Yes, fool. Why do you think I said what I did? Are you paying
attention? You said if I could prove conspiracy, I would have
something, but I have failed. I responded to that comment by pointing
out the efforts of the FBI to grab photos and cameras and to
manipultes witnesses, showing a conspiracy on the part of the FBI and
whoever directed them to operate in such a direct and incorrect way.
With the advent of an ex-FBI agent himself saying the same things, my
efforts are not a failure at all. As to a conspiracy in the killing
of JFK, there is no doubt about that,,,I believe in your auiet moments
at home, I'm not wasting too much effort to convince you, since you're
practically under orders to stay in your WCR cocoon. I believe that
you too know it was a conspiracy. I've shown you many times the
impossibility of the 2 shots hitting JFK from the rear and then doing
the wacky things the WC said they did. As well, you have the evidence
of the autopsy photos showing the shots came from behind too,along
with the corroboration from Dr. Crehshaw. All these I expected you to
remember, so I told you of a conspiracy wthin the FBI. You apparently
missed where I was going and couldn't keep up. I keep having to
remember that and change my thinking to slow down and fall back to
your level.
> > > > all they needed to worry about was the relatively
> > > > light crowds... and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest,
> > > > within minutes.
>
> > > All of them? And why do you fail to uncover the operation? Wouldn`t
> > > police on the scene have to be told that something was going to occur,
> > > and their role was to obtain all the cameras at the scene. How do you
> > > stop the cops from talking about these strange instructions?
>
> > First, little buddy, we must consider that cops everywhere would
> > want to collect any photos to a crime that might be available,
>
> So when Ben was using the word "confiscated" he was describing
> ordinary police work.
>
Depends what they did with the evidence they 'confiscated'. If they
gave it back as soon as it was no longer needed for a trial or to be
copied, etc. Then it was 'collected'. 'Confiscated' suggests the
owner doesn't get the property back. In the aforementioned RFK case,
the various depts. of the government failed to return the property
(film rolls), and therefore thay had to pay hundreds of thousands of
your and my money to the owner.
> > like
> > nowadays they would check for any security camera photos or fim that
> > might have been running at the time of the action. Important clues to
> > the guilty parties can be there, as you must know. There are no
> > 'orders' to collect ccamers and film, it's a general rule for law
> > enforcement to collect photographic information.
>
> Yet Ben was implying it was a sinister activity. And your idea is
> that conspiracy just assumed that if a camera caught a clear photo of
> an assassin that a cop would likely get control of that camera. In
> fact they were so confident they were betting their lives on it.
>
Nope little buddy, won't do. I didn't say that and little benny can
defend himself, so check him out as to his assumptions. For my part,
I haven't said anything about conspirators planning what to do about
pictures that get taken. But thinking on the problem, which you could
do too if you weren't so enthralled by the WCR, I find that
professional shooters would pick a spot where it would be a very small
chance that a photo would be taken. Behind the fence at the GK would
be good, because the area is shaded by the trees there, and the
shooter(s) are behind the fence and moved quickly after the shots, so
that no one was in the area to take pictures of a few people that
seemed to be normal to the area. They even offered ID saying they
were OK, and were passed by the DPD guys. The shooter(s) obviously
vacated the area quickly and there was nothing left to photograph
then.
> > > And of course Ben is missing the point. Conspiracy retards for years
> > > have been claiming that is blur or that in the evidence photos is
> > > significant. The fact that these things are never clear and always
> > > open to interpretation is indicative not of conspiracy but desperation
> > > to believe there was one.
>
> > Nope, that won't do either.
>
> You don`t understand the argument, as shown by your response below.
> I`m not interested in dumbing it down to within your reach.
>
Sure do catch it buddy. You tried to suggest that the 'unclear
photos' argument is used by conspiracy evidence people, while I talked
about that being false. Am I getting ahead of you again?
> > Rather your usual attempt to push off
> > the problem with your old saw about conspiracy evidence people
> > misinterpreting pictures is false. Perhaps we should look at it from
> > a different angle. It appears that many pictures show proof of
> > conspiracy, but the LNers fight hard to misinterpret them all and
> > argue how impossible they are to tell anything from.
>
> The proof that they show nothing is proven by your inability to do
> anything with what you think they show.
>
I've done a great deal with the photos, and particularly the ones
that are clear, like the autopsy photos. A shame you can't argue the
evidence and avoid the personality stuff, but then you'd have nothing
to say anymore. Ah well.
> > > > When you control the investigation, you don't worry about facts... facts can be
> > > > swept under the rug... they can disappear.
>
> > > If the conspirators are magical leprechauns. When the conspirators
> > > you imagine require such abilities for your ideas to be valid it`s
> > > time to scrap your ideas.
>
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Yes, necessarily, to do everything the conspiracy retards assume the
> conspiracy did it would need magical abilities.
>
LOL! Rather you should talk about the item known as the 'magic
bullet', which name is used throughout the country...:)
Welp little buddy, that wouldn't be 'scratching around' but rather a
statement in full flower, full of witnesses and everything. And do
you ask about witnesses to the crimes and failings of the
authorities? Nope, you wouldn't dare because you know I would answer
and not just throw in your ad hominem stuff, and then you would have
to deal with evidence, the one thing that wears you out, since you
have to try and prove the wacky WCR...:) You know full well that I
have shown to you and quoted many cases where the authorities fouled
up.
> > > > Although RFK, not JFK, you can google "Jamie Scott Enyart" for an obvious and
> > > > clear example...
>
> > > Are you claiming those police that took the film knew beforehand
> > > that Robert Kennedy was going to be shot?
>
> > Oh, little buddy, doesn't that make you want to look up the
> > reference? That would be lazy and foolish not to. Here it is the
> > link:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKenyartS.htm
>
> I told you to scrap that source. spartacus is written by retards for
> retards.
>
OK, try these:
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/enyart.htm
http://www.cracked.com/article_19656_5-lost-photos-that-could-have-changed-history.html
http://www.citizine.net/politics/politics_0506_rfk_twhite.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/jamie-scott-enyart
> > You'll find all your questions answered
>
> Why are you running from the one I asked? Do you think the cops were
> told that Robert Kennedy was to be killed and their role was to make
> sure they confiscated all the cameras?
>
I answered you stupid. You need to apply your head to my comments
to understand. Ican't slow down to always catch you up with me. Try
to understand that when I tell you that police will collect evidence,
especially cameras and film at the scene of a crime, it doesn't mean
that they knew a crime was to be committed, it is a standard thing for
cops to do for evidence purposes. Why weren't you able to figure that
out from my answer? It's so simple. Now do you have any comment or
question about that, or do you accept it as stated?
>
>
> > as you see how the
> > authorities can cover up a crime, often with the help of the local
> > police. In that case a judge and the state archives administrator and
> > the city Distict Attorney helped. It wasn't necessary to know
> > beforehand that a crime was about to be committed. As you've been
> > schooled before, the authorities collect all evidence as soon after a
> > crime as possible, especially including cameras and film. Once they
> > have them, depending on the case and the ramifications of the
> > evidence, they can seal it all for years, or lose it, or have it
> > stolen, or whatever works to keep it out of the hands of someone that
> > might pass it on to the general public, as with the JFK case. You
> > really have to think about these things before woldly going off the
> > reservation...:)
>
To aid the watchers with evidence aboutthe JFK muirder:
11. Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland, saw entrance wounds, believes shot
from front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
12. Evalea Glanges saw bullet hole at Parkland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7RYjgcepX0
13. Rose Cheramie - predicted the assassination days ahead and also
said Oswald and Ruby were friends:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami
14. Sgt. Delgado-Oswald buddy in service, FBI wanted him to lie about
marksmanship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
15. John Elrod-cellmate to LHO who told him of prev. meeting with
Jack Ruby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=aMWlf8xZyDc&NR=1
16. Roger Craig relates the finding and IDing of the Mauser
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2168628935793686311#
17. Tomlinson at Parkland found bullet on wrong stretcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
18. Photographer with autopsy pictures faked up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1DtJE
Chris