JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Garrison]

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)

So you really have no comprehension how light and shadow can affect the appearance of a face.

Here's quick test that replicates the effect in the photos:

The only difference in the two is that on the right the lighting is aimed straight at the face, as with a flash or studio light, and on the left it's angled down like sunlight. See Robert, no fakery or editing required, just some basic physics.

 

[HSienzant]

Southwind wrote:

The 'evidence', in this case, Robert, is essentially the interpretation of the photo, hence the credibility of the interpretor is paramount, by which I mean his expertise. How would you describe and validate Jack White's 'expertise'?

Comment:
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. While I do not dwell on whether White is an "expert" since that is a very ambiguous term, the HSCA did by calling him in as an "expert" witness.

No, they didn't call him in as an expert photographic witness.

Please cite your PRIMARY (not secondary) source of this.

They called him because he had been a leading critic of the backyard photographs for ten years and they wanted to find out what he claimed to have discovered that led him to conclude the backyard photos were fakes.

Robert Blakey gave a lead-in to Jack White's testimony that starts here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0162a.htm

It concerns the known history of the backyard photos, and a brief history of the criticism of the backyard photos. Among others, he mentions the criticism of Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher in that introduction. White wasn't called as an expert photographic witness, but as one of the leading critics of the backyard photos.

Blakey concludes with this, before the House Committee heard White's testimony:

The 1978 BBC television documentary entitled "The Assassination of President Kennedy " ' ` What Do We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then" includes an interview with British forensic photography expert, Malcolm Thomson. At the request of the British Broadcasting Corp., Mr. Thomson examined copies of two of the backyard photographs . He found that they were fakes.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to show the BBC interview to illustrate how concern over the photographs has drawn public attention.
Chairman STOKES. You may proceed.
Mr. BLAKEY. Could the lights be turned down please?
[The documentary was shown.]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years.
Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction,
including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts.
Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs .
Mr. Chairman, I would note that Mr. White's testimony today will be split into two parts: The first dealing with the photographs, and the second in relation to the rifle. But it would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. White to testify on the backyard photographs.
Chairman Stokes. The Committee calls Mr. White.

Here's White's testimony (previously cited).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0163b.htm

But at no time is Jack White referred to as an expert photographic witness. He was called as a leading critic of the backyard photos, and the two are NOT synonymous.

Jack White being a critic doesn't give him expertise, Robert.

We see that every day with your posts, as well.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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?

Bizarre. He was there, it's not hearsay. It's not speculation. And it's not hearsay speculation either. He's testifying to what he saw. He saw them drive off before the assassination. He noted they were long gone before the assassination and weren't in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

Here's a fuller version of his statement, which I posted earlier. Also as I pointed out earlier, Mark Lane, the source you cited for Mercer's story, didn't mention any of this in his aptly-entitled book that describes his decision-making process, RUSH TO JUDGMENT:

The following investigation was conducted by SA's HENRY J. OLIVER and LOUIS M. KELLEY on December 9, 1963:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade, the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck, and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He stated these persons were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.

Please present some evidence they were involved. Otherwise you got a stalled truck that was gone before the assassination, and a big heap of speculation that this is somehow connected to the assassination of the President.

It's not.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

According to the ARRB's Doug Horne, Stringer disowned the brain photgraphs in the archives for several reasons. Deal with it.

On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, by Dick Russell p. 290

Robert, I already dealt with it. I pointed out that Stringer's testimony conflicted with an earlier version, and his recollection was all over the map.

I pointed out you couldn't just pick and choose the good parts you liked and ignore the rest. But that's exactly what you're doing - AGAIN! - above.

Here is my points again. Ignore them some more and post the excerpt from Stringer's testimony (as filtered through Doug Horne as filtered through Dick Russell)* again.
Yeah, we'll find that real convincing.

According to his AARB testimony, which you cited earlier, Stringer said they did view the photos at the archives (it makes no sense that he went there, saw no photos, then signed a document saying he did).

Q: Did you ever speak to Mr. Riebe about the apparent discrepancy in the number of films that had been exposed on the night of the autopsy?
A: I don't know whether I did or not.
Q: After the conversation with Captain Stover that you discussed earlier, did you ever raise the issue with him again?
A: I don't know, but we raised the issue when we saw the photographs in `66.

So you need to do something besides pick and choose only the parts you like. You can say Stringer's memory was fine, in which case his testimony above takes precedence; or you can say Stringer's memory deteriorated over the years (as is known to happen) and his best recollection would be his earliest statement on the record (in which case the 1966 signed statement would be the one that takes precedence.

Let me know where you come down on this issue.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
(bottom of page 143-top of 144 for the quote above).

_____________

* How come you admonish me to site primary sources but then cite a source like 'What Doug Horne told Dick Russell about John Stringer's testimony' ?!!?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Yep, you're doing here precisely what I thought you'd do. Running away from your own expert witnesses' testimony, and instead giving us YOUR TAKE on his testimony.

Sorry, that's not acceptable, Robert. You're not the expert, he is. So quote HIM.

