• 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:
Thanks for the answer, Robert!



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?



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...

You want to see an actual picture of the back of the head? They don't exist. As to the real perps, take another read of The Final Nail.
 
Robert Prey said:
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???
Click to expand...

One question mark at a time please.

Cowardly evasion and inept attempt to shift the burden of proof. You're still not very good at this, are you.
 
Robert Prey said:
So now you are not so sure if that chin really is or is not Oswald's chin????
Click to expand...

One question mark at a time please.

Cowardly evasion and clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. Is this your first rodeo? Try asking your pee stained doofus friend. You might find him in Dockers and pleather jacket again since it's casual Friday.

 
Robert Prey said:
So now you are not so sure if that chin really is or is not Oswald's chin????
Click to expand...

Nope, thats not what I said. If that is the conclusion you drew from reading my post i guess i confirms you can't grasp objective reasoning or the null. Logic 101 can not have been as worthwhile classas you suggested.

When you look at that photo do you say "that is NOT his chin"? Do you assume it is his chinand prove yourself wrong? Or do you ignore what you already think you know and start from the ground up?

As I just told you what I do, and you mistook it for not knowing? How do you think "knowing"before you study evidence may bias you towards accepting only what confirms your view, and declaring fraud for that which may invalidate your claim?

When others accused you (rightly it now seems as you even try to make others prejudice their conclusions as well) of confirmation bias, did you understand what they were saying?
 
Robert Prey said:
Every time he says 'There, I just did it again" he drops the pipe substantially unlike the rifle angle of Oswald.
Click to expand...
Robert Prey said:
As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent and the example of your Dartmath "expert" has nothing to do with 133B. The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...
Robert Prey said:
...And then there are the numerous anomalies. My favorite is 133B, where the rifle is pointed at 11 o'clock, but in the shadow, it clearly points to 9 o'clock. Just try it sometime.
Click to expand...


lol. You are getting exceedingly desperate.

No, he doesn't. The angles are substantially the same - the shadow of the rifle relative to the actual rifle angle has been duplicated.

View the comparison images below. The one on the left is from the video you say doesn't duplicate the angle Oswald is holding the rfile. The one on the right is one of the Oswald backyard photos, with the supposedly fake shadow that cannot be duplicated. The third one is your feeble and dishonest attempt, where you have to hold the cane/stick away from the camera to get a shadow inconsistent with the Oswald photo.

compare2.jpg
rprey.jpg

http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare.jpg
http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare1.jpg
http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare2.jpg

And of course, the original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AuNDNpY4f4
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
lol. You are getting exceedingly desperate.

No, he doesn't. The angles are substantially the same - the shadow of the rifle relative to the actual rifle angle has been duplicated.

View the comparison images below.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare.jpg
Click to expand...

Very nice. Some pee stained idiot posed incorrectly as shown below. Can you put those side by side also so that we can see the deliberately dishonest way it was done?

 
Robert Prey said:
You want to see an actual picture of the back of the head? They don't exist. As to the real perps, take another read of The Final Nail.
Click to expand...

I see you've side-stepped my objection to the drawing.
And you'll post a link to the source you want me to read, of course.
 
Robert Prey said:
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"???
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof, Robert. Everyone can see what you're trying to do, and it won't work.

We're discussing, on this point, the "ghost" photo. Your affirmative claim is that it's a background plate treated with a holdout matte. You suggest that the backyard photos were created by composition, and that the ghost photo is an artifact of that process, an intermediate step. Again, the problem with that theory is that the process would leave artifacts in the final image, and there are no such artifacts. Hence your explanation for why the "ghost" photo exists is not supported by the evidence.

Regarding the chin issue, we've belabored that. You want to explain the pattern of light and dark in the image by saying that the depicted person's chin, in the affine world, is a different shape than what you suppose Oswald's chin shape to be. However, other factors that you haven't accounted for explain that pattern more parsimoniously. Your hilarious mistake with the garage door proves that you personally are susceptible to pareidolic misperception, which means you don't get to use the "Iooks like it to me" argument.
 
