JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Mudcat]

There was a rudimentary search on the afternoon of the 22nd, and then a follow-up, much more thorough search on the morning of the 23rd.

Hank

In other words a typical criminal investigation. Thanks for the confirmation and the further details.

 

[HSienzant]

One question at a time, please.

Hey Robert, these are simple questions you are dodging. I wonder why you feel the need.
Strike that, you dodge them because you know the answers don't support your argument, so rather than admit you don't have a valid argument, you retreat into playing dodgeball with the Kennedy assassination.. If you're truly looking to solve the case, you would not resort to this.

Once again I will point out in bold everything you avoided.

Hank wrote:

"When did those people (the Hesters) first come forward with the story you now tell of the photos? I believe it was more than a decade after the event. How reliable is memory and in the absence of evidence establishing their story,"

Comment: Evidence to establish their story???
Have you also forgotten about Oswald's Ghost

You have any evidence the Oswald Ghost transparency existed before 1980 or thereabouts? I'm unaware of any. You avoided answering my question entirely. When did this story first surface? How reliable is it? Why didn't they come forward when Oswald was alive and they could help establish he was being framed? Instead, they wait 20 years to tell their story? I'm not buying it.

You left out the rest of my points, Robert. Why is that? I put them back in and bold-faced everything you avoided.

The photos have been determined to be unaltered by legitimate experts who examined the first generation materials (not copies) and determined by a number of different means that no tampering of any sort was done on the extant photos and negative. It is more than the HSCA panel; as I noted previously, and you continue to ignore, the FBI did validate those first-gen photos and the extant negative back in 1964.

None of the experts you cite studied the extant first-generation material; they looked at copies of unknown generation (2nd, 3rd, 4th generation, who knows?). As far as I know, they did no studies on the materials either, just eyeballed them before reaching their conclusion. If you can cite some published material that any of the thre above provide on how they reached their conclusions, I'd love to read it and would greatly appreciate it. I've never seen any, and I believe Thompson (the one you quoted) said he just eyeballed it in a followup interview.

I raised the point about them not studying first-gen material before and you ignored it then. Ignore it again. It won't make it go away.

You quoted Malcolm Thompson before, but ran away from your own witness when I asked you what he said about studying first-gen materials, and why it was important (instead of quoting him; you told us what you thought. I asked you what he said, because he, not you, is the expert. You avoided responding on that point entirely).
When did those people (the Hesters) first come forward with the story you now tell of the photos? I believe it was more than a decade after the event. How reliable is memory and in the absence of evidence establishing their story, how much credibility can we put in their story? You don't know because you evinced no interest in reading the material I cited on memory previously.

How come all these people you cite have a differing recollection but no evidence? It's like alien abductees - they always come back without any proof. Me, I get abducted, I'm secreting something on my person so I can prove I was abducted. But none of the people with those claims ever bring anything back of alien origin. And none of the 'witnesses' you cite can ever prove a damn thing. None of them.

Why is that?

I also note you failed to respond on several other points. Why is that Robert? Here's the post again. I bold-faced everything you avoided responding to.

Good thing you put "science" in quotes above. Because it's not.

However, there are people with expertise in the relevant area of photo analysis, and they say the photo is unaltered. All you got is your impression of what the photo should show, and the opinion of an man with no expertise in photographic analysis, rather than anything of substance. And your impression, as has been pointed out to you, doesn't take into account the different lighting in the two photos, nor does it take into account one is a sharp focus head shot, and the other is a blurred blowup from a much smaller picture. The negative of the photo in question has been studied and it turns out there is no change in the silver grain pattern even under high magnification, revealing the photo hasn't been tampered with. Both the FBI (in 1964) and the HSCA Photographic panel (in 1978) made that determination, independent of each other.

On the other hand, what do you got?

"It looks wrong to me."

Sorry, that's just another in a long line of logical fallacies by you:

Argument from Personal Incredulity - I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

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

And this despite the fact it has been explained to you. Repeatedly.