Do you not have the precise full quote from Thompson? It appears you do, and it appears you don't want to quote your own expert's opinion!

Why is that, Robert?

I didn't ask for your take on his testimony. I asked what he said, and whether you would quote it. It's clear you won't, will you?

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

What did Thompson say about drawing conclusions from multi-generational copies versus first-generation originals? What did HE examine?

Will you quote YOUR OWN EXPERT on this?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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???

How do I nominate this for a Stundie?

Here's the logic Robert is arguing is perfectly valid:

...All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas. Well, of course they are. Any conspirator who's going to change a movie and screw up that kind of stuff isn't worth two cents. "

-- Doug Horne

Aside to Robert: There's a very big IF in your argument you appear to be ignoring:

...If the film can be shown without question to have been altered...

You see, the film must be shown to be altered first as you yourself admit.

And Zavada's study does an excellent job of eliminating that possibility as Horne above admits ("All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas...").

Horne ignores all that, and so do you, simply because you both want the Z-film to be altered, because otherwise it pretty effectively destroys your arguments for conspiracy. So Horne argues none of that matters, because we know the film is altered, so of course all that shows is the conspirators were really good at altering stuff.

That sir, is pretty classic circular reasoning.

If none of that matters, why did the AARB commission the study?

Why did they hire the best 8mm expert they could find on this planet to do the study?

Or is that too many questions for you to answer?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not here to change opinions. Only to examine facts.

I find myself having to thank you, Robert. Your complete destruction and utter humiliation

has enabled Hank to teach all of us a lot more about Oswald's assassination of JFK. Well done! Thanks for unknowingly volunteering to be the unwitting pawn and cat toy. Remember we all questioned the wisdom of shooting yourself so often in the foot so early in the thread.

 

[HSienzant]

So you really have no comprehension how light and shadow can affect the appearance of a face.

Here's quick test that replicates the effect in the photos:

[qimg]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3275/shadow2j.png[/qimg] : [qimg]http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3751/shadow1h.png[/qimg]

The only difference in the two is that on the right the lighting is aimed straight at the face, as with a flash or studio light, and on the left it's angled down like sunlight. See Robert, no fakery or editing required, just some basic physics.

Apropos of the image on the left, one conspiracy theorist (Ralph Cinque) is arguing the photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway because Oswald wore a V-neck t-shirt, whereas Billy Lovelady wore a round-neck T-shirt. It has been pointed out to him that what he's seeing is the shadow of the head on the T-shirt, making it appear to be V-necked, but of course that hasn't dissuaded him any.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dc...ic&forum=3&topic_id=93960&mesg_id=93960&page=

Here's the full Altgens photograph.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg

The question of who is in the doorway was raised within the first month of the assassination.
In blowups of the image, it looks like Oswald.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/index.html

The Warren Commission established it was Billy Lovelady.
The HSCA re-examined the evidence in 1978 and concluded it was Billy Lovelady.
Billy Lovelady said it was Billy Lovelady.
Even Oswald admitted it wasn't him in the photo.*

Even that doesn't close the case for some conspiracy theorists like Ralph Cinque above.

Robert, just curious: Do you think it is Oswald in the doorway, and do you think Oswald was lying about his whereabouts at the time of the assassination?

____________

* Oswald's admission is part of the famous "I'm just a patsy" exchange with reporters, but is seldom quoted by conspiracy theorists.

ANNOUNCER: Dallas Police headquarters, November 22nd, 1963.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I don't know what this is all about.
1st REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No, sir, I didn't. People keep-- [crosstalk] Sir?

1st REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I work in that building.
1st REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

2nd REPORTER: Back up, man!
3rd REPORTER: Come on, man!
4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

 

[Garrison]

Apropos of the image on the left, one conspiracy theorist (Ralph Cinque) is arguing the photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway because Oswald wore a V-neck t-shirt, whereas Billy Lovelady wore a round-neck T-shirt. It has been pointed out to him that what he's seeing is the shadow of the head on the T-shirt, making it appear to be V-necked, but of course that hasn't dissuaded him any.

Very interesting. The 'v-neck' was a purely unintentional effect of angling the light to shade the face, sort of an unexpected prediction of the experiment. I realize CT's tend to have a loose understanding of 'evidence' but it wasn't exactly back breaking labour to show how different lighting changes the apparent shape of the face, is it so much to expect them to check their outlandish ideas makes sense once in a while?

 

[JohnG]

I've always found the Oswald's Chin argument very amusing. Why oh why did these idiot forgers splice the photo across the chin? Did they not have a full face photo of Oswald?

What about it, Robert? I've done my share of airbrushing, damage repair and manipulations to photos. Everything from simple redeye and blemish removal to head swaps and airbrushing out objects obscuring faces in the photo. That large dark shadow under the face of the figure in the backyard could quite nicely hide any number of manipulations and is like a gift from heaven if the aim is to swap the head in the photo with another head. Yet your supposed genius conspirators make a mistake even a rookie would roll his eyes at and splice in the Oswald face starting at mid-chin (were all their real Oswald photos from mid-chin up?), totally giving the game away to armchair investigators who've never retouched a photo in their life* but somehow managing to fool professional photographers and artists who retouch photos for a living**.

