• 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.
Robert Prey said:
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?????
Click to expand...

Hi Robert,

Let me remind you that an absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that it's true. The ghosted photo has a simple explanation, I believe.

Let me ask you a question or two and if you answer, I will explain where and how the photo was created.

What's your source for the claim it was found in the DPD files in 1993?
Do you have any evidence it predates 1990?

If you can answer two questions honestly and without dodging, I'll let you know exactly where I think the photo comes from.

Can you confirm this is your source:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

An important development in this matter occurred in 1992 when Dallas authorities released previously suppressed files on the JFK assassination. Among these files were several photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, two of which are backyard pictures that show clear signs of tampering. On February 9, 1992, the Houston Post reported, "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" (Lane xxii). The Post further stated that the manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture (Lane xxii). The POST provided a description of the print:

In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Lane xxii)

The silhouettes in the pictures appear to be right around Oswald's height, and they are in poses into which it appears the Oswald figure would fit.
 
Last edited:
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...

Who is alleging there is different lighting conditions? Those photos were exposed within a few minutes of each other, as the HSCA determined.
 
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...


I've debated JFK conspiracy theories at length elsewhere, but I have RP on ignore because I find his arguments exceedingly tedious, boring, unoriginal, and hurmorless, even by conspiracist standards. Also Hank and others have been doing a fine job of refuting RP's claims. I do skim the thread from time to time, however, and I saw your post. Possibly, like a good attorney, you already know the answer to the question you posed, but the fact is, RP will not provide any significant evidence for his theory; he will merely continue to parrot his claims about witnesses and photographic anomalies.
 
I've debated JFK conspiracy theories at length elsewhere, but I have RP on ignore because I find his arguments exceedingly tedious, boring, unoriginal, and hurmorless, even by conspiracist standards. Also Hank and others have been doing a fine job of refuting RP's claims. I do skim the thread from time to time, however, and I saw your post. Possibly, like a good attorney, you already know the answer to the question you posed, but the fact is, RP will not provide any significant evidence for his theory; he will merely continue to parrot his claims about witnesses and photographic anomalies.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why I dont take him seriously, I know hes trolling, in fact he doesnt actually believe his own argument.
 
Southwind17 said:
Mmm ... should we go there?! Only kidding - welcome! ;)
Click to expand...

Why?
Is it an age thing?

I remember the day well.
I was in a primary school in California and the teacher broke down into tears as she told us the news.
Mum wanted us to go back home, as America was a place where they killed their Presidents.
I remember the riderless horse and Jackie Kennedy's black veil from the television coverage of the funeral.

This has nothing to do with the OP, of course, except to explain my interest in the thread

Reading here, I see that pervasive speculation I mentioned was just that- speculation.
And remarkably unfounded in anything but rumour.
So back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 
Last edited:
Or in the case of the first episode of doctor who regularly scheduled programming was repeated a week later...
 
Robert Prey said:
An absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that the theory is false.
Click to expand...

That's a subtle shift of the burden of proof. When a theory is proposed, it's not the duty of someone else to prove it false; its proponent must prove it true. His inability or unwillingness to do so is an abrogation on his part, and good cause for people not to believe his theory. You are making affirmative claims. It is up to you to provide evidence.

The ghosted photo is a fact.
Click to expand...

The existence of the photo is a fact. The problem is when people wrongly believe that the mere existence of the photo somehow substantiates their specific claim for how it came to be. Circular thinking is rampant among conspiracy theorists.

How would you explain the existence of the Ghosted Photo?????
Click to expand...

Shifting the burden of proof. You have made specific claims regarding how it came to be and what it was meant to be used for. If you cannot or will not provide evidence in favor of those claims, then it simply isn't credible. Speculation is cheap; I could probably come up with a dozen or so hypotheses. But that's irrelevant. If you say yours is the right answer, you bear the burden to tell us why it's the right one.

You seem to think it was used as a background plate for some sort of optical compositing process in which Oswald's image was inserted as a foreground element. The problem with that hypothesis is that such processes as executed in the 1960s always leave telltale traces that experts can identify. But the photos allegedly composited from the ghosted photo don't have those telltales. So now your theory has to explain that additional data point.

This is how science works. When you say, "This hypothetical cause would produce this observed effect in the data," then someone can come along and say, "But that same cause would also produce this other effect that we should be able to observe. We don't observe it, so it makes it less likely that your proffered cause is the right one. You need to look for another cause for that observed effect -- one that explains more of the available data with fewer loose ends."
 
JayUtahj wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
An absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that the theory is false.


That's a subtle shift of the burden of proof. When a theory is proposed, it's not the duty of someone else to prove it false; its proponent must prove it true. His inability or unwillingness to do so is an abrogation on his part, and good cause for people not to believe his theory. You are making affirmative claims. It is up to you to provide evidence.

Comment: Nonsense. The absence of evidence is not evidence.
 
JayUtah wrote:

This is how science works. When you say, "This hypothetical cause would produce this observed effect in the data," then someone can come along and say, "But that same cause would also produce this other effect that we should be able to observe. We don't observe it, so it makes it less likely that your proffered cause is the right one. You need to look for another cause for that observed effect -- one that explains more of the available data with fewer loose ends."

Does this mean that the chinny chin chin in the B/Y photos really is the chin of Oswald??? Is that your "theory"??? Can you prove it??? Or do you still take the "fifth"???
 
HSienzant said:
Hi Robert,

Let me remind you that an absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that it's true. The ghosted photo has a simple explanation, I believe.

Let me ask you a question or two and if you answer, I will explain where and how the photo was created.

What's your source for the claim it was found in the DPD files in 1993?
Do you have any evidence it predates 1990?

If you can answer two questions honestly and without dodging, I'll let you know exactly where I think the photo comes from.

Can you confirm this is your source:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/faulty.htm

An important development in this matter occurred in 1992 when Dallas authorities released previously suppressed files on the JFK assassination. Among these files were several photos of Lee Harvey Oswald, two of which are backyard pictures that show clear signs of tampering. On February 9, 1992, the Houston Post reported, "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation" (Lane xxii). The Post further stated that the manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture (Lane xxii). The POST provided a description of the print:

In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Lane xxii)

The silhouettes in the pictures appear to be right around Oswald's height, and they are in poses into which it appears the Oswald figure would fit.
Click to expand...

One question at a time, please.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

NO. It is you how has refused to prove any of your assertions beginning with the authenticity of the photo itself. Here's another chance to stand up for what you believe in: Does the photo contain the true chin of LHO or does it not???
 
Southwind17 said:
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:


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 - 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 - 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?


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.


... and more importantly what evidence can you offer that supports your opinion?
Click to expand...

One question at a time, please.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

So now you are not so sure if that chin really is or is not Oswald's chin????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom