Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions
Question #36

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend
the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two
semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the
troll listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most
of the 'answers'.

*below question reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's
only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply
deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or
simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill
files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk
**********************************************************************

36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it came to the
assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the Muchmore film
being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film reportedly returning in
a different condition from when it was taken from him? This isn't to mention
the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken *and never returned*
eof

Just a few of those unfortunate (Lone Nut) coincidences, perhaps? Perhpas our resident "JFK/Dealey PLaza assassination film-photos" expert (Bill Miller) would care to comment. After all these years of dedicated film analyzing work, he surely has drawn a few conclusions, at least ONE anyway.....

Take it away Bill Miller....

nice DH.....bump