JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

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

Straw man. The question is whether your specific claims of fakery hold water. I am not commenting about any other claims of fakery, except as you have deferred to Jack White. I have covered White's claims separately.

...it must first be established that the one making the allegation presumes the photo is genuine

The allegation that I am making is that your claims of fakery are not supported by the data and relevant sciences. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever claims I may or may not make about the photograph. We are discussing your claims already made. Kindly do not attempt to deflect that scrutiny by demanding that others propose and defend a claim instead of you.

something our "expert" friend refuses to do.

I refuse to be baited by a clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made allegations of forgery. You have presented reasons why you think forgery occurred. I have examined those reasons from a position of expertise and find them unconvincing, for reasons I have laid out in depth. Are you wiling to defend them further? Clearly not. But you dishonestly decline to concede.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Then you're admitting that you have no evidence and it is only your non-expert opinion. See? That wasn't so difficult to put on your big boy pants and admit, was it? Oops! Two questions! LOL.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Or it proves somebody, for plenty of motives that can be speculated, created some "evidence" then pretended it was around thirty years earlier...

As there are more than one inerpretation it doesn't "prove" either.

It may suggest it, but it is not proof. It "proves" nothing about any conspiracy.


You would appear to have a very low standard of evidence, all of which you seem to think is "proof".

 

[Robert Prey]

Citation needed. For the entire claim. When did Hester 'assert' this? How do you know the house was searched twice and in what way is that suspicious (Pro-tip: It's not, that's fairly typical of any criminal investigation)?


What makes you think that the 'ghosted pic' of Oswald existed prior to the nineties? What makes you think that it was used to frame Oswald? Do you have a source for it 'not having been seen by the Commission or the HSCA'? If it was used to frame Oswald why wasn't it burned along with any other potentially condemning evidence?

Yeah, that's not legit there Robert.

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.

 

[Robert Prey]

My opinion about whether the photograph is authentic has absolutely nothing to do with investigating your reasons for asserting that it is false.



I'm not passing judgment on the photo. I'm passing judgment on your claim that it is fake. You're clearly unwilling and unable to defend your claim, so either stop trying to change the subject or concede that you cannot support your assertion.



The difficulty of the question is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are now suddenly insisting on asking it as a distraction from having to defend your claims.

Insult noted and reported.

If you cannot support the claims you made by addressing the expert disputation of your analysis, then why not simply say, "I don't know enough about the science to address your objections?"

You're the one making this difficult, not me. But I assure you that I am fairly immune to the common tactics of trying to change the subject and shirk one's burden of proof when it becomes clear one cannot sustain it.

Cop-out.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cop-out.

Still can't support your claims? Why do you make them?



Maybe you could ask your pee-stained janitor friend.

 

[Robert Prey]

Straw man. The question is whether your specific claims of fakery hold water. I am not commenting about any other claims of fakery, except as you have deferred to Jack White. I have covered White's claims separately.



The allegation that I am making is that your claims of fakery are not supported by the data and relevant sciences. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever claims I may or may not make about the photograph. We are discussing your claims already made. Kindly do not attempt to deflect that scrutiny by demanding that others propose and defend a claim instead of you.



I refuse to be baited by a clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made allegations of forgery. You have presented reasons why you think forgery occurred. I have examined those reasons from a position of expertise and find them unconvincing, for reasons I have laid out in depth. Are you wiling to defend them further? Clearly not. But you dishonestly decline to concede.

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

Still very clumsy at trying to shift the burden of proof. Try again. You're still failing.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

See this tennis ball? Its central shell is made of a rubber compound. As are all tennis balls.

Oh, you say different? You state it's made of a microscopic carbon weave? Well, then you'll have to prove it. I don't have to first prove it's rubber.

 

[Garrison]

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

You apparently can't tell the difference between shadow and no shadow. You've had it explained half a dozen ways but you still want to deny some basic optics. As I've said before if your aim is to persuade others of the reality of your theory you are failing badly, hanging it on the shape of a chin photographed in totally different lighting conditions is simply making your task harder.

 

[JayUtah]

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

Well, this has nothing to do with my post. I was reminding you what you had previously asserted and why you have the burden of proof for it.

As to the new matter you raise, we're not talking about ovals and squares. Oswald's face, like any other person's face, is a complex, contoured three-dimensional object. The simple two-dimensional shapes you refer to exist only in the luminosity map of those affine objects projected into a plane. The appearance of that map depends on many factors, only one of which you've considered. Hence your attempt to attribute your variant observation to that one factor only is rightly being rejected. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of demonstrations of the effects of those factors you ignore.

If you can't be bothered to learn what other people know about something, kindly don't waste their time by trying to disagree and debate them.

 

[JayUtah]

Hm, Robert, what shape would you say this guy's chin is?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Speaking of which, Robert, are you still working on your definition of an 'expert', or shall we proceed on the basis that none shall be forthcoming?

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

It seems you can't help yourself, either, Robert!

 

[Mudcat]

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework.

Are you sure this is a statement you want to be making? Because here you have a golden opportunity to instruct some with zero knowledge on the subject of the JFK assassination. Think of the possibilities you have to post your evidence, your view points, your data and so forth, and share them with someone you can potentially convince of the validity of your statements.

Then ask better questions.

Those were some pretty good ones, and deserve an answer.

 

[JohnG]

Then why don't you put some words in your own mouth??? Take a stand, man. Are the photos legit or not????

And you, and your Amen chorus of Lone Nutter Photo "Experts" on this board???
Are you in possession of superior knowledge because you are working from the originals????

But you can???? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit. It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine. It's not a difficult question. If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know????

One question mark at a time, please.

 

[LSSBB]

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.

An interesting viewpoint. Tell me, does digging up everything you can find that proves your foregone conclusion count as doing homework? Well, in this day and age, with young un's ripping off term papers online, I guess it can be defined that way. But I like to think with an open mind, and look at all the facts to make a conclusion, Robert, including the ones I don't agree with without hand-waving them off as fake. To actually Do Research, you know? Heck, I may even ask questions if I don't know the answer, and hopefully someone will treat me respectfully, and give me an answer, straightforward and honest.


How about you?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Your evidence for any of the above? I will wager you have nothing except the assertions of the Hesters.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject.

Robert, this is the first sensible thing you've said in a long time, and one of the few statements you've made on this board that I agree with.

But probably not in the way you intended.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

It appears your evidence got a long stronger since you last posted on this subject, or you are overstating your case. I remind you that originally, all you had was an 1980's assertion, which you freely admitted to, and a photo that surfaced in 1993:

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]

Now you've gone from that assertion to asserting a whole bunch of other stuff, all without any additional evidence.

Overstating your case won't convince anyone.

What do you really have?

1. A story by the Hesters that they first told in the early 1980's.
2. An image that was first revealed in 1993.

Everything else is simply unsupported conjecture by you:

• Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination.
• And as far as the background, ... [it is] consistent with late November in Texas.
• The reason for the Ghost Photo ... may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery,
• using the ghosted image for positioning
• using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other springtime background
• The FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

It is quite clear you are most comfortable dealing in speculation, and most uncomfortable when you have to discuss actual evidence.
Anyone can speculate. You should try sticking to the evidence for a change, and see where that leads you.

Hank

 

[pakeha]

Hi, I've come very late indeed to this thead.
I remember the day Kennedy was shot and have grown up with the conspiracy theories.
I've been reading the last pages here and this post really jarred:

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.

I think you have a great opportunity to show just what is the evidence of a conspiracy here. I'm willing to bet there are a number of people who'd be interested enough to examine what decided you on the subject.

Why not give a resumen here for us?
50 pages is a lot of thread to read and I'm sure you could marshall your facts and sources to give us an overview of what you consider to be note-worthy.