JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[bynmdsue]

It happened when the anti-Castro Cubans partnered with a guy who discussed assassinating the President.

Sorry, you're wrong. The only time Kennedy came up is when "Leopoldo" told Sylvia that "Leon"(who may or may not be LHO) told him that the anti-castro Cubans had no guts and that Kennedy should have been killed following the Bay of Pigs. The only possible future plans "Leopoldo" mentioned was the possibility of sneaking "Leon" into Cuba to assassinate Castro, but "Leopoldo" told Sylvia that "Leon" was "loco", "insincere" and that they probably wouldn't have any future dealings with him. Yep, that's some rock-solid proof you got goin' on there.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have never said I believed anything Mariina said. I only point out she has changed her mind repeatedly, and the fact is, that if she did not take the photos in evidence, then a rational person would raise the rational question, "Who Did and for What Purpose?" And the photos are indeed filled with all kinds of clues as to forgery, and your refusal to address any of them speaks volumes.

But if you don't believe everything she says then at what point does it become a "fact" that she did not take the photos?

You ONLY claim they were not taken by her, because she says so. A rational person would realise that.

The answer to yourquestion of who took them and for what purpose is "Marina, because LHO asked her to."

The impossible shadow has been replicated for you in this thread by I Ratant.
The analysis has been addressed by Walter.
The CLAIM she did not take the picture is not a FACT. And has been refuted by the woman herself.

And you seriously think your claim is rational? Speaks volumes too.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nobody has proven the adverse shadow that I refer to in 133B. No source has "retracted" claims. And the only experts that have upheld the photos as genuine have connections to Am. Intell, in other words the conspirators.

The shadow has been proven. Many times. Including by models of the scene reproduced in this very thread. So that is a lie.

Now I do believe several of the sources used by conspiracy nuts have since retracted their claims based on seeing better copies, or the original, or running tests. I will work on citations as and when I can. But wont accept your word it never happened. Especially as the Canadian expert did it from a duff copy on an hours notice with no actual evidence. I ampretty sure when he saw the original print he did reverse ferret.

Orgasnisations Walter has shown you to have concluded the photos to be genuine are not connected to American Intelligence. The BBC. So I guess that makes the word "only" a lie.

And accussing people of being conspirators with out evidence? Classy.

I will invalidate Jim Mars by pointing out he is making impossible comparisons with no basis on valid testing or examination of photographs and has no qualifications. I dont need to point out he believes in Reptoids and makes his money peddling piffle about conspiracies.

Do you understand that by "source" we mean "experts who looked at the pictures" not "documentary or book that they appeared in"? Of course you do. So why lie?

If you have to lie to me in a discussion, don't bother posting.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I own a copy of Bugliosi's book which comes with a CD containing almost a thousand pages of endnotes. I copied the CD to my computer and am able to c&p excerpts directly from these notes.

These are notes for page 794 of the book where Bugliosi discusses the "experts" who claimed the backyard photos were fakes.

Hey Rob Prey. You know you can click on the little icon next to the quote. To go read the original...

 

[Robert Prey]

You've posted that already. It is not the same as putting a print from a corpse onto an object (such as a rifle). It is merely the method for getting prints for identification. You are wrong. You don't even realize you are wrong.

All the FBI got was an alleged palm print on a card. Could have been obtained from the corpse directly or indirectly by inking the palm. Mortician Groudy said LHO's palm was full of ink.

 

[Robert Prey]

Already done. Did you not see the video I showed? Why do you not accept that?
What is wrong with it?

I don't recall any video of a man with a rifle.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is from the USA Politics forum.



Robert's hypocrisy of accusing others of ad homs before launching his own ad homs has already been noted. He is totally without even the rudiments of self-awareness. I am not wasting my time responding to him anymore though I may continue to comment on his stupidity.


Edit: Robert is on ignore. He's earned it.

Poor Walter.

 

[kookbreaker]

All the FBI got was an alleged palm print on a card.

The FBI didn't get anything. It was the DPD who lifted the prints.

Could have been obtained from the corpse directly or indirectly by inking the palm. Mortician Groudy said LHO's palm was full of ink.

Ink doesn't leave the kind of prints the human body leaves.

 

[kookbreaker]

I don't recall any video of a man with a rifle.

Oh, so the goalposts have moved?

He used a piece of wood, and got the same shadow effect. Are you really this desperate?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Poor Walter.

Why? sounds a reasonable assessment to me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

All the FBI got was an alleged palm print on a card. Could have been obtained from the corpse directly or indirectly by inking the palm. Mortician Groudy said LHO's palm was full of ink.

Then why did you discuss a source claiming that the rifle was taken to the funeral home or morgue to fake the print? Are you denouncing your sources as unreliable? Why did insist it was a latent print? And ask if others knew what a latent print is? Are you now stating it was not a latent print found on the rifle?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, so the goalposts have moved?

He used a piece of wood, and got the same shadow effect. Are you really this desperate?

And there still remains the model produced by I Ratant. The shadow has been shown to be possible, unless RP explains why shadows fall differently on that particular rifle. He has yet to do so is proving his confirmation bias.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, so the goalposts have moved?

And will continue to. I predict that, whatever proof is offered, Robert Prey will retreat via the positions that the proof was not obtained using a rifle, that the proof was not obtained in Oswald's back yard, and that the proof was not obtained by actual pictures of Oswald, to the ultimate position that the proof was not obtained in 1963. At the same time, he will offer nothing more than personal incredulity as evidence that Oswald's rifle, at that specific angle, in that specific place and on that specific day, could not cast a horizontal shadow. He will end up with the assertion that simple three-dimensional geometry somehow made it impossible for something to happen in Oswald's back yard in 1963 that has been demonstrated to happen many other times in many other places.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

Poor Walter.

You're probably thinking "Poor Robert" with it being handed to you so many times so easily.

Now that you should know that there is no question about Oswald owning the rifle and no question about the backyard photos, are you ready to produce your killer evidence of a bullet from the grassy knoll?

If you're wanting to back out because you realize your killer evidence will only convince other credulous believers, no harm no foul.

 

[tsig]

I have never said I believed anything Mariina said. I only point out she has changed her mind repeatedly, and the fact is, that if she did not take the photos in evidence, then a rational person would raise the rational question, "Who Did and for What Purpose?" And the photos are indeed filled with all kinds of clues as to forgery, and your refusal to address any of them speaks volumes.

I'd think the CIA, FBI and the AFE* would be able to hire better forgers.

*Agency For Evil

 

[I Ratant]

If you can't replicate a shadow, it's a problem.

.
Not to everyone else in the known universe.
That shadow has to be shown to be "wrong".. any, all of them... go for it.
Bated breath will not be invoked.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hmmm

Well now it appears that you and your Amen chorus simply retreat into outright denials of the truth. You have yet to address even one of the several anomalies in those photos, and that speaks volumes.

From a few years ago, and another poster:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=861637&postcount=44

My theory is that a bunch of arrogant know-nothings post theories without any evidence, they get called on it. Y ou have been called on it. Your Amen Chorus of know-nothings has been called on it

The quoting is better, but the style is much the same.

 

[Walter Ego]

But if you don't believe everything she says then at what point does it become a "fact" that she did not take the photos?

You ONLY claim they were not taken by her, because she says so. A rational person would realise that.

The answer to yourquestion of who took them and for what purpose is "Marina, because LHO asked her to."

The impossible shadow has been replicated for you in this thread by I Ratant.
The analysis has been addressed by Walter.
The CLAIM she did not take the picture is not a FACT. And has been refuted by the woman herself.

And you seriously think your claim is rational? Speaks volumes too.

It is difficult to understand what Robert is arguing about the backyard photos. Marina has never denied taking the photos on March 31, 1963. She has been confused about how many photos she took but not about the fact that she did take them.

"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," she told [Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that's not the truth."

Posner; p.104 footnote

There were at least three poses and, as pointed out by Posner, Bugliosi and a forum member on this thread, it would be silly for the conspirators to only alter one photo.

As I pointed out, Oswald was proud of the photos. He showed one of them to Michael Payne on April 2, 1963. He sent one of the photos to The Militant and a copy of one of the photos signed by Oswald was found in the personal effects George de Mohrenschildt.

As it relates to Oswald's guilt, all this debate over shadows and photo analysis is in one sense irrelevant. As I previously noted, if Oswald has gone to trial, there was sufficient evidence to convict him without even introducing the backyard photos into evidence.

Perhaps we can drop this back and forth about the photos and wait until Robert introduces his Grass Knoll evidence and proceed from there. At this point the conversation is going in circles.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So other than the claim of Mariana, what is supposed to be the evidence she did not take the photogrpahs? RP on the one hand claims he does not believe what she said, then on the other bases his claims she did not take the photo on HER claim she di not take the photo. There is not point saying IF x, when you have not proven x, or given a reason to suppose x.

In this case there is no point saying "if she did not take the photographs" with out offering a plausible reason to assume she did not. Why is her claim for not taking them more truthful than repeated claims she did?

 

[I Ratant]

...
Perhaps we can drop this back and forth about the photos and wait until Robert introduces his Grass Knoll evidence and proceed from there. At this point the conversation is going in circles.

.
Maybe we'll get a guided tour of Livingstone's Grassy Knoll underground bunker!