single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[uke2se]

Fourbrick, this question is and was directed at you:

Assuming you are right (which I very much doubt, given perfectly good explanations from other people), how does claiming the picture is fake explain the shadow anomaly?

 

[Fourbrick]

Fourbrick, this question is and was directed at you:

Assuming you are right (which I very much doubt, given perfectly good explanations from other people), how does claiming the picture is fake explain the shadow anomaly?

Sorry for not replying, straight away, UKE. One way of doing it would be by using a picture of the background minus Oswald and then inserting the figures after.

Before the roof falls in ( from all the W.C. supporters,) let me say that is only my opinion of how it could be done.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You said that his head "was the right of the post by about the separation of the gate boards - looks a little more but his head is nearer the camera so that's due to perspective" If his head is closer to the camera then the relationship between the Stair post and the fence post changes.

No, nearer the camera than the post.

If the second photo was taken further away, as you say, then it has been cropped, (otherwise you would see more of Oswald not less.) If it was cropped, who cropped it?

The second photo is taken with the camera angled further upwards, as anyone with better than a room temperature IQ can see. Because it's angled upwards, Oswald's feet are cut off. Really, can you honestly be so stupid that you can't work this out for yourself?

Dave

 

[TraneWreck]

The funny thing is that this is quite literally one of the easiest theories to test.

Fourbrick, get a camera, have someone stand in your back yard, take some pictures moving both the camera and the subject slightly, and see what happens.

 

[Fourbrick]

No, nearer the camera than the post.



The second photo is taken with the camera angled further upwards, as anyone with better than a room temperature IQ can see. Because it's angled upwards, Oswald's feet are cut off. Really, can you honestly be so stupid that you can't work this out for yourself?

Dave

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Dave, but the fixed points on the photo (for example the length of the stair post from marked points) shows that the second picture appears to have been taken closer than the first as the post is longer in the second picture than the first.

 

[Fourbrick]

The funny thing is that this is quite literally one of the easiest theories to test.

Fourbrick, get a camera, have someone stand in your back yard, take some pictures moving both the camera and the subject slightly, and see what happens.

Have done that many times, T, but due to parallax if you move the camera sideways or forwards or backwards, fixed points change their position. In these photos, this doesn't happen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think somebody told Fourbrick that there was a discrepancy between the angles of the shadows, and he believed it because he wanted to. Now that he's asked to explain exactly what that discrepancy is, he can't actually explain it, but he can't bring himself not to believe it. Now he's desperately making up irrelevant nitpicks to preserve his cognitive dissonance. Since there isn't really a rational debate going on any more, it might be a good idea to move on.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Dave, but the fixed points on the photo (for example the length of the stair post from marked points) shows that the second picture appears to have been taken closer than the first as the post is longer in the second picture than the first.

Didn't you just say that the second picture couldn't have been taken from closer than the first?

However, explain how if the second photo was taken closer, the relationship between the Stair-post and the end fence post stays the same.

Yes, you did. Now you're saying it must have been taken from closer.

You're contradicting yourself in order to deny everything that's presented to you. Sorry, but you're clearly not capable of being rational about this any more.

Dave

 

[TraneWreck]

Have done that many times, T, but due to parallax if you move the camera sideways or forwards or backwards, fixed points change their position. In these photos, this doesn't happen.

THat's weird, because I looked at a family photo album last night and noticed the exact phenomenon.

Holy ****, did my mom kill Kennedy?

 

[Fourbrick]

Didn't you just say that the second picture couldn't have been taken from closer than the first?



Yes, you did. Now you're saying it must have been taken from closer.

You're contradicting yourself in order to deny everything that's presented to you. Sorry, but you're clearly not capable of being rational about this any more.

Dave

No, Dave, please read what I said more carefully. I said that it appears to have been taken closer, in answer to your point that the camera had been pointed upwards, but as I have already pointed out if it was taken closer, the relationship between the stairpost and the end fence post would be different.a

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, Dave, please read what I said more carefully. I said that it appears to have been taken closer, in answer to your point that the camera had been pointed upwards, but as I have already pointed out if it was taken closer, the relationship between the stairpost and the end fence post would be different.

It's a photo. Appearance is all there is. So you're saying that it appears to have been taken from closer, but that it appears not to have been taken from closer. From which, the only thing we can conclude is that you're incapable of drawing consistent conclusions on where the photographs were taken from, and hence you have no way of determining where the shadows should fall.

It's obvious that the second photo was taken with the camera angled further upwards, because Oswald's feet are shown in the first and cut off in the second. That much is obvious. That's why you see less of Oswald in the second photo; that too is obvious. How can you possibly not be able to understand this?

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

It's a photo. Appearance is all there is. So you're saying that it appears to have been taken from closer, but that it appears not to have been taken from closer. From which, the only thing we can conclude is that you're incapable of drawing consistent conclusions on where the photographs were taken from, and hence you have no way of determining where the shadows should fall.

No I have consistently said that the photos show the same camera position, otherwise the fixed points wouldn't line up.

It's obvious that the second photo was taken with the camera angled further upwards, because Oswald's feet are shown in the first and cut off in the second. That much is obvious. That's why you see less of Oswald in the second photo; that too is obvious. How can you possibly not be able to understand this?