Either those are some crazy like a fox conspirators or you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I wonder what William of Ockham would have to say about it? Now there's a man who knew where to cut.








* "Guy Fawkes in a leather jacket and khakis" being the honorable exception, of course.

** You know, those experts you hold in such contempt.

 

[HSienzant]

...Yet your supposed genius conspirators make a mistake even a rookie would roll his eyes at and splice in the Oswald face starting at mid-chin (were all their real Oswald photos from mid-chin up?), totally giving the game away to armchair investigators who've never retouched a photo in their life* but somehow managing to fool professional photographers and artists who retouch photos for a living...

And that's just a still photo. The easiest to alter. Yet on a 8mm motion picture film, they are damn near so perfect that only circular reasoning can uncover their dastardly plot:

All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas. Well, of course they are. Any conspirator who's going to change a movie and screw up that kind of stuff isn't worth two cents. -- Doug Horne

So I guess Robert's conclusion is that there were two groups of photo alterationists involved. One who altered the motion pictures like the Zapruder film and were damn good; and the other guys, who were more or less just dragged in off the street and had no clue what they were doing; making it real easy to spot the misplaced shadows, the splice in the chin, the missing fingernails, the wrong size rifle, etc. Conspiracy theorists have pored over the backyard photos for nearly five decades and still haven't come up with any arguments that will withstand scrutiny.

But they keep at it still.

One would ask "Why?", but the answer is simple: Oswald was confronted with these photos in custody after saying he didn't own a rfile, and Oswald declared them fakes. If they are indeed fakes, then Oswald was telling the truth and Oswald was being framed by some massive conspiracy. But if Oswald was lying and the photos are legitimate, then... then... [shudder] that outcome is too horrible for conspiracy theorists like Robert to even contemplate.

Hank.

 

[HSienzant]

Very interesting. The 'v-neck' was a purely unintentional effect of angling the light to shade the face, sort of an unexpected prediction of the experiment. I realize CT's tend to have a loose understanding of 'evidence' but it wasn't exactly back breaking labour to show how different lighting changes the apparent shape of the face, is it so much to expect them to check their outlandish ideas makes sense once in a while?

Yes it is.

At least, in my nearly 49 years following this case, I've never known them to perform any experiments to prove their assertions. Neither have they ever put their own scenario on the table. They are satisfied to just criticize.

Robert, can you cite any experiments by critics to prove the correctness of their assertions?

Hank

 

[beachnut]

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.
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f65c3c48f5bc.jpg[/URL]

Mugshot (rounded chin)

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

? lol, they are the same person, different days, different light source. If this is the best you got, you might want to find another crazy nut case CT fantasy. Holocaust denial, 911, or Bigfoot.

This is a joke right? If you think you are right, you can team up with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer. Famous time! Go for it.

 

[Garrison]

? lol, they are the same person, different days, different light source. If this is the best you got, you might want to find another crazy nut case CT fantasy. Holocaust denial, 911, or Bigfoot.

This is a joke right? If you think you are right, you can team up with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer. Famous time! Go for it.

It is a joke but I don't think Robert Prey got the punchline.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes it is.

At least, in my nearly 49 years following this case, I've never known them to perform any experiments to prove their assertions. Neither have they ever put their own scenario on the table. They are satisfied to just criticize.

Robert, can you cite any experiments by critics to prove the correctness of their assertions?

Hank

[CT-LOGIC] Yeah, but a a highly trained double agent spy, who went on secret missions for the CIA and FBI and the KGB wouldn't know how to lie convincingly. Spies are always honest! Except when they are covering up murders by kill teams. But not when talking about if they killed somebody themselves, then they have to use their super-duper honesty code![/CT-LOGIC]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

And...he has a black neck, no eyes, and kind of a Hitler mustache!

My god, it's all so clear to me now!!!

 

[Southwind17]

And...he has a black neck, no eyes, and kind of a Hitler mustache!

My god, it's all so clear to me now!!!

I interpreted the 'Hitler' moustache as a gaping hole in his upper lip. Is it not? Are you sure that's not an exit wound created by a heart-shaped magic bullet?!

 

[matt.tansy]

He doesn't have thumbs either! Are we supposed to believe a man without thumbs can hold up a newspaper and a rifle?

 

[Southwind17]

He doesn't have thumbs either! Are we supposed to believe a man without thumbs can hold up a newspaper and a rifle?

Not only that, did you notice that complete slice missing from his right ring finger? We know it's a missing slice because we can see the white newspaper behind! He really should have tried wearing a ring to bridge the gap, thereby ensuring he didn't lose the loose end of that finger, just like he lost his thumbs!

 

[jargon buster]

Its about time Roberts posts were treated with levity, at least now he may ease up on his ridiculous crusade.