• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
pakeha said:
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:


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.
Click to expand...

The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. I suggest you do a search on this thread for "The Final Nail" and "Addendum to The Final Nail" which has several of the medical doctor's quotes.

The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
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:




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
Click to expand...

An absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that the theory is false. The ghosted photoi is a fact. How would you explain the existence of the Ghosted Photo?????
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...


There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.
 
The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter.
Click to expand...
Theres no medical evidence of a large blow out in the back of Ks head, there is just your alledged 40 witnesses.
Also any evidence of a grassy knoll shooter would have been evidenced by a blowout at the left side of KS head and you dont even have a drawing to back that up.
The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.
Click to expand...
They had a body, it wasnt a requirement that he had a background, so why bother creating one by forging photos?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the answer, Robert!
Robert Prey said:
The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. I suggest you do a search on this thread for "The Final Nail" and "Addendum to The Final Nail" which has several of the medical doctor's quotes.
Click to expand...


I used the search engine and found this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8109127&postcount=4015

To tell the truth, it's difficult to take that very seriously, given that the drawing is just that, a drawing and that the 'quotes' can't make up their minds about the side of the head affected.

That's really the best proof of a conspiracy?

Robert Prey said:
The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd read the last several pages of the thread.
So who, in your opinion WERE the real perps of the assasination of JFK?
 
Robert Prey said:
There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.
Click to expand...

But we are discussing the claims you made about one photo.

You assert that photo is faked. You have offered flawed evidence. No other photograph is relevent unless discussing context in a series. Which would not prove or disprove your claims. How cant you be failing to grasp this?
 
Robert Prey said:
If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.
Click to expand...

You make the claim. You prove the claim to be true or retract the claim.
You don't try and force anybody to draw conclusions on anything but your claim. Or do you feel a desperate need to prejudise objective evaluation of your claims? As good critical thinkers everybody else is putting aside their assumptions, remaining neutral and offering you the best possible chance of proving an assertion. We do this in spite of you insulting that possiton and claiming we are "nutters" with "heads in the sand" and sarcastic remarks about our deep thinking. Tell me Robert was Objective Reasoning covered in Logic 101? If not, just admit so, and it can be explained. If you actually grasp the most basic sceptical stand point you may actually understand why what you are saying sounds so childish. If you dont want others to talk to you from an objective standpoint, you may want to go to a different venue of discussion where it wont irk you so much.

You DID say you were here to look at evidence, and not convince anybody. So why the determination anybody should be convinced one way or another?


Why oh why do you keep trying to make people stand on one side of the fence or the other? You may have preconcieved conclusions, others don't. They have a null hypothosis and they, we, ask if you can overcome this null.

So far you have failed to meet the minimum standard of evidence to prove any of your assertions.
 
Garrison said:
Robert you can't add detail to a photo when it wasn't there in the first place. The shadow eliminated the detail of the lower face and distorted the appearance of the jawline. Lightening the shadow will not alter that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whether detail is lost due to shadows, reflections from oily skin or blown highlights, there is no way to reclaim the lost details.
 
jargon buster said:
.

Dont worry, he does that a lot.
Click to expand...

But it is good for people to remind him they didn't buy his guff. Otherwise he might be under the impression people were falling for it.

It does call into question if Robert should be suggesting he is the teacher who will appear when we are ready (ie, agree with him). Or if he should admit to being the student whose untested opinion does not make a fact.
 
Robert Prey said:
If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone but you take a stand on something that only you have made a claim about?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Do you have anything to refute the hundreds of millions of witnesses to the large blowout on the right side of JFK's head?



You might want to pull your head out and look around.
 
Robert - I've thought for a while now that you've defaulted to trolling. If that's the case then that's OK; I, for one, am happy to feed the troll, because I've learned so much here from the likes of HSienzant and JayUtah, at your expense. If I'm right, however, I think it's now high time you started behaving with at least a modicum of honesty, and paid due respect to those posters who have been giving up much of their time with a view to having an intelligent dialogue with you. In the meantime:

Robert Prey said:
The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter.
Click to expand...
By any reasonable test this most certainly is not 'The Best Evidence' for a conspiracy. Even if what you claim were true, it's an extremely tenuous link. Very simply, Robert, how do you reconcile your claim of 'a large blow-out in the back of K's head' with the video evidence showing the fatal gun shot wound to the front right of the head? If that's the entry wound then surely the exit wound would be around the left ear, no?.

Robert Prey said:
Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see?
Click to expand...
Tomtomkent said:
Hate to bust your "common sense" but there is no chin at all... or even a person for whom to discuss the size or nature of chins.
Click to expand...
Robert - do you see the irony of this post of yours, eloquently highlighted by tomtomkent? By your own tacit admission here you've 'seen' and commented on something that doesn't even exist, but that your mind has conjured up from an illusion cast by a shadow! Given that, how can you reasonably dismiss the possibility of the appearance of a 'square chin' in the B/Y photos, being a similar, albeit far less complex, illusion created by simple light and shadow effects?

Robert Prey said:
If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.
Click to expand...
Robert - do you really not understand that the issue under debate is whether or not your claims of falsification are justified, and that the 'taking of a stand' by those taking you to task is completely irrelevant to determining that?

Robert Prey said:
There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting choice of word, Robert, 'betray'. Given that you're relying entirely on simple observation of a monochromatic two-dimensional image made up simply of different shades of grey to deduce the shape of a 3-D object I'd say the most appropriate words to use would be 'give the impression of'. Even those words, however, only really apply if one fails to allow or elects to suspend one's powers of deduction from assimilating even the most obvious factors that have generated the image, in this case light and shade, at least to cast some doubt.

pakeha said:
Yes, I'd read the last several pages of the thread.
So who, in your opinion WERE the real perps of the assasination of JFK?
Click to expand...
... and more importantly what evidence can you offer that supports your opinion?
 
Robert Prey said:
If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your belief is either supported by fact or it is not. That is entirely independent of whether someone else's belief may be supported by fact.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are trying to make someone else state and defend a belief as a distraction from your inability to do so for yourself. You claim your belief is supported by fact, but you dishonestly refrain from letting others determine whether this is so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom