• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
More old ground:

"Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html
Click to expand...


John Stringer expressed doubt about the photos of the brain when he talked to the ARRB in 1996, but 30 years earlier, in 1966, he did sign a statement saying that he took the photos in the Archives.

So what do you trust, Robert, Stringer's three-years-after-the-event memory, or his 33-years-after-the-event memory?

I see you didn't mention the statement he signed, and neither did your source. Ignored it entirely, in fact.

Note he also remembered only a small entry hole in the back of the head - which conflicts with your favorite theory.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm

Why is that?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
That is just SO amusing. Reads like it's straight from a Monty Python skit!
Click to expand...


I thought this exchange was an instant classic:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Has someone actually promoted that?

We got all kinds too.

Did you know there were aliens present in Dealey Plaza and you can see them in the Zapruder film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb9iZxmVdeQ

I had my eyes opened today!

Hank
Click to expand...


An alien that looks uncannily like a young girl in a short red skirt that due to compression artifacts in the video copy of the original film briefly makes the girl appear to be a small gray semitransparent figure composed of boxes, which the person who narrates the video for some reason takes literally.:boggled:

This is what happens when well-meaning amateurs begin with a baseless conclusion ("our planet is being visited by shape-shifting aliens" or "Oswald was a patsy") and then work backwards, attempting to use their feeble (or sometimes nonexistent) research and analytical skills looking for evidence to support their conclusion.

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I laugh at the absurd notions of these confused souls. Every other day of the week I cry. Unfortunate, really because I could use a good laugh today.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
I thought this exchange was an instant classic:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

Hank
Click to expand...


What a humiliating spectacle.
 
HSienzant said:
Note he also remembered only a small entry hole in the back of the head - which conflicts with your favorite theory.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
Click to expand...
Excellent link, Hank.

HSienzant said:
I thought this exchange was an instant classic:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.

Hank
Click to expand...
I agree; thought that was mint. I tried to imagine the expression on White's face when he uttered those immortal words, and at what point(s), if ever, he suddenly thought to himself: bejeepers, what the hell am I doing here?!

The follow up is equally memorable:
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute
photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length
of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick
from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute
photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what
"photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you
know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Beautiful ... just beautiful. :D
 
That is legendary witness questioning right there. That ranks right up there with My Cousin Vinny's, "are you sure about that five minutes?!"
 
BazBear said:
For those unfamiliar with it, John McAdams' site is a treasure trove of information about the assassination. I've been referring to it for years. In fact it's what made me realize LHO really did do it alone (though I was never a true JFK CTist)
Click to expand...

Typically, the Lone Nutter's example of a neutral, open-minded, unbiased source. If John McAdams did not exist, the conspirators would have to invent him.
 
Southwind17 said:
Excellent link, Hank.


I agree; thought that was mint. I tried to imagine the expression on White's face when he uttered those immortal words, and at what point(s), if ever, he suddenly thought to himself: bejeepers, what the hell am I doing here?!

The follow up is equally memorable:

Beautiful ... just beautiful. :D
Click to expand...

And totally irrelevant.
 
HSienzant said:
John Stringer expressed doubt about the photos of the brain when he talked to the ARRB in 1996, but 30 years earlier, in 1966, he did sign a statement saying that he took the photos in the Archives.

Hank
Click to expand...

No. He took the photos he thought were in the archives.
 
HSienzant said:
John Stringer expressed doubt about the photos of the brain when he talked to the ARRB in 1996, but 30 years earlier, in 1966, he did sign a statement saying that he took the photos in the Archives.

So what do you trust, Robert, Stringer's three-years-after-the-event memory, or his 33-years-after-the-event memory?

I see you didn't mention the statement he signed, and neither did your source. Ignored it entirely, in fact.

Note he also remembered only a small entry hole in the back of the head - which conflicts with your favorite theory.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm

Why is that?

Hank
Click to expand...

I would like to have you cite the actual source for where he remembered only a small entry hole in the back of the head and not some irrelevant McAdams junk.
 
Typically, the Lone Nutter's example of a neutral, open-minded, unbiased source. If John McAdams did not exist, the conspirators would have to invent him.
Click to expand...
Because the grassy knoll shooter didnt exist the conspirators had to invent him (or was it a her??)
 
Southwind17 said:
That is just SO amusing. Reads like it's straight from a Monty Python skit!
Click to expand...

Amusingly Fallacious.
An attempt to deflect attention away from the evidence in favor of discrediting the man. An Ad Hiomnem attack Also considered the converse of a fallacious argument from authority -- that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy )
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Ok, here's what a true expert on 8mm film says. He wrote this in response to Lifton's 4-page article in Jame's Fetzer's book, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax". Doug Horne is not a film or photography expert of any stripe, and his opinions expressed above are meaningless compared to Zavada's:

When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to express my personal views. Simply stated “There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the "Zapruder in-camera-original" and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.”

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.
-- Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf
Click to expand...

Just like Jack White, a man with an extensive background in photography, Zavada, with a background as a film chemist, was a Self-Taught home movie 'expert." His views as to the technical markings in the film have nothing whatsover to do with images that you see than make no sense, as well as images you don't see that make no sense. Moreover, the two CIA witnesses that Horne has uncovered has cast a long shadow of doubt as to the true chain of evidence of the Z film, and has nothing to do with Zavada's testimony regarding technical aspects of the film.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
White knows nothing of photography. He is not a recognized photo expert in any sense of the word. He does stuff that makes no sense, and then proclaims he has found something significant (his take on the various photographs of Oswald's rifle is very revealing in this regard, as he failed to account for perspective). That is not an ad hominem; that is a fact. Quite simply, White's failure to account for perspective caused him to conclude that the photos showed different rifles in each of the photos he studied; when real experts studied the photos and took perspective into account they concluded there was only one rifle shown in all the photos studied.*

Robert, White's analysis is akin to measuring the railroad ties in this photo, and concluding the ties get smaller as they move away from the camera:

http://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=4439

Likewise, by failing to account for perspective, White reached an erroneous conclusion concerning the rifle photos.

You can read his testimony before Congress here; do take off the blinders before you do so; it is very revealing of what passes for an expert in Conspiracy Logic 101.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jwhite.txt

Lately he has taken up the moon landing and believes that is faked as well.

http://aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

The other three have credentials, but not photography credentials, as I previously pointed out. Their criticisms / opinions are meaningless, and would never be allowed to be heard by a jury (none of the four men opinions you cite would be recognized as an photography expert in any court in the land; they could not survive the voir dire process). That likewise is not an ad hominem; that too is a fact.

How come the best Robert can do is cite the opinion of non-experts that the film is tampered with?

Robert, don't you have any legitimate experts who have examined the Zapruder film camera original (as Zavada did) and concluded it was falsified in any manner?

Where can I read their report?

What's that, you have NO legitimate criticisms and yet you persist in this nonsense?

Hank

____________

* The HSCA Photographic Panel's conclusions about the rifle photos starts here:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
Click to expand...


All of your junk about who is or is not an "expert" is your attempt to deflect attention away from the evidence, and its a prime example of Ad Hominem attack. You cannot attack the evidence, so you attack the man. Also known as the converse of an Appeal to Authority fallacy. If you want to have some credibility in these matters, you must discuss the evidence, and not throw mud at the witnesses.
 
Hank wrote:

Robert, I know none of this convinces you that anything is wrong.
But it should at least start you wondering where your beliefs went off the tracks.
The stuff you cite as evidence is NOT evidence.
It doesn't come close to evidence.
It is nonsense, pure and simple.

Comment: Another pointless post, with no specifics. Give an example of what I cite as evidence that you claim is not evidence.
 
JohnG said:
Robert, I know this will sound snarky but this is a sincere suggestion; I think it would be a benefit to you to study critical thinking a little more closely than you already have and concentrate on logical fallacies in particular. For example you keep mentioning Ad Hom(inem attack)s but I don't think that term means what you think it means.

To use another popular conspiracy theory as an example, let's say a man by the name of "Mr. Smith" believes that the twin towers were brought down in controlled demolitions on 9/11. Saying Mr. Smith's theory isn't worth paying attention to because Mr. Smith works at Burger King" is an Ad Hom.

Saying "Mr. Smith's theory isn't worth paying attention to because Mr. Smith is morbidly obese" is also an Ad Hom (and a particularly witless and obnoxious Ad Hom at that).

Even saying "Mr. Smith's theory isn't worth paying attention to because Mr. Smith has a history of mental illness" is an Ad Hom (one of the reasons I believe that referring to Judy Wood* as a "nut" is neither kind nor helpful).

Saying "Mr. Smith's theory isn't worth paying attention to because Mr. Smith has no training or experience in the field of controlled demolitions and his theory is not supported by evidence that those who are in the field of controlled demolitions finds in any way compelling" is NOT an Ad Hom. That's not to say that Mr. Smith's theory must be untrue, it's just that it appears that it is so unlikely that his theory is true that it can safely be set aside until he has better evidence with which to make his case.

I hope you appreciate the distinction being made there. You and others here may disagree with my examples and that in itself would be a fascinating (and separate) discussion in its own right but I feel that if we are going to use terms such as "Ad Hom" in this thread we should make sure we are all clear just what those terms mean.
Click to expand...

I think it is you who needs to bone up on your knowledge of fallacious reasoning.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person ...
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html - Similar


Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy
 
Comment: Another pointless post, with no specifics. Give an example of what I cite as evidence that you claim is not evidence.
Click to expand...

Robert listed below is the evidence you have posted
......
........
............
.......





...... thats it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom