Mark Henceroth

Completely ignoring posts that challenge your conclusions will not get you very far here MH. I posted a very specific batch of photographic evidence that you either ignored, haven't gotten to or haven't an answer for.... To prove the trajectory you have to ASSUME shots were fired from that window and know the precise location of the limo at the time. And I'm wondering if you remembered to include the 3 degree downward slope of the street in your calcs... It doesn't appear so. I posted a z-frame showing how JFK was not hunched over or leaning forward around the time of the throat/back/SBT (please remember it's just a THEORY) bullet(s).... and what the shot had to do when coursing thru the body.... please explain how this is consistant with your conclusions Thanks DJ I'm not here to argue or sway any one's thoughts on the assassination. It doesn't matter to me who you think did it, it really doesn't, yeah I think that people that believe that there was a conspiracy or that Oswald didn't do it are kind of stupid but it's nothing personal and I'm not here to prove that it happened that way, that would be a futile task and I could really care less what other people think about it, I just get a kick out of watching people being complete idiots.So there ya go, good luck,

No, that's what you imply by misreading, as usual.

Mark, or whatever, the l-r trajectory for an impact at 223 was, according to even Dale Myers, 10 degrees, not 5.5 degrees. Are you saying that Myers, who many LNs believe proved the SBT, was wrong on such an important point? If he is using the same map I am then yeah I think he got it wrong.

So you're saying that there is so much evidence pointing to Oswald doing it , that it couldn't posssibly be him because of it ? Anyway, you know the treason/triator thread was a joke, if you want to take it serious go shead. No one actually voted for putting traitors to death , not even me.

I just kind of got interested by accident really, it doesn't really matter to me if he did it or not , I have no stake in it, but it's pretty clear that he did, I think it's as simple as a goofball like Oswald had by chance to have the president of the US drive by his window and he shot him, it's really no more complicated than that from what I see.

Those questions don't need to be answered though I am sure they can be. There was bullets, shells, a rifle and an eyewitness, why would you need to know the things that you ask about,they don't really matter, that is where the CT have a problem they don't know what matters and what doesn't, oh well, good luck,

The dictabelt is not known to be an accurate recording of the crime, the Z film shows definitively that the two men reacted at the same time. If the holes in the shirt and jacket don't line up with the wounds then where are the other wounds located? No I'm not trying to argue evidence, there is way too much of it, if you could merely discount half the evidence against Oswald there would still be an overwhelming case for his guilt. If you guys want to live in la la land, havatit,

No one has mentioned any evidence yet in this thread,I thought for sure that I was going to read all about it in this thread but apparently a definition of the word evidence is in order. The most compelling circumstance for a conspiracy is that there seems to be too much evidence against Oswald, so I could see where one may start to doubt that all that evidence could be pointing that clearly to one person but on the other hand I suppose it could if he did it and knew that he was going to be caught. He was really sloppy about this whole thing and left a ton of evidence, this is not a tough case to crack if you are willing to accept the truth about it but I suppose that dreaming up sinister assassiantion plots and theories with nothing to support them can be quite a nice hobby if you like that kind of stuff.

Ask Martin to put his picture on a map and draw some angles and see what he comes up with , hint --> it will only be words.,, funny stuff.

Oh because MH says my name is false then it's false ? We're talking about a guy that takes blurry pictures of illuminated light bulbs and calls it evidence of a conspiracy. The site ownwer or John Simkins has my name. MH just wants me out of here as he does on the other forums because I expose his incredibly inept attempts at hoodwinking people with trick photograpy.The diagram he posted is not even from 221-224, that's why it looks skewed, it's obvious to anyone with a half a brain.

Try a print from 221 - 224 Martin

Thanks Martin, I'm going to do a section on the declination angle also, this was just the bird's eye view or lateral angles, I'll make separate drawings for the declination, I have the data and they line up fairly easily also, I just need to get them on the site maybe later today or next couple days, I just finished this part of it recently. How's it coming along, Mark? Martin, His name isn't Mark, Martin. It's, funnily enough, Martin. He claims Mark is short for Martin, Martin. Or should I say, Mark? "Mark Henceroth" is a pseudonym. Lee AKA Fred Thanks Leroy

Will try to get it out pretty soon, been busy at work lately.

Great work Martin, fifty years and you have a blurry picture of a light bulb to prove a conspiracy, jeez I can hardly wait to see what the next fifty years brings. Is your theory saying that Oswald could not have shot from there because every assassin knows that they should turn the lights off while shooting ?

Whatever, the left is the one I turned the right way to compare to the center,your photo compared the center to the right and those two are vertically opposite each other, the joke is your photo analysis, obviously you weren't serious when you asked anyone to step up and show where you use trickery although I am not sure that you used trickery the more I talk to you I'm starting to figure out that you probably just don't know any better. If you can't tell that the center photo is opposite the right photo ( the two in your analysis ) then I don't know what to say really other than it's amazing.