 

[Garrison]

There was a rudimentary search on the afternoon of the 22nd, and then a follow-up, much more thorough search on the morning of the 23rd. The photographs were discovered on the morning of the 23rd, and Oswald was confronted with them (after telling officers during his interrogation he never owned a rifle) later that day.

What could Oswald say? His wife had led them to his rifle in the garage on the afternoon of the assassination (where it had typically been wrapped in a blanket for storage). Only the blanket was empty, and the rifle was found at the Depository.

And now they had photos of Oswald WITH THAT RIFLE. What could he say?
1. Yeah, it's my rifle. I lied before.
2. The photos you have are forgeries. That's my head; but somebody put it on the body.

He chose option 2. And critics have been trying to prove him right ever since. It's a key litmus test of the assassination.

Until one can admit Oswald lied in custory about numerous things (like having a large sack on the morning of the assassination, about having told Wesley Frazier the sack contained curtain rods, about not owning a rifle; etc. etc.) CTs are stuck trying to prove that Oswald told the truth in custody - so they inherited this problem and can't get away from it.

To admit Oswald lied in custody is to admit he shot the President.

Hank

There's also the small point that if there were some vast conspiracy which had no intention of letting Oswald come to trial why release any of the above? Why not claim that he took responsibility, that he was proud of what he had done? After all if he's never going to get the chance to refute it in court why not not just make up whatever they want as an interview transcript?

 

[HSienzant]

There's also the small point that if there were some vast conspiracy which had no intention of letting Oswald come to trial why release any of the above? Why not claim that he took responsibility, that he was proud of what he had done? After all if he's never going to get the chance to refute it in court why not not just make up whatever they want as an interview transcript?

Good points. I am fond of pointing out to the CTs who argue that "We don't have a transcript or a recording of Oswald's interrogations, so how do we know what he said?" that if the cops were going to make stuff up, why didn't they make up an admission that he owned the rifle and brought it to the Depository instead of a denial and other obvious lies like Wesley Frazier was mistaken about any curtain rod story?

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It means that in the view of a self-appointed "expert," the same principles of evidence he applies to others, do not apply to him.

Clyde, you're making the claim that the photos are fake. That means you have to prove it.

Is this too technical a point for you to understand?

 

[HSienzant]

The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd. The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6b6233d267d.jpg[/qimg]

Ok, Robert, that image appears to have nothing to do with the assassination, nor with a frame up of Oswald. It was taken at a different time of the year, under different lighting conditions as the extant three Oswald backyard photos. That means it wasn't used in any fashion to create any of the three Oswald Backyard photos.

Here they are. Your ghost image is above.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...trT_yGF-bi0QHK4aD5Bg&ved=0CD4Q9QEwBA&dur=6973

You will note that the legit Oswald images are in bright sunlight with the sun behind the camera; your image has the sun to the right of, and to the front of the camera (note the shadows on the stairwell support beam). You will note there is no bush or branches obscuring the stairway support in the legit Oswald backyard photos; your image has a small bush and several branches obscuring that stairwell support. The bush in the background is fuller and larger in your image; establishing it was taken sometime after the photos in the legit photos. Since the bush is good foot-and-a-half taller in your photo, I would suggest it was taken SEVERAL YEARS after the assassination.

If you have information about when this photo was taken, present it now. Otherwise, I think it's clear that photo didn't surface at the time of the assassination for a very good reason - it wasn't taken until years later.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Ok, Robert, that image appears to have nothing to do with the assassination, nor with a frame up of Oswald. It was taken at a different time of the year, under different lighting conditions as the extant three Oswald backyard photos. That means it wasn't used in any fashion to create any of the three Oswald Backyard photos.

Here they are. Your ghost image is above.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...trT_yGF-bi0QHK4aD5Bg&ved=0CD4Q9QEwBA&dur=6973

You will note that the legit Oswald images are in bright sunlight with the sun behind the camera; your image has the sun to the right of, and to the front of the camera (note the shadows on the stairwell support beam). You will note there is no bush or branches obscuring the stairway support in the legit Oswald backyard photos; your image has a small bush and several branches obscuring that stairwell support. The bush in the background is fuller and larger in your image; establishing it was taken sometime after the photos in the legit photos. Since the bush is good foot-and-a-half taller in your photo, I would suggest it was taken SEVERAL YEARS after the assassination.

If you have information about when this photo was taken, present it now. Otherwise, I think it's clear that photo didn't surface at the time of the assassination for a very good reason - it wasn't taken until years later.

Hank

Well,that's a crock. Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, no representation was made by me that it was the same as the other photos, but consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning and using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other,springtime background which the FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hey Robert, these are simple questions you are dodging. I wonder why you feel the need.
Strike that, you dodge them because you know the answers don't support your argument, so rather than admit you don't have a valid argument, you retreat into playing dodgeball with the Kennedy assassination.. If you're truly looking to solve the case, you would not resort to this.

Once again I will point out in bold everything you avoided.







You left out the rest of my points, Robert. Why is that? I put them back in and bold-faced everything you avoided.

One question at a time, please.

 

[JayUtah]

The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery...

Strangely enough this is what all the conspiracy theorists speculate, despite the fact that such a composite would leave obvious signs which were found to be completely absent from the backyard photo by teams of real experts. Please just admit that all you have is idle speculation that has been directly refuted.

 

[Robert Prey]

There was a rudimentary search on the afternoon of the 22nd, and then a follow-up, much more thorough search on the morning of the 23rd. The photographs were discovered on the morning of the 23rd, and Oswald was confronted with them (after telling officers during his interrogation he never owned a rifle) later that day.

What could Oswald say? His wife had led them to his rifle in the garage on the afternoon of the assassination (where it had typically been wrapped in a blanket for storage). Only the blanket was empty, and the rifle was found at the Depository.

And now they had photos of Oswald WITH THAT RIFLE. What could he say?
1. Yeah, it's my rifle. I lied before.
2. The photos you have are forgeries. That's my head; but somebody put it on the body.

He chose option 2. And critics have been trying to prove him right ever since. It's a key litmus test of the assassination.

Until one can admit Oswald lied in custory about numerous things (like having a large sack on the morning of the assassination, about having told Wesley Frazier the sack contained curtain rods, about not owning a rifle; etc. etc.) CTs are stuck trying to prove that Oswald told the truth in custody - so they inherited this problem and can't get away from it.

To admit Oswald lied in custody is to admit he shot the President.

Hank

Baloney. And according to the PSE lie machine, he was telling the truth.

 

[RoboTimbo]

One question at a time, please.

Why are you scurrying away from the questions, Robert?

 

[Robert Prey]

Nope, he's not seen the originals, so he's declined to state his view, as I read it.
You want him to render a view, when he's asking you to state what evidence you have for your view.

We all know the correct response by you is simply, "I have no evidence, it's my opinion only." We also know why you are reticient to admit to that, which is why you are attempting to turn it around and ask for his view.

But you are the only one here stressing the importance of the backyard photos. You are the only one here claiming they are forgeries. You are the only one here claiming they are *obvious* forgeries. Yet you avoid entirely telling us what evidence you have that your claims are true.

What is that? I think the answer is obvious - you have no evidence; just your opinion.

Hank

Baloney. Open your eyes.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Hesters *assert* the transparency existed on 11/22/63?

That's it? That's what I thought. There's no evidence for the claim, other than somebody's story - as you so aptly put it, just an assertion by the Hesters. Wow.

[sarcasm mode]I am truly surprised you have no evidence.[/sarcasm mode]

Put it with the Ed Hoffman story. Call me when you get some evidence for either story.

The story becomes increasingly credible when you add up the fact that the B/Y photos are proven forgeries, and the fact that in addition to Hester's claim of a backyard transparency in the possession of the FBI at National Photo on Nov.22nd, we also have the Ghosted Image of Oswald itself. Logic 101 says a composite forgery was made on the night of Nov. 22nd and planted in the Paine Garage to be "discovered" on Nov.23rd. As for the "rudimentary" search of the Paine garage on Nov.22nd, what police department makes "rudimentary" searches in a garage where the alleged weapon was supposedly stored--the weapon allegedly used to commit the Crime of the Century????

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, you still haven't pointed out any artefact of tampering in the image. No evidence of cutting or painting the negatives or developed image.

Have you forgotten about Oswald's Ghost???

And as far as the background, no representation was made by me that it was the same as the other photos, but consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning and using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other,springtime background which the FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

So to answer my original question, no you don't have any evidence of photo tampering, just a photograph the purpose of which you don't know.

If you were NOT representing it as the same background, then on what grounds do you offer for it being evidence the back yard photo was faked?

So you don't have any ACTUAL evidence of the backyard phot haveing been cut, composited, or edited? At all? Just speculation?

You know what Robert, to save your dignity forget you gave that answer, try answering the point anew, with an actual sensible answer this time, that relates to the picture you assert to be faked, and not a whole different background you WEREN'T discussing....

Robert, you still haven't pointed out any artefact of tampering in the image. No evidence of cutting or painting the negatives or developed image.

Are you able to point to a single artefact in the backyard photo that shows the negative was altered, or the image composited comrpomising the emulsion? Mismatched grains? Anything?



And why we are at it. If you WEREN'T suggesting the "ghost" was part of the forged image, in what way did you concieve it was relevant as evidence? What did you think it proved?

 

[JayUtah]

The story becomes increasingly credible when you add up the fact that the B/Y photos are proven forgeries...

Not a fact. They are simply believed to be forgeries by certain people who, when questioned, can provide no rational basis for their belief.

 

[Robert Prey]

Clyde, you're making the claim that the photos are fake. That means you have to prove it.

Is this too technical a point for you to understand?

Before anyone can logically allege that there is no photo fakery, it must first be established that the one making the allegation presumes the photo is genuine, something our "expert" friend refuses to do.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The story becomes increasingly credible when you add up the fact that the B/Y photos are proven forgeries, and the fact that in addition to Hester's claim of a backyard transparency in the possession of the FBI at National Photo on Nov.22nd, we also have the Ghosted Image of Oswald itself. Logic 101 says...

You seem to use the word "fact" and "proven" when you mean "claim" and "asserted to be". Which invalidates the rest of your guff.

Please show me where in the backyard image you have an artefact that proves it is a composite image. Nothing you have provided so far qualifies.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Before anyone can logically allege that there is no photo fakery<snip>.

Robert. No one is making the allegation there is no fakery.

You are making the allegation there IS.

Can you tell the difference between those two statements?

Do you understand what a burden of proof is?

Feel free to answer "No" to either of those questions. If on the other hand you do understand the burden of proof, and you DO recognise you are the one making a statement that has to be validated against a null, why did you make this post?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Before anyone can logically allege that there is no photo fakery, it must first be established that the one making the allegation presumes the photo is genuine, something our "expert" friend refuses to do.

Very clumsy attempt at shifting the burden of proof. Would you like to try again and see if you can do it any better?

 

[Robert Prey]

Nope, he's not seen the originals, so he's declined to state his view, as I read it.
You want him to render a view, when he's asking you to state what evidence you have for your view.

We all know the correct response by you is simply, "I have no evidence, it's my opinion only." We also know why you are reticient to admit to that, which is why you are attempting to turn it around and ask for his view.
But you are the only one here stressing the importance of the backyard photos.
Hank

Oh,no. Not in terms of assassination conspiracy. It only serves to prove the other conspiracy -- the conspiracy to cover up the truth, by convicting the dead Patsy in the Court of Public opinion by a highly prejudicial photo.