Proof JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

[Jerry Freeman]

  You seem to have a problem with facts and the truth.  Why?

Tell you what...I'm going to turn you back over to Chapman and Howsley you guys all deserve each other. You will again all ask me why? And I will reply now...you just do.

[Bill Chapman]

Tell you what...I'm going to turn you back over to Chapman and Howsley you guys all deserve each other. You will again all ask me why? And I will reply now...you just do.

Because we disagree with you. Poor baby. So put-upon. Boo boo.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

Tell you what...I'm going to turn you back over to Chapman and Howsley you guys all deserve each other. You will again all ask me why? And I will reply now...you just do.

Why are you upset?  You believe the shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll when the facts are undeniable that the shots came from the pergola.

[Oscar Navarro]

The reply should be...
...there is film and photographic evidence as well as supporting interviews and testimonies from people from 55-years ago that indicates a shot or shots were probably fired from behind the wooden fence on the Grassy Knoll. It was brought up the day of the assassination. It was also confirmed [rather half-heartedly] by the House Committee in 1978.
By now you should know that there are people here who close their eyes ..put their hands over their ears ...stick their head in the sand and sense everything else with their backside.

In order to conform to what is regarded in the western world as a person who can function within acceptable norms of behavior the reply should be...

According to some nutcakes and fruitloops there is film and photographic evidence, as well as supporting interviews and testimonies from people 55 years ago that indicate that a shot (or shots) were probably fired from places other than the 6th floor SE corner window of the TSBD. Acoustics test done at the later stages of the HSCA investigations that indicated a shot was fired (but missed) from behind a wooden fence in the Grassy Knoll was accepted by a close majority of the conspiracy minded panelist who wrote the final report. This misguided acoustic report led to the HSCA concluding that there probably was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK but could find no connection that led directly to the man the HSCA agreed fired three shots from the snipers nest in the TSBD, Lee Harvey Oswald. This acoustic report the majority of the tin foil hat wearering members of the HSCA panel was soon discredited by a real scientific analysis done by a "distinguished panel of tweleve scientist" for the National Academy of Sciences. The Ramsey Panel (named after the panels chairman, professor Norman Ramsey of Harvard) concluded that the HSCA was way off base and should be ashamed for an eternity for accepting such a flawed report as that provided by Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy and for concluding that motorcycle policeman H. B. McLain's motorcycle microphone had been the source Weiss and Aschkenasy had based their study on.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

In order to conform to what is regarded in the western world as a person who can function within acceptable norms of behavior the reply should be...

According to some nutcakes and fruitloops there is film and photographic evidence, as well as supporting interviews and testimonies from people 55 years ago that indicate that a shot (or shots) were probably fired from places other than the 6th floor SE corner window of the TSBD. Acoustics test done at the later stages of the HSCA investigations that indicated a shot was fired (but missed) from behind a wooden fence in the Grassy Knoll was accepted by a close majority of the conspiracy minded panelist who wrote the final report. This misguided acoustic report led to the HSCA concluding that there probably was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK but could find no connection that led directly to the man the HSCA agreed fired three shots from the snipers nest in the TSBD, Lee Harvey Oswald. This acoustic report the majority of the tin foil hat wearering members of the HSCA panel was soon discredited by a real scientific analysis done by a "distinguished panel of tweleve scientist" for the National Academy of Sciences. The Ramsey Panel (named after the panels chairman, professor Norman Ramsey of Harvard) concluded that the HSCA was way off base and should be ashamed for an eternity for accepting such a flawed report as that provided by Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy and for concluding that motorcycle policeman H. B. McLain's motorcycle microphone had been the source Weiss and Aschkenasy had based their study on.

Oscar, is there a problem with factual evidence that I reported here?  Do you have a problem with facts?

[Oscar Navarro]

Oscar, is there a problem with factual evidence that I reported here?  Do you have a problem with facts?

Keyvan, you're confusing was is factual with an interpretation of a photograph that has been altered and of using selected witness testimony to buttress a conclusion. A wrong one at that. Moorman's photograph is a fact. In it's original state there's nothing in that photo that shows two guys behind the pagoda shooting at anybody. Relying on an altered version of that photograph as proof there were two shooters behind the pagoda is a fools errand, but this has already been pointed out to you by numerous posters numerous times. Still, if you want to insist that the altered photo shows what you claim there's really nothing more to be said. You know the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

Keyvan, you're confusing was is factual with an interpretation of a photograph that has been altered and of using selected witness testimony to buttress a conclusion. A wrong one at that. Moorman's photograph is a fact. In it's original state there's nothing in that photo that shows two guys behind the pagoda shooting at anybody. Relying on an altered version of that photograph as proof there were two shooters behind the pagoda is a fools errand, but this has already been pointed out to you by numerous posters numerous times. Still, if you want to insist that the altered photo shows what you claim there's really nothing more to be said. You know the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

Oscar,  I am not confusing any type of interpretation.  There is a person behind Mr. Zapruder.  You are obviously talking about the colored version of the Mary Moorman photo.  What is different in the colored version of the Moorman photo?  If there is a difference besides the fact that it is colored, please let me know, I would like to know and so would everyone on this board.

On top of the Moorman photo showing a person there, the Nix film shows a smoke trail from a gunshot from the same exact place where there is a person behind Mr. Zapruder.  Mr. Zapruder and Mr. Newman both stated in their interview minutes after the assassination that they thought the gunshots came from the pergola.  There is film evidence of what looks like smoke in the area.  Police Officers and Secret Service men testified in the WC that shots came from the area.

This is not my interpretations, these are factual verifiable events that occurred 55 years ago.

So, you are discounting 1) The Moorman photo, 2) The gunshot in the Nix Film, 3) The interview and testimony of Mr. Zapruder and Mr. Newman, 4) The testimony of police officers and secret service men in the WC, and 5) Film of gunsmoke floating around.  To you, even though there is evidence that shows a shot from the pergola, it is somehow not there, because all the evidence is somehow wrong.

If the evidence is wrong, show proof instead of your opinion.

You have an issue with facts, why?