JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[kookbreaker]

..but not the ones in evidence.

Wrong.

 

[I Ratant]

Calm down and try not to project so much.

So, any answer for the numerous questions you've been asked and can't answer yet? In the fencepost photo, based on your abilities being tutored under Jack White, what times are it? LOL.

.
I found this in an old folder... a communication from Jack himself on JFK
Research.... 09/29/98. (Note: Norton flags JFKResearch as a -known malicious site-- so visit it at your risk. The last time I talked to Deloria, he's mentioned that the site had been hacked several times since 1998... ISTR talking to him about 2005 or so, and all the old data destroyed.)
Anyway, Jack at his finest, with a very able assistant....
.
I've posted a real analysis of the situation a couple times, determining the lady was maybe all of 5 feet tall, which Debra Conway of JFK Lancer confirmed, and Jack mentions here, but dismisses.
ETA: apparently the 2009 stuff here isn't any more...
Here's a -photogrammetric- study of the "running lady" I posted on JFK Research in 1998, in response to Jack.
Which Debra confirmed as correct, as she had talked to that lady in person.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yeah, well all of that is just more of your continued ad hominem attack which you seem to prefer to discussing the evidence he presents as to b/y photo forgery. But I guess that's all you've got.

He does not have any evidence. He has zero qualifications and insists that holding rulers up to photographs is proof of something despite that being completely laughable.

Its not an ad hominen to point out that he has a vested financial interest in this nonsense.

And you still have not replied to the various posts that showed how the shadows could be formed. Do you now admit that was not anything odd?

 

[Walter Ego]

The Bug man will try anything to discredit those who bear evidence contrary to his point of view which is just more ad hominem attack in place of a critique of the evidence. The usual tac on this board as well. Boring.

My quotes from Bugliosi's endnotes were citations by Bugliosi from the HSCA's findings regarding your "experts" so your beef should be with the HSCA, not Bugliosi.

[Malcolm] Thompson deferred to the committee’s conclusions, explaining that his own conclusions [in the 1978 BBC television documentary The Assassination of President Kennedy] were based on copies of the photographs, not the originals that the HSCA had utilized.

[J.M.] Pickard, a photographic expert with the Department of Defense in Canada, told the HSCA staff that he spent less than one hour preparing for his public comments on the [Canadian Fifth Estate TV ] show and had made no scientific analysis of the photos before rendering an opinion.

These were the "experts" and TV programs you cited and both of your "experts" admitted their analysis of the backyard photos was essentially worthless. No ad homs needed, they discredited themselves.

Jack White in his his own HSCA testimony admitted he has zero scientific training and no expertise in either analytical photogrammetry or forensic photography.

Yet these are the "experts" we are supposed to take seriously because (in your formulation) none of them have "a background in the American intelligence services."

I agree with you that this discussion has grown boring. I suggest you post your Grassy Knoll evidence and your "Final Nail" and then, as I recommended many pages ago, declare victory and then retreat. I am sure you have better things to do and so do we.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If the photos had been proven to be fake, RP can explain how.
If the palm print was taken from a dead man. RP can explain how.
If the conspiracy connects the people Odio observed to Jack Ruby and LBJ, RP can explain how.

We have been told a lot of things have happened. RP mocked another for apparently not understanding what a theory entails, so we can assume he has no problems stating what conculusions he has drawn from observable evidence, if they matched his hypothosis, and the methodology he hypothosises the conspiracy to have used.

Oh and citations to which photos were or were not taken in LHOs back yard.

 

[Robert Prey]

My quotes from Bugliosi's endnotes were citations by Bugliosi from the HSCA's findings regarding your "experts" so your beef should be with the HSCA, not Bugliosi.





These were the "experts" and TV programs you cited and both of your "experts" admitted their analysis of the backyard photos was essentially worthless. No ad homs needed, they discredited themselves.

Jack White in his his own HSCA testimony admitted he has zero scientific training and no expertise in either analytical photogrammetry or forensic photography.

Yet these are the "experts" we are supposed to take seriously because (in your formulation) none of them have "a background in the American intelligence services."

I agree with you that this discussion has grown boring. I suggest you post your Grassy Knoll evidence and your "Final Nail" and then, as I recommended many pages ago, declare victory and then retreat. I am sure you have better things to do and so do we.

Nobody admitted anything like what you claim. Deferring does not equate with admitting. It merely allows that copies may not be as clear as originals. But Thompson could not possibly say he was wrong without seeing those originals. Logic 101. And still, when it comes to Jack White, Thompson and Pickering, you still decline to critique the evidence presented, which any average un-trained person can see with the naked eye is evidence of forgery and does not required a degree in forensic photography. Just common sense, something you seem to not want to embrace.

 

[Robert Prey]

If the photos had been proven to be fake, RP can explain how.
If the palm print was taken from a dead man. RP can explain how.
If the conspiracy connects the people Odio observed to Jack Ruby and LBJ, RP can explain how.

We have been told a lot of things have happened. RP mocked another for apparently not understanding what a theory entails, so we can assume he has no problems stating what conculusions he has drawn from observable evidence, if they matched his hypothosis, and the methodology he hypothosises the conspiracy to have used.

Oh and citations to which photos were or were not taken in LHOs back yard.

None were taken in LHO's backyard. Do you really need a citation for that? Come on. Get up to speed with the known facts.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, that was a complete dodge.

Why don't you tell us how you get latent prints of a dead body.

Obtaining Prints of Deceased Persons

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM19_20/CH7.PDF

"Major case prints are always obtained of
deceased persons connected with an
investigation..."

"Printing deceased persons may be done
before rigor mortis has set in, after rigor
mortis, or after decomposition has begun."

"You might dust the
fingers and palms with fingerprint powder
and lift the prints with tape or rubber lifters."

 

[Robert Prey]

So also told Posner in the early 90's that she took them. She also told Bugliosi in 2000 that she took them. Trying to say she was 'threatened' in this day and age is a bad joke.

Harrison Livingston interviewed her in for "High Treason Two" in 1992. Her story then was that she took the photos, but not the one's in evidence because she said in the photos she took, the stairs of the house were to her back. IN the photos in evidence, the picture taker is facing the stairs, and the stairs are to the subject's back. That's a real inconsistency which if true, points to a re-taking of the photos by the conspirators.

 

[Robert Prey]

The "evidence" you've provided has been thoroughly smashed all to flinders. No doubt you've seen the same thing happen on other conspiritard sites and still rehash the same tired, totally discredited and debunked garbage that you already know to be false.

Now, perhaps you could provide some evidence that would falsify the null hypothesis that Oswald fired the shots from the TBD. Do you have anything new that hasn't already been totally debunked? Still waiting for your Final parting shot, tail between your legs running away irrefutable evidence post.

There is no evidence that Oswald even fired a shot. Perhaps you have some?

 

[Tomtomkent]

None were taken in LHO's backyard. Do you really need a citation for that? Come on. Get up to speed with the known facts.

Oh so my slip means you don't have to prove they were faked at all?

My god, it's almost like we wont notice you are dodging the relevant part of the question. *Slow clap*


How about if I say this:

If the photos had been proven to be fake, RP can explain how.
If the palm print was taken from a dead man. RP can explain how.
If the conspiracy connects the people Odio observed to Jack Ruby and LBJ, RP can explain how.

We have been told a lot of things have happened. RP mocked another for apparently not understanding what a theory entails, so we can assume he has no problems stating what conculusions he has drawn from observable evidence, if they matched his hypothosis, and the methodology he hypothosises the conspiracy to have used.

Oh and citations to which photos were or were not taken to actually depict LHO in the backyard in question, on the dates confirmed by official investigateion.

Will you actually try and answer then? Or should we fasten our seatbelts for yet another break net dodge. As god forbid you shoulder the burden of proof and actually supply valid evidence for once.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is no evidence that Oswald even fired a shot. Perhaps you have some?

Other than his palmprint, on the rifle that fired the shot, found in the location the shot was fired from? At a time we can place Oswald in that location.

Was that post sarcastic? It has always been stated that there is no single piece of evidence against Oswald, but a a firm case made from evidence that makes him the only viable suspect. As you seem fond of introducing legal terms and definition into the thread perhaps we should remind you that the official investigations and those who support it are capable of admitting that they only have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not to a physical certainty. Sceptics are capable of admiting that a perfect storm of proof is rare, and 40 years after the fact an impossibilty.

Why not actually supply some evidence that might be capable of instilling a reasonable doubt and leave the goalposts where they are?

Oh and by the way the question RoboTimo asked was:

Do you have anything new that hasn't already been totally debunked?

The viable answers are:
1) Yes (supplying evidence)
2) No (admitting there is no new evidence to be brought to the discussion).

What you have done is asked a new question. Why wont you answer the direct question Robbykins? Shall I ask it in plainer terms so you might understand?

Do YOU have any evidence that has not already been shown to be utter guff?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Harrison Livingston interviewed her in for "High Treason Two" in 1992. Her story then was that she took the photos, but not the one's in evidence because she said in the photos she took, the stairs of the house were to her back. IN the photos in evidence, the picture taker is facing the stairs, and the stairs are to the subject's back. That's a real inconsistency which if true, points to a re-taking of the photos by the conspirators.

That is a big IF true. Let's see:
1) We have other statements in which she claims to have taken the photos in question.
2) We have no evidence she was threatened.
3) We have no evidence the photographs were faked.

Gosh that is already the "fake" story shot beneath the water line. But wait there is more!
4) If she was threatened to the point of changing her story we have less reason to believe those threats were from the CT advocates than the government.
5) In fact if the entire case rests on the fact a woman may have lied we have no reason to believe the lie was not the one about NOT taking the photos.
6) If the whole case rests on an assumption of a lie, we have no reason to assume the statement about being threatened was not a lie.

Oh dear.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Obtaining Prints of Deceased Persons

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM19_20/CH7.PDF

"Major case prints are always obtained of
deceased persons connected with an
investigation..."

"Printing deceased persons may be done
before rigor mortis has set in, after rigor
mortis, or after decomposition has begun."

"You might dust the
fingers and palms with fingerprint powder
and lift the prints with tape or rubber lifters."

And none of the crime scene investigators were confused that the rifle had already been dusted for prints by the shooter? That is not the same as a dead body leaving prints on a rifle to be found. You know, the palm print that would then be revealed under examination. The traces of sweat and moisture applied to an object NOT a record of the print taken from a body for comparrison or identification.

You are aware of the difference here? As it is somewhat vital to your allegations.

 

[Robert Prey]

And none of the crime scene investigators were confused that the rifle had already been dusted for prints by the shooter? That is not the same as a dead body leaving prints on a rifle to be found. You know, the palm print that would then be revealed under examination. The traces of sweat and moisture applied to an object NOT a record of the print taken from a body for comparrison or identification.

You are aware of the difference here? As it is somewhat vital to your allegations.

Sorry, but I don't understand the question. Re-phrase it.

 

[Robert Prey]

That is a big IF true. Let's see:
1) We have other statements in which she claims to have taken the photos in question.
2) We have no evidence she was threatened.
3) We have no evidence the photographs were faked.

Gosh that is already the "fake" story shot beneath the water line. But wait there is more!
4) If she was threatened to the point of changing her story we have less reason to believe those threats were from the CT advocates than the government.
5) In fact if the entire case rests on the fact a woman may have lied we have no reason to believe the lie was not the one about NOT taking the photos.
6) If the whole case rests on an assumption of a lie, we have no reason to assume the statement about being threatened was not a lie.

Oh dear.

To say there is no evidence that the b/y photos were faked is itself a denial of the truth. There is a mountain of evidence as presented in the five Jack White u-tubes, and elsewhere, none of which have even been addressed, much less refuted. Nor has anyone attempted to duplicate my own example of an impossible shadow refraction. As far as Marina changing stories, they stand by themselves to be believed or not believed. But it is impossible for the photos in evidence to be the ones she took if her back was to the stairs.

 

[Robert Prey]

Other than his palmprint, on the rifle that fired the shot, found in the location the shot was fired from? At a time we can place Oswald in that location.

Was that post sarcastic? It has always been stated that there is no single piece of evidence against Oswald, but a a firm case made from evidence that makes him the only viable suspect. As you seem fond of introducing legal terms and definition into the thread perhaps we should remind you that the official investigations and those who support it are capable of admitting that they only have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not to a physical certainty. Sceptics are capable of admiting that a perfect storm of proof is rare, and 40 years after the fact an impossibilty.

Why not actually supply some evidence that might be capable of instilling a reasonable doubt and leave the goalposts where they are?

Oh and by the way the question RoboTimo asked was:

The viable answers are:
1) Yes (supplying evidence)
2) No (admitting there is no new evidence to be brought to the discussion).

What you have done is asked a new question. Why wont you answer the direct question Robbykins? Shall I ask it in plainer terms so you might understand?

Do YOU have any evidence that has not already been shown to be utter guff?

It's a sophomoric question. Nothing I have presented has been debunked. The Odio incident is evidence of a probably conspiracy. Fact is, I have yet to present evidence of a 2nd shooter. That is coming. What I have basically done, is to challenge all of you "critical thinkers' who believe in the Lone Nut fairy tale to present some irrefutable evidence. You have failed to do so. All you have done is talked about a rifle which I have shown is questionable as to ownership and location, and prints, which have clearly been shown to be highly questionable or non-existent. Moreover, no one has been able to place Oswald in that building with a rifle in his hand.

 

[kookbreaker]

Obtaining Prints of Deceased Persons

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM19_20/CH7.PDF

Wow. To think you were arrogantly stating to someone 'Do you even know what latent prints are' a few pages ago.

You just quoted a method for getting ink or powder prints from a corpse. Not a method for getting a latent print from a corpse.

You couldn't have failed any harder in this matter.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Robert, what is your single best piece of evidence for a bullet coming from the grassy knoll? Is there any?

Just two words.

Bran Flakes​

Well, I'm betting it makes as much sense and has as much validity as whatever he posts.

 

[Robert Prey]

Wow. To think you were arrogantly stating to someone 'Do you even know what latent prints are' a few pages ago.

You just quoted a method for getting ink or powder prints from a corpse. Not a method for getting a latent print from a corpse.

You couldn't have failed any harder in this matter.

You are very confused.