JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Dave Rogers]

And if the South had won the Civil war, John Wilkes Booth would have been regarded as a national hero.

I am unable fully to comprehend the level of confusion that would lead to such a statement. For there to be any possibility of the South winning the Civil War, Lee's surrender at Appomatox would have to have not happened, and therefore John Wilkes Booth would have been forgotten by history, because the sole motivation for his assassination of Lincoln would not have existed in the first place.

Do you not know anything?

Dave

 

[Robert Prey]

I'm not holding by breath either.

All we have seen so far from Robert are long-debunked conspiracy canards presented as if the mere mention of phrases like "faked back-yard photos" D

If the backyard photos are genuine then how do you explain the ghosted photo of LHO? The creator of the Ghosted photo, Det. Bobby G. Brown, explained it this way,
"I did it, just to be doing something."
Do you buy that?
And then there are the numerous anomalies. My favorite is 133B, where the rifle is pointed at 11 o'clock, but in the shadow, it clearly points to 9 o'clock. Just try it sometime.

 

[Noztradamus]

I am unable fully to comprehend the level of confusion that would lead to such a statement. For there to be any possibility of the South winning the Civil War, Lee's surrender at Appomatox would have to have not happened, and therefore John Wilkes Booth would have been forgotten by history, because the sole motivation for his assassination of Lincoln would not have existed in the first place.

Do you not know anything?

Dave

The closest I can come is a scenario following James Thurber's If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox, where Lincoln is attempting to restart the war to refudiate Grant's error in surrendering to Lee.

 

[Robert Prey]

I am unable fully to comprehend the level of confusion that would lead to such a statement. For there to be any possibility of the South winning the Civil War, Lee's surrender at Appomatox would have to have not happened, and therefore John Wilkes Booth would have been forgotten by history, because the sole motivation for his assassination of Lincoln would not have existed in the first place.

Do you not know anything?

Dave

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln took place on Good Friday,[1] April 14, 1865,


"The last battle of the American Civil War was the Battle of Palmito Ranch in Texas on May 12 and 13. The last significant Confederate active force to surrender was the Confederate allied Cherokee Brig. Gen. Stand Watie and his Indian soldiers on June 23. The last Confederate surrender occurred on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah surrendered at Liverpool, England.[6] President Andrew Johnson formally declared the end of the war on August 20, 1866." -- Wikapedia

Happy to correct your history.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln took place on Good Friday,[1] April 14, 1865,


"The last battle of the American Civil War was the Battle of Palmito Ranch in Texas on May 12 and 13. The last significant Confederate active force to surrender was the Confederate allied Cherokee Brig. Gen. Stand Watie and his Indian soldiers on June 23. The last Confederate surrender occurred on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah surrendered at Liverpool, England.[6] President Andrew Johnson formally declared the end of the war on August 20, 1866." -- Wikapedia

Happy to correct your history.

Well, that demonstrates (a) how non-existent Robert Prey's understanding of history is, in that he seems to think that a few scattered forces had any chance whatsoever of winning the war, and (b) just how poor is his reading comprehension, in that he seems to have chosen to answer a completely different point to the one I made.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

If the backyard photos are genuine then how do you explain the ghosted photo of LHO? The creator of the Ghosted photo, Det. Bobby G. Brown, explained it this way,
"I did it, just to be doing something."
Do you buy that?
And then there are the numerous anomalies. My favorite is 133B, where the rifle is pointed at 11 o'clock, but in the shadow, it clearly points to 9 o'clock. Just try it sometime.

Do tell us about shadows. At what angle is each post leaning to create the apparently different shadow angles?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And then there are the numerous anomalies. My favorite is 133B, where the rifle is pointed at 11 o'clock, but in the shadow, it clearly points to 9 o'clock. Just try it sometime.

Oh, God, not again. It's really quite simple to construct an arrangement where an angled object under oblique lighting creates a horizontal shadow on a vertical plane. It's a relatively straightforward piece of 3D geometry.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, God, not again. It's really quite simple to construct an arrangement where an angled object under oblique lighting creates a horizontal shadow on a vertical plane. It's a relatively straightforward piece of 3D geometry.

Dave

He used his Official Jack White Collectible Protractor.

 

[twinstead]

Moon hoax believers also have issues with shadows, which although some may be counter intuitive, are easily reproduced in mundane situations.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I was thinking about it the other day, and came up with what I think (and please, correct me if I'm off, here) is a plausible chain of events behind each of the three shots:

Shot 1: LHO missed and couldn't find where his shot went (we can't know what he was aiming at, but given shot 3, we can assume JFK's head) so:

Shot 2: LHO aims roughly center of mass, pulls the trigger, and sees JFK react, but not slump as from a instantly mortal wound, so:

Shot 3: Since LHO knows roughly where he was aiming when he took shot 2, and also roughly where shot 2 struck, he takes a little more time to line up his shot, squeezes the trigger, and sees a very obvious mortal wound.

Can any conspiracy peddler do the same?

Hey, Robert! Can you construct a plausible scenario to explain everyone who took a shot and why?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. Before The Final Nail it will be "The Grassy Knoll Assassin".

Stayed tuned.

Why the wait? Post it don't. I doubt anybody has baited breath. If there was a convincing piece of argument why not post it and be done? Why go to such lengths to undermine your own possition?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why the wait? Post it don't. I doubt anybody has baited breath. If there was a convincing piece of argument why not post it and be done? Why go to such lengths to undermine your own possition?

Actually, I'm really looking forward to his Final Nail post. It's the "final" bit that looks particularly appealing.

Dave

 

[Walter Ego]

If the backyard photos are genuine then how do you explain the ghosted photo of LHO? The creator of the Ghosted photo, Det. Bobby G. Brown, explained it this way,
"I did it, just to be doing something."
Do you buy that?
And then there are the numerous anomalies. My favorite is 133B, where the rifle is pointed at 11 o'clock, but in the shadow, it clearly points to 9 o'clock. Just try it sometime.

You're still having problems with this whole citation thing. Do you have a source for that quote from Bobby G. Brown or are we just supposed to take your word for it that he said that?

As has been pointed out, the direction of the shadows is meaningless. The photos were authenticated by photo experts advising the Warren Commission and again by experts for the HSCA and again as recently as 2009 independently by a scientist at Dartmouth.

A photograph of John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle and a copy of The Militant communist paper in 1963 is authentic, says Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, who digitally analyzed the iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard a few months before the assassination.

At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald's head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo.

"It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963," said Farid. With no evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was authentic.

http://www.science20.com/news_artic..._oswald_photo_authentic_says_forensics_expert

Professor Farid is a pioneer in the field of digital forensics . (See the video linked below where Farid explains his analysis of the Oswald backyard photo.)

Now honestly David, what evidence are we supposed to take seriously, evidence from experts in their fields or some "ghost image" you dug up from a conspiracy kooktard website?

 

[Robert Prey]

You're still having problems with this whole citation thing. Do you have a source for that quote from Bobby G. Brown or are we just supposed to take your word for it that he said that?

Oh, so with the source, that means you buy it? Course not. The source is a quoted from him directly on p. 386 of 'Oswald Talked" by the LaFontaines.

 

[Robert Prey]

As has been pointed out, the direction of the shadows is meaningless. The photos were authenticated by photo experts advising the Warren Commission and again by experts for the HSCA and again as recently as 2009 independently by a scientist at Dartmouth.

As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent and the example of your Dartmath "expert" has nothing to do with 133B. The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.

 

[Border Reiver]

Why? three experts have authenticated the photos, and in the last case more than 40 years after the initial tests. It's disproven, move on.

 

[Robert Prey]

Professor Farid is a pioneer in the field of digital forensics .

Virtually all of the alleged photo 'experts" who testified for the HSCA had a background with Am. Intelligence, as does Farid. Do you doubt that I could provide an army of photo "experts" that assert the photo(s) are a fraud? Would that make any difference? Here's a comment from author James Fitzer

"Having chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the death of JFK and edited three books with contributions from the most highly qualified experts who have ever studied the case and given hundreds of interviews and lectures on the subject, I was astonished that a Dartmouth professor would be offering a "song and dance" about photos that have been repeatedly proven to be fakes, as Lee Oswald himself observed during his interrogation. So another expert on JFK, Jim Marrs, the author of CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY (1989), and I co-authored "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" (18 November 2009) to expose the fraud. "


https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forum...-Hany-Farid-quot-in-the-nation-s-service-quot

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh, God, not again. It's really quite simple to construct an arrangement where an angled object under oblique lighting creates a horizontal shadow on a vertical plane. It's a relatively straightforward piece of 3D geometry.

Dave

Talk is cheap. If it's so easy, then do it.

 

[Walter Ego]

As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent and the example of your Dartmath "expert" has nothing to do with 133B. The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.

Dartmath? Is that in the Ivy League?

So your 133B trumps my Dartmouth professor? Can we say "confirmation bias," David?

I don't have to prove or disprove anything. It is your contention that the backyard photos are faked. So it is you who have to prove it. So far you have failed miserably to do so.

Edit:

I notice you are continuing to quote conspiracy kooks like James Fetzer (not "Fitzer," as you have it). This is not evidence, it is merely another indication of your confirmation bias.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Talk is cheap. If it's so easy, then do it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6536695#post6536695

From just under a year ago, courtesy of Jack by the Hedge, a horizontal shadow from an angled object.

Dave