JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

This is a discussion of Oswald Backyard Photos. Not the Apollo nor 9/11.

This is a discussion of Jack White's alleged expertise in photographic interpretation. You claim he is one. I've given you reasons not to believe that. You haven't addressed any of them. You're just calling me names.

 

[Garrison]

This is a discussion of Oswald Backyard Photos. Not the Apollo nor 9/11.

It's a discussion of Jack White's capabilities as a photoanalyst, the reasonable conclusion based on his body of work is he doesn't have any.

 

[jargon buster]

1. Do you think the backyard photographs were made to link Oswald to the rifle or to hide the fact of the second shooter?
   
2. Robert, if you had 40 witnesses that said I had held up a liquor store and during the trial CCTV footage of someone else holding up the store on the day and time in question was presented by my defence, what do you think would happen?
   
3. Again 40 witness statements as opposed to photographic evidence, which is the strongest?

 

[JohnG]

Sherlocke Holmes, Columbo, Sam Spade, Moses, Jesus Christ and army of Angels could come down from heaven and explain it all for you in living color and you and your Amen Chorus of Lone Nutters would still keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.

If I am ever visited by Sherlocke [sic] Holmes and a bunch of other fictional characters from heaven, I hope I'll have the presence of mind to first consult a Doctor before I consider rethinking my views on the Kennedy assassination. I guess we all have different priorities, though.

 

[Robert Prey]

Someone possessed of a high level of theoretical and practical experience on a subject. Someone who has the skills to evaluate a particular set of evidence and draw a reasoned conclusion; in short the precise opposite of Jack White. And frankly based on the content of your posts you yourself do not as such an expert however long you may have studied the Kennedy assassination, simply reading a lot of books on the topic is of no value if they aren't coupled to an ability to evaluate the material logically and sceptically.

And NOT reading a whole lot of books on the topic makes you and your fellow Lone Nutters, what?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is a discussion of Oswald Backyard Photos. Not the Apollo nor 9/11.

Actually, it's the total humiliation of a CT Loon, who is getting the spanking of his life. How long do you think we can string him along, mocking him?

 

[Robert Prey]

Someone possessed of a high level of theoretical and practical experience on a subject.

Just like Jack White.

 

[JayUtah]

Just like Jack White.

No, he does not understand the theory, and he makes many practical mistakes. Why have you failed to address his errors?

 

[JayUtah]

And NOT reading a whole lot of books on the topic makes you and your fellow Lone Nutters, what?

Name three books you've read on photogrammetry and photographic interpretation, not associated with any particular theory or question.

 

[Garrison]

And NOT reading a whole lot of books on the topic makes you and your fellow Lone Nutters, what?

And who says I haven't Robert? Even if I haven't I don't need to do so to see that your claim about the 'different shape' of Oswald's face in different photographs proving tampering is nonsense. It proves they were taken under different lighting conditions and nothing else.

I for one an not saying a conspiracy is impossible, I am saying that you have not only failed to prove such a conspiracy exists but your ignorance on some very basic topics makes you an actual impediment to proving such a conspiracy might have existed.

 

[Garrison]

Just like Jack White.

And cherry picking quotes isn't making you any less of a dead weight to advancing the conspiracy idea either.

 

[bynmdsue]

Okay okay Jack White's wrong about the moon photos, BUT HE'S TOTALLY RIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO NEELY ST.!!1!

After reading those clavius pages I have to wonder if Jack White's ever used a camera.

Or... he knows he's wrong and he's in it for the money.

Lawd, I hope it's the money.

 

[EventHorizon]

Okay okay Jack White's wrong about the moon photos, BUT HE'S TOTALLY RIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO NEELY ST.!!1!

After reading those clavius pages I have to wonder if Jack White's ever used a camera.

Or... he knows he's wrong and he's in it for the money.

Lawd, I hope it's the money.

And when you have countless suckers customers like Robert Prey clamoring for anything that helps them cling to a prejudice that they have... well I know which way I'm betting as far as Jack White's motives go.

 

[HSienzant]

And who says I haven't Robert? Even if I haven't I don't need to do so to see that your claim about the 'different shape' of Oswald's face in different photographs proving tampering is nonsense. It proves they were taken under different lighting conditions and nothing else.

I for one an not saying a conspiracy is impossible, I am saying that you have not only failed to prove such a conspiracy exists but your ignorance on some very basic topics makes you an actual impediment to proving such a conspiracy might have existed.

Good point. If the conspirators had framed Oswald by using his weapon from the Depository while keeping him busy on the second floor, almost all the evidence would still be as it is today, none of it would have to be faked, and conspiracy theorists today would still be alleging the backyard photo and the Zapruder film were altered, the rifle was planted, and the conspiracy involved body alteration -- none of which are necessary in a parsimonious conspiracy plan.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And NOT reading a whole lot of books on the topic makes you and your fellow Lone Nutters, what?

Robert, when we discuss anything on the assassination, do I strike you as an unknowledgeable sort who is just spouting something I've read someplace, or do seem relatively knowledgable about the assassination?

PS: I've read over 500 books on the subject, most of which are conspiracy books. But I actually researched the claims therein. That's where you and I differ. You read, for the most part, the same conspiracy books I do. But you accept the claims, I research them and make up my own mind based on the facts.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So your definition of the word "expert" is what???

lol. Robert, you asked what were the qualifications of the HSCA photo panel. I gave you the qualifications of one member. I asked you if he seems qualified to be on the panel. You have failed to answer that simple question. You raised a bogus point about the panel members having no qualifications except being members of the intelligence community.

What "expert" qualifications do your house panel members have other than having worked for the very Am. govt. intelligence organizations that are prime suspects in the crime and the cover-up????

That sir, has been exposed as another falsehood by you (not your fault, you get it straight from those conspiracy books you frequent).

What's your point? That McCamy is not an photographic expert? That's nonsense. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of an expert:

Expert - "having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience."

Why don't you take up my challenge and name one person who was better qualified in 1978 to replace a member of the HSCA photographic panel who was left off the panel? Why don't you name one person who didn't have any association with, or ever perform any work for, the U.S. Intelligence community who was at least as qualified as the members who were on the panel?

If you cannot do either, your complaints about are exposed as mere blather.

Blather - to talk foolishly at length.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This is a discussion of Oswald Backyard Photos. Not the Apollo nor 9/11.

No, Robert. This became a discussion of White's qualifications when you alleged he was an photographic expert. Don't you remember posting this? It was less than a week ago:

Oh, we could trade "experts". I could cite Mantik, Lifton, Whte, Costella, et al. But I believe it to be far more productive to simply use common sense and our own powers of observation. I gave you one of many examples of an anomaly in the film. You choose to ignore it.

You wanted to push phony experts on us. As I pointed out previously, none of the men you named (and you later added Doug Horne as an expert by quoting his opinion on the Zapruder film as well; Horne has a degree in history) have any training in photographic analysis:

None of the above are 8mm film or camera experts.

Mantik is a x-ray technician. He has no training in photography or film (other than x-ray film).

Lifton was trained in physics. He has no training in photography or film.

White is just a regular guy who spends his time looking at photos and imagines all sorts of things therein. He has no training in photography or film. He has a history of misinterpreting photos. I couldn't think of a worse guy to cite as an photographic expert, unless it was Robert Groden. Lately Jack White was been finding fault with the moon landing photos of 1969.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#JWHITE
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm

Costella has a degree in physics. He has no training in photography or film.
Here's someone (Craig Lamson) who disagrees with Costella, and has training in photography:
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

That's why you'd prefer not to trade expert opinions. Because you don't have one legitimate film expert who studied the Zapruder film who declared it a forgery.

You gave me many examples of what your opinion was, none of them are proven to be anything anomalous.

You seem to be under the impression that if you declare something an anomaly with no evidence other than your opinion, we have to rebut that.

No, you need to prove it is an anomaly. Your opinion is not proof.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Okay okay Jack White's wrong about the moon photos, BUT HE'S TOTALLY RIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO NEELY ST.!!1!

After reading those clavius pages I have to wonder if Jack White's ever used a camera.

Or... he knows he's wrong and he's in it for the money.

Lawd, I hope it's the money.

Those options are not mutually exclusive.

 

[HSienzant]

This is a discussion of Oswald Backyard Photos. Not the Apollo nor 9/11.

Robert, here is a critique of Jack White's "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" video by long-time JFK researcher, and noted conspiracy theorist Martin Shackleford.

Let me know what parts you disagree with, and why:

http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack2.htm

Shackleford is not a newcomer to the JFK assassination community. I first met him in Dallas in 1992, but had corresponded with him (and debated the issues with him on several different forums) for several years prior to that.

Let me know where you think Martin's logic went off the tracks here.

Thanks!

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, here is a critique of Jack White's "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" video by long-time JFK researcher, and noted conspiracy theorist Martin Shackleford.

Let me know what parts you disagree with, and why:

http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack2.htm

Shackleford is not a newcomer to the JFK assassination community. I first met him in Dallas in 1992, but had corresponded with him (and debated the issues with him on several different forums) for several years prior to that.

Let me know where you think Martin's logic went off the tracks here.

Thanks!

Hank

No. I don't go running off to read stuff without a point being raised. If you have a point regarding one of White's anomaly theories, state it. What is your point?