JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

What close up witnesses asserted the shots came from the grassy knoll?

Answer:
Powers, ODonnell, the 3 persons in the Willis family, the Newman family and others.

 

[Robert Prey]

So to sumarise again:

The evidence required to prove photographs or film to have been altered is the photographic artefacts that show negatives have been spliced or emulsion cut to composite two images.

/QUOTE]

The ghosted image of Oswald in a photo discovered in 1995 in the DAllas evidence locker as well as testimony that a backyard photo was seen the night of the assassination at the film processor, minus the image of Oswald -- is more than enough evidence, along with the anomalies themselves, to incriminate the government conspirators in falsification of evidence and coverup.

 

[HSienzant]

You need to look up the word "concise" and try to apply it to your posts which are anything but, and therefore are not deserving of an answer.

Strike FOUR (or is it five?)

Robert hasn't yet tried to rebut the points I made. Now his excuse is I make too many points! Well, yeah, I can't help Horne's got no argument and his points are easy to rebut.

Lol. Doug Horne is a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and you can see it in full bloom above.

In the space of a little more than one paragraph:

1) He denigrates Kodak's own expert's expertise (calling him a "self-taught home movie expert")*;

2) He pits his own opinion (Horne's) against that of the expert's as if they are equal, but of course they are not;

3) He engages in circular reasoning; using the conclusion (the film was altered and the conspirators were really good at faking stuff!) to rule out the evidence it wasn't (for example, the film markings are consistent with authenticity);

4) He rules out the affadavits signed by the film-developing personnel in Zapruder's presence for the same reason (below);

5) He proclaims the affadavit paper trail provided by Zapruder to be suspicious precisely because it doesn't allow him to question it (calling it 'almost too good' below), so he questions it for that reason (!);

6) And finally, he finds two men 35 years AFTER THE FACT to state they REMEMBER something different (below). They have no documents, simply a 35-year old memory. He uses the memory to discard everything else that is documented.

Whoop. This is typical garden-variety Conspiracy Logic 101. And it is nonsense. Obviously.

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.
But you find it convincing. And think it should convince us.
Uh, no.

___________

* Roland Zavada is THE recognized industry expert (and Kodak's own internal expert) on 8mm film.
Here's a brief resume:
http://www.jfk-info.com/zavadabi.htm

 

[HSienzant]

What you claim is that witnesses are not evidence. How absurd. All of your own points are in fact opinion, and not evidence. Moreover, the CIA witnesses were not exactly "found" by Doug Horne. They found him by one of them viewing a live C-Span TV show on the assassination and called in to volunteer their knowledge of the Z film chain of custody.

Sorry, Robert, that's a big swing and a miss. What I did was go through Doug Horne's argument for alteration point by point and show how none of it applies.

Here it is again - you haven't come close to attempting to rebut any of these points so you just make some random non-sequitors like I am claiming witnesses are not evidence. Nope. That's not what I said. Here's what I actually said. Try to rebut my points, not stuff you make up:

Lol. Doug Horne is a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and you can see it in full bloom above.

In the space of a little more than one paragraph:

1) He denigrates Kodak's own expert's expertise (calling him a "self-taught home movie expert")*;

2) He pits his own opinion (Horne's) against that of the expert's as if they are equal, but of course they are not;

3) He engages in circular reasoning; using the conclusion (the film was altered and the conspirators were really good at faking stuff!) to rule out the evidence it wasn't (for example, the film markings are consistent with authenticity);

4) He rules out the affadavits signed by the film-developing personnel in Zapruder's presence for the same reason (below);

5) He proclaims the affadavit paper trail provided by Zapruder to be suspicious precisely because it doesn't allow him to question it (calling it 'almost too good' below), so he questions it for that reason (!);

6) And finally, he finds two men [or they found him - Hank] 35 years AFTER THE FACT to state they REMEMBER something different (below). They have no documents, simply a 35-year old memory. He uses the memory to discard everything else that is documented.

Whoop. This is typical garden-variety Conspiracy Logic 101. And it is nonsense. Obviously.

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.
But you find it convincing. And think it should convince us.
Uh, no.

___________

* Roland Zavada is THE recognized industry expert (and Kodak's own internal expert) on 8mm film.
Here's a brief resume:
http://www.jfk-info.com/zavadabi.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

Or you choose to ignore it.

2. By finding the cop (Joe Murphy) who was at the scene and interviewing him and establishing the supposed gunman with the supposed 'gun case' was actually long gone by the time of the assassination. Murphy stated "...it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY."

That is hearsay speculation. How would he know?

 

[Southwind17]

I evaluate witnesses by their evidence. You, and other Lone Nutters would prefer to commit the fallacy of appealing to authority, while deflecting attention away from the evidence.

Nonsense. The varacity of the evidence stems directly from the credibility of the witness presenting it not the other way around. White proved himself incredible, literally!

While I do not dwell on whether White is an "expert" since that is a very ambiguous term ...

You sound just like White now not 'indulging' in photogrammetry. Like I wrote: birds of a feather!

... the HSCA did by calling him in as an "expert" witness.

Robert, you do realize that being called as an 'expert witness' does not necessarily deem that person an expert, don't you?!

Southwind wrote:
Robert - exactly how many of these people actually saw a shooter on the grassy knoll?
Answer:
The same number who actually saw a shooter in the TSBD.

So exactly none, then, is what you're admitting to. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Robert,canyoudealWithme?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's a religion, plain and simple. A cult of belief.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert. If you are here to convince us, why are you arguing what evidence should convince us, when we have told you what WILL convince us?

 

[JayUtah]

Baloney.

They warned me to expect such non-answers from you.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert. If you are here to convince us, why are you arguing what evidence should convince us, when we have told you what WILL convince us?