Dave

It may be obvious to you, So let's see, first the photo was taken closer, then it was taken further away, then the camera was angled. There is no reason why it couldn't be the same background photo cropped differently. All the other fixed points in the photos would support this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No I have consistently said that the photos show the same camera position, otherwise the fixed points wouldn't line up.

Then how do you explain the differences that you claim give the appearance that the second photo was taken from nearer?

It may be obvious to you, So let's see, first the photo was taken closer, then it was taken further away,

Which, as I said, was a typo. And you've got these the wrong way round.

then the camera was angled.

This is nothing short of wilful idiocy. The angle of the camera and the position from which the photo is taken are independent; nothing about one claim contradicts the other.

There is no reason why it couldn't be the same background photo cropped differently. All the other fixed points in the photos would support this.

So why did you say earlier that:

but the fixed points on the photo (for example the length of the stair post from marked points) shows that the second picture appears to have been taken closer than the first as the post is longer in the second picture than the first

You're saying that the fixed points on the second photo show that it appears to have been taken from closer than the first, but that the fixed points on the photo also show that it's the same background photo as the first. That's nonsense.

You stopped making sense quite some time ago.

Dave

 

[Fourbrick]

Then how do you explain the differences that you claim give the appearance that the second photo was taken from nearer?

It has been cropped.

Which, as I said, was a typo. And you've got these the wrong way round.

You did indeed

This is nothing short of wilful idiocy. The angle of the camera and the position from which the photo is taken are independent; nothing about one claim contradicts the other.

You said the camera was angled upwards.

So why did you say earlier that:



You're saying that the fixed points on the second photo show that it appears to have been taken from closer than the first, but that the fixed points on the photo also show that it's the same background photo as the first. That's nonsense.

Explain how the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post remain constant throughout the three pictures.

You stopped making sense quite some time ago.

Dave

You're quite entitled to your opinion.

 

[Ranb]

You don't get it, Ranb. If your witness is right, and th shadows conflict, then the pictures are wrong.

My witness? I have no witness. You are the one saying Marina is unreliable, but you still use her to show the photos must have been faked. Why are you using a witness that is unreliable in your opinion?

Ranb

 

[danrush]

This one is really easy. There's a whole list of reasons why it's false which we can go through if you want but they're largely irrelevant because of one simple fact. There is no single bullet theory because there is no single bullet. The bullet found at parkland hospital was absolutely not the same bullet entered into evidence as CE399. If anyone has proof it was I'd contact the authorities as you have a major new breakthrough on your hands!

This is very easy...Many of you JFK'rs continue to neglect just where JFK and Connolly were sitting when the shots were fired. By looking at the many photos taken from Love Field to Dealey Plaza that day you can clearly see that Connolly is sitting lower and inboard of President Kennedy, the bullet wounds from a TSBD shot match up nicely.

The case has been closed for 50 years and you're still trying to prove that Barney the Dinosaur hit Kennedy from the secret bunker in the tripple underpass.

Oh yes...and do explain the navy back brace of fabric and metal stays that kept JFK upright like a nice shooting target.

Conspiracy? not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry for not replying, straight away, UKE. One way of doing it would be by using a picture of the background minus Oswald and then inserting the figures after.

Before the roof falls in ( from all the W.C. supporters,) let me say that is only my opinion of how it could be done.

Your hypothesis is that someone took pictures of Oswald with those shadows and inserted them into those pictures?

How did the shadows in the croppings of Oswald get different angles?

 

[uke2se]

Sorry for not replying, straight away, UKE. One way of doing it would be by using a picture of the background minus Oswald and then inserting the figures after.

Before the roof falls in ( from all the W.C. supporters,) let me say that is only my opinion of how it could be done.

Why would they fake it so that the shadow falls in different angles? Wouldn't it defeat the purpose to ensure that amateur sleuths with no training in photographic analysis can figure it out?

The way I figure it there are three possibilities:

1. The photos are fake, making the perpetrators of this insanely complex plot incapable of faking simple photographic evidence properly.

2. The photos are real and they were taken at different times.

3. The photos are real and you're simply wrong about the angle.

I'm going with number 3.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It has been cropped.

Even more ridiculous. You're claiming that cropping a photograph alters the relationships between the fixed points in it. Remember that you said that "the post is longer in the second picture than the first"; how can cropping a picture make a post in that picture longer?

Explain how the relationship between the stairpost and the fence post remain constant throughout the three pictures.

Is that the relationship that you claim did stay constant, or the relationship that you claim didn't stay constant but was magically altered when the photograph was cropped?

You're quite entitled to your opinion.

And you're quite entitled to both of yours.

Dave

 

[Tolls]

Looking at those photos, one thing on the one on the left (and I only just noticed since I superimposed them in GIMP) is that there's a shadow of Oswalds rifle on the post in the second one (with the gun in his right hand).

Oh, and superimposed and flicking between the layers its clear the camera has moved in relation to the background. The stair and post are fairly fixed, but everything else around moves slightly...increasingly so to the right of the picture. It's is clearly not the same background.