Proof JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

[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?

[Jerry Organ]

[Walt Cakebread]

I believe that you've just confirmed that you  also see the figure of a man in the pergola,  to the left rear, of Zapruder

[Royell Storing]

You are stating your opinion on whether any of the wounds on the victims are compatible with a shot from the pergola.  This is another thread.  All I know is that JFK was shot at from the pergola, that is what the undeniable facts state.

    Are you Now attempting to slither away from your original claim that shot(s) were fired from the SHELTER behind Zapruder? There is a Vast difference between that claim and your claim above of shot(s) being fired "from the PERGOLA".

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

    Are you Now attempting to slither away from your original claim that shot(s) were fired from the SHELTER behind Zapruder? There is a Vast difference between that claim and your claim above of shot(s) being fired "from the PERGOLA".

Why do you have an issue with facts?  Everything I have presented is to the point.  There where shots fired from the pergola towards JFK, that is what the undeniable evidence shows.  What is your point?

Fact is fact, you need to accept facts instead of trying to bring up a new conspiracy theory.

[Walt Cakebread]

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?

Keyvan....  you have made your point that there appears to be the figure of a man bin the pergola behind Zapruder.  I believe that you're right on that observation, but how you conclude that he was a sniper who shot JFK is beyond my comprehension.