Impossible. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I'm not here to change opinions. Only to examine facts.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nonsense. The varacity of the evidence stems directly from the credibility of the witness presenting it not the other way around. White proved himself incredible, literally!

.

Perhaps you could offer up a definition of the word "expert"??? I sort of doubt it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Sorry, Robert, that's a big swing and a miss. What I did was go through Doug Horne's argument for alteration point by point and show how none of it applies.

Here it is again - you haven't come close to attempting to rebut any of these points so you just make some random non-sequitors like I am claiming witnesses are not evidence. Nope. That's not what I said. Here's what I actually said. Try to rebut my points, not stuff you make up:

Same question as posed to Southwind: You throw around the word "expert" as if it had some specific meaning. Kindly define it if you can.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:
3) He engages in circular reasoning; using the conclusion (the film was altered and the conspirators were really good at faking stuff!) to rule out the evidence it wasn't (for example, the film markings are consistent with authenticity);

Comment:
Oh, but that reasoning is perfectly valid. If the film can be shown without question to have been altered, then it is only logical to theorize as to how and when it could have been done. The film did not alter itself. Your problem is, you take a valid fact, and attempt to turn it into a non-fact by very fallaciously appealing to "Authority." Why don't you consider the evidence first. Or is that threatening to you???

 

[Robert Prey]

The FBI and the HSCA photographic panel examined first generation originals as well as the extant negatives. Did Thompson examine those materials? Or did he examine copies of copies ?

Was he asked about this? What did he say about first-generation vs copies?

He is a legitimate expert - so I know he knows. What I want to find out is if you will actually quote his opinion on THAT and whether you will give your own expert any credence - or whether you will want to yank him off the stand without cross-examination.

Hank

He didn't agree or disagree as to the conclusion, but only deferred to them as to the originals. Except for one very obvious anomaly -- the fact that the chin in the backyard photos is not Oswald's. It is a square chin. Oswald had a rounded chin. Doesn't take a degree in photogrammetry to see that. Thompson did not defer as to the chin issue.


Backyard photo with square chin.


Mugshot (rounded chin)

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, what has a potentially doctored photograph got to do with a shooter on the grassy knoll?

Dont bother answering I know its only a red herring so you can hide the fact you have nothing at all left in the locker.

It has to do with convicting one dead alleged "Lone Nut" in the court of public opinion so as to preclude any real investigation as to who really killed Kennedy and who were the actual authors of the conspiracy. Obviously.

"Memorandum for Mr. Moyers," Katzenbach lays out the need for a public statement on the assassination. Katzenbach states that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

 

[Southwind17]

Perhaps you could offer up a definition of the word "expert"??? I sort of doubt it.

No definition of the word 'expert' will alter what White's testimony reveals him to be, and by his own admission. Just a plain old Joe playing around with things he openly admits he isn't qualified to comment on.

He didn't agree or disagree as to the conclusion, but only deferred to them as to the originals. Except for one very obvious anomaly -- the fact that the chin in the backyard photos is not Oswald's. It is a square chin. Oswald had a rounded chin. Doesn't take a degree in photogrammetry to see that. Thompson did not defer as to the chin issue.

You're mistaken, Robert. There is nothing 'factual' about the chin in the said photo. It's simply an image generated by emulsion on a film reacting to photons colliding with it. You do realise that the interplay of light and shadows in both actuality and on photographic images can lead to visual illusions that portray apparent differences from reality, don't you?! Round chin/square chin - laughable, Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Impossible. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I'm not here to change opinions. Only to examine facts.

No you aren't. Facts are formed from objective reviews of material evidence.

What you are doing is repeating assertions with out supporting them with facts.

For example you are discussing your opinion of LHOs chin while avoiding providing a fact by showing where the photo in question has signs of composites and cuts, paint, double exposure, or any other artefact of tampering.

You discuss the opinions based on subjective memories of doctors with out studying the facts formed from the available evidence. You outright refuse to study the evidence, and dismiss any you disagree with.

 

[RoboTimbo]

He didn't agree or disagree as to the conclusion, but only deferred to them as to the originals. Except for one very obvious anomaly -- the fact that the chin in the backyard photos is not Oswald's. It is a square chin. Oswald had a rounded chin. Doesn't take a degree in photogrammetry to see that. Thompson did not defer as to the chin issue.


Backyard photo with square chin.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f65c3c48f5bc.jpg[/qimg]

Mugshot (rounded chin)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f65c4200bec0.jpg[/qimg]

Which one is Oswald and which one isn't?

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

And actually, this issue has been resolved since at least 1978, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic Review Panel reviewed the Oswald Backyard Photos for evidence of fakery and found none.

Comment:
The HSCA also reviewed the tape recordings of the shots and concluded there was more than one shooter and thus a conspiracy. If you are going to continue to play the game of Appealing to Authority, you will continue to condemn your own ridiculous, erroneous theories.

Robert plays dodge-ball with the evidence. He cannot rebut the HSCA's photographic panel's conclusions, so he now wants to change the subject!

The closest thing I could find that comes close to fitting this on the top twenty logical fallacies on this board, which can be found here:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

It's certainly a non-sequitor as we were discussing the validity of the backyard photos Robert himself brought up earlier and the photographic panel's expertise relative to Jack White's, and now he follows up a point on the validity of those photos by tossing in a conclusion by the HSCA about an audio tape (which was a conclusion by a different three-man outside consultant group; not a HSCA panel, and certainly not the HSCA's photographic panel).

Hey, Robert, let's discuss the photographic evidence you brought up. What's the evidence the chin is different than Oswald's in the backyard photos, other than you eyeballed it and didn't like the appearance?

Hank