman and subdued him and held him for the police, right?

If not, why not?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

And when they got to that spot, they tackled the rifleman and subdued him and held him for the police, right?

If not, why not?

Hank

Becuase describing other people seeing something is not the same as those other people actually seeing something. You will note their testemony is absent.

 

[HSienzant]

Becuase describing other people seeing something is not the same as those other people actually seeing something. You will note their testemony is absent.

Sorry, you lost me. Several of those others did give testimony, so I am unclear as to what you mean, and why they didn't tackle the gunman.

Are you saying Sam Holland was lying about what he saw and did?

*You* said they all ran to the spot around the corner to where the gunman was.

... he [Sam Holland] described 6 to 8 others he was with who saw the same thing [smoke] in the same place and they all ran to the exact spot behind the picket fence.

Now you appear to be saying those other people perhaps didn't see anything worth noting "...describing other people seeing something is not the same as those other people actually seeing something". Do I understand you correctly?

If not, can you expand upon your answer and straighten out my confusion as to your meaning?

So I don't understand what you are saying now relative to what you said before.
Did they all run to that spot or not?
Did they stop the gunman, or not?

Either Holland's testimony is correct (and your summation of it is correct) or not.
But if it is, then I am unclear as to why they didn't stop the gunman who had just shot JFK.

Your point above appears to avoid answering my question entirely.

Here it is again: And when they got to that spot, they tackled the rifleman and subdued him and held him for the police, right?


Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

And when they got to that spot, they tackled the rifleman and subdued him and held him for the police, right?

If not, why not?

Hank

Perhaps because that fool rifle man didn't want to get caught, so he calmly walked away. Or perhaps hid in a car trunk. Or maybe rushed to the spot and became part of the crowd just like dozens of others. Or maybe, because he WAS the police.