Ever wonder why the hardcore CT's try to create doubt about the Zapruder Film?

[Richard Smith]

My favorite CTer take is when they claim the Z-film is faked but without missing a beat cite the content as evidence of a conspiracy.  The "fake" evidence presumably to implicate Oswald actually does the opposite and proves their subjective conclusion that Oswald was framed.  And on and on it goes.   It has become a bore.  In the years that I've been on this forum, I've not read a single credible theory much less credible evidence that supports a conspiracy.  Not one.  Just a lame reiteration of long debunked theories or a scatter gun approach like playing an endless game of whack-a-mole (what about this, what about that) while ignoring the mountain of evidence and circumstances implicating Oswald.  Most CTers have apparently recognized the futility of even trying to prove a conspiracy.   They play defense attorney taking individual items of evidence out of context and desperately trying to create any doubt by nitpicking witness testimony or conflating their own subjective interpretation of words and events with reality.  Repeat endlessly.

[Fergus O'Brien]

ive seen many many LN say CT cant offer a credible theory . but even if a so called CT did just that what would happen ? . what do LN call people with opposing views to them ? , what do they call people who for valid reasons dont accept the official version of events ? . they call them conspiracy THEORIST .they attack them for being conspiracy THEORIST . then LN complain that these same people havent , cant , did not ow will not offer them a THEORY .one does not require any theories to argue intelligently and indeed knowledgeably that there are serious problems with the official version of events . it is done here every day . but LN dance around that , ignoring what they dont care for and demanding theory when there are many facts that can be talked about . there is a lot that can be both proven or disproven and all without a need for a theory .all that said the theories here started in 1964 not with CT but with Arlen specter . and despite LN criticisms of CT they (LN ) continue 60 years later to cling to that theory despite science , and fact telling them that the theory was flawed at the least and also based on deception .

[Jim Hawthorn]

My favorite CTer take is when they claim the Z-film is faked but without missing a beat cite the content as evidence of a conspiracy.  The "fake" evidence presumably to implicate Oswald actually does the opposite and proves their subjective conclusion that Oswald was framed.  And on and on it goes.   It has become a bore.  In the years that I've been on this forum, I've not read a single credible theory much less credible evidence that supports a conspiracy.  Not one.  Just a lame reiteration of long debunked theories or a scatter gun approach like playing an endless game of whack-a-mole (what about this, what about that) while ignoring the mountain of evidence and circumstances implicating Oswald.  Most CTers have apparently recognized the futility of even trying to prove a conspiracy.   They play defense attorney taking individual items of evidence out of context and desperately trying to create any doubt by nitpicking witness testimony or conflating their own subjective interpretation of words and events with reality.  Repeat endlessly.

Well I've come to realise that the only explanation for the discrepancies between the LN and the CT scenarios is that the two plots were going on simultaneously and were totally unconnected with each other. Both parties were completely surprised and both were firing from the rear.

[Steve Barber]

Explain.

  Hi Jim.

 In the Z frame where you have the words "But gone here"  with an arrow pointing towards JFK. what you are pointing to is Mrs .Kennedy's houlder, not JFK's head. 

[Royell Storing]

Well I've come to realise that the only explanation for the discrepancies between the LN and the CT scenarios is that the two plots were going on simultaneously and were totally unconnected with each other. Both parties were completely surprised and both were firing from the rear.

   Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE has proven the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". This eliminated the LN scenario.   

[Jim Hawthorn]

  Hi Jim.

 In the Z frame where you have the words "But gone here"  with an arrow pointing towards JFK. what you are pointing to is Mrs .Kennedy's houlder, not JFK's head.

Exactly! That's exactly what I'm saying!
In the previous frame, we can see that the upper cranium is still in place after the first head shot. A few frames later,... it's gone.

So this can only be one of two things:

1. Proof of a second bullet impact to the head, immediately after the first.
2. A botched retouch of the Zapruder film.

[Jim Hawthorn]

   Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE has proven the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". This eliminated the LN scenario.   

I know that but the LNers here dispute the Knott Lab. model because of the assumptions they made about the body positions of Kennedy and Connally at the moment the back/neck shot. I proposed that they write to the  Lab, to get things settled.