JayUtah said:
We're discussing, on this point, the "ghost" photo. Your affirmative claim is that it's a background plate treated with a holdout matte. You suggest that the backyard photos were created by composition, and that the ghost photo is an artifact of that process, an intermediate step. Again, the problem with that theory is that the process would leave artifacts in the final image, and there are no such artifacts. Hence your explanation for why the "ghost" photo exists is not supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

It gets worse from there, I'm afraid. According to Robert they had the back yard transparency (which goes to show Robert knows nothing about photography) the night before they found the photograph in Oswald's garage the following morning. If Robert's claim was able to hold water (which it doesn't) then that would have only given the investigators less than twenty four hours to hodgepodge together a convincing photograph. This is practically impossible for the technology of the time.
 
HSienzant said:
View the comparison images below. The one on the left is from the video you say doesn't duplicate the angle Oswald is holding the rfile. The one on the right is one of the Oswald backyard photos, with the supposedly fake shadow that cannot be duplicated. The third one is your feeble and dishonest attempt, where you have to hold the cane/stick away from the camera to get a shadow inconsistent with the Oswald photo.
Click to expand...

What's hilarious is that I covered this situation in one of my posts that Robert dismissed with "Baloney." There are any number of configurations in the affine world that project to the same image in the projective world. That's the mathematical nature of projection, the non-orthonormal reality of the projective world photographs live, and the bane of photographic analysts who must endeavor to reconstruct the affine relationships using only a photograph.

Given that many-to-one mapping, it is utterly irrelevant if some affine configuration can be found that does not rightly project. To prove fraudulence by means of the implausibility of the projection, one must provably exhaust the solutions. Conversely, to validate the projection it is sufficient to find only one affine solution.

I find it further hilarious than none of the self-proclaimed photo analysts knows the first thing about proper examination of shadows. There are methods for proving the coherence of illumination by means of shadow information. They derive simply from projective geometry, and are easily applied. If you have knowledge of projective geometry, you can see easily how the method derives and is provably correct. But all the amateurs use the same wrong method, derived from uninformed intuition. Once again it's the triumph of real science over amateurish "common sense." Not once do these individuals show how their methods were tested and validated -- because they never were. We know that the method used by conspiracy theorists to estimate phase angles from shadow is provably wrong.
 
Robert Prey said:
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"???
Click to expand...

You've been shown that the different appearance of the face in the backyard photograph and the mugshot can be accounted for by differences in the lighting. It's not a matter of opinion, its a matter of simple physics. If you want to show the backyard photo was doctored you need better evidence. Until such time as you provide it the reasonable conclusion is that the photograph is real.
 
RoboTimbo said:
One question mark at a time please.

Cowardly evasion and clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. Is this your first rodeo? Try asking your pee stained doofus friend. You might find him in Dockers and pleather jacket again since it's casual Friday.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/267444f12f8cf6fa92.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I originally assumed the V mask overlay was to conceal the identity of the participant, I now wonder if it wasn't to hide the shadows on the face that would discredit his argument about the shape of the chin.
 
HSienzant said:
lol. You are getting exceedingly desperate.

No, he doesn't. The angles are substantially the same - the shadow of the rifle relative to the actual rifle angle has been duplicated.

View the comparison images below. The one on the left is from the video you say doesn't duplicate the angle Oswald is holding the rfile. The one on the right is one of the Oswald backyard photos, with the supposedly fake shadow that cannot be duplicated. The third one is your feeble and dishonest attempt, where you have to hold the cane/stick away from the camera to get a shadow inconsistent with the Oswald photo.

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare2.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/rprey.jpg[/qimg]
http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare.jpg
http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare1.jpg
http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare2.jpg

And of course, the original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AuNDNpY4f4
Click to expand...

The angles appear the same, but the depth is not. Each time he says "there it is" your drawing obscures the fact that he drops the pipe forward. He also twists the body to his right. A cheap illusion that would make Randi blush. Not an authentic replication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom