• 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.
More Anomalies

More Backyard Photo Anomalies

Pictured are Backyard Photos 133A and 133C. Just above Oswald's head there is a wooden notch on the beam. Although the anchored right foot is nearly in the same position, 133C, a few inches to the back, you can see by the red line drawn that from 133A to 133C Oswald has shrunk in height.

In addition, in 133A his head is too big for his body, and in 133C his body is too big for his head.

Photo 133A



Photo 133C

 
Tomtomkent said:
Then how would you suggest expertise should be validated and compared? How do you know that anything you or White assert are based on accurate understanding?
Click to expand...

In a criminal trail, the prosecution may call a handwriting expert, a photo expert, a ballistics expert, a psychology expert, a medical expert, a fiber expert, etc., etc., etc. But if the defense has the resources, they will also call "experts" to counter the prosecution "experts". In each case, one "expert" says one thing, another "expert" says another. So how is a layman jury to decide? Either by throwing out all of the "expert" testimony or deciding one is better than the other by the use of Common Sense.

After reviewing acoustical tapes of the alleged shots, the HSCA determined that there were more shots from different locations, and thus a conspiracy. Then another group of experts found that the initial group of "experts" were wrong in their analysis. Then still another group of "experts" determined that the first group of "experts" were right all along. When you place your faith in what the average person cannot see, nor hear, nor understand to a so-called "expert", then you are throwing the dice at truth. You might as well flip a coin. That is why I only go with the hard evidence that an average person can understand. That would be the medical evidence as pertains to the fatal shot to the head. And in the absence of authentic autopsy photos showing the back of the head, the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses describing a large blow-out in the back of K's head, pointing to a shot from the front, is the very Best Evidence of Conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
More Backyard Photo Anomalies

Pictured are Backyard Photos 133A and 133C. Just above Oswald's head there is a wooden notch on the beam. Although the anchored right foot is nearly in the same position, 133C, a few inches to the back, you can see by the red line drawn that from 133A to 133C Oswald has shrunk in height
Click to expand...
What you clearly fail to notice, Robert, is that the position of the photographer is different between the two photos. For 133C the camera position is clearly farther away. Notwithstanding that that will clearly result in LHO looking smaller in 133C by comparison to 133A it means that one cannot simply compare reference points and distances between them and draw any meaningful conclusions regarding fakery without detailed, scientific anaysis; something that you fail to consider because you simply don't understand its importance. Do you not realize, Robert, that as the photographer's position moves closer to LHO the notch on the beam, being beyond LHO's position, will gradually move closer to the top of LHO's head in the field of view, and eventually disappear behind his head as the photographer get really close to LHO? You really[/] don't have a clue, do you, Robert, when it comes to understanding perspective.

Robert Prey said:
In addition, in 133A his head is too big for his body, and in 133C his body is too big for his head.
Click to expand...
How big, exactly, should LHO's head be in relation to his body and his body in relaltion to his head, would you say, Robert?
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
In a criminal trail, the prosecution may call a handwriting expert, a photo expert, a ballistics expert, a psychology expert, a medical expert, a fiber expert, etc., etc., etc. But if the defense has the resources, they will also call "experts" to counter the prosecution "experts". In each case, one "expert" says one thing, another "expert" says another. So how is a layman jury to decide? Either by throwing out all of the "expert" testimony or deciding one is better than the other by the use of Common Sense.
Click to expand...
Robert, would you mind explaining exactly how this 'common sense' that you keep alluding to works? If it's the panacea that you seem to believe it is, then why bother with expert witnesses, or even evidence, at all? Why not just apply 'common sense' from the get go and determine the outcome of every trial on the basis thereof? :rolleyes:

Robert Prey said:
That is why I only go with the hard evidence that an average person can understand.
Click to expand...
This ranks as the most laughable thing that I've read for a long time. Thanks for that, Robert. If nothing else you're certainly good for a laugh. :D
 
Robert Prey said:
In a criminal trail, the prosecution may call a handwriting expert, a photo expert, a ballistics expert, a psychology expert, a medical expert, a fiber expert, etc., etc., etc. But if the defense has the resources, they will also call "experts" to counter the prosecution "experts". In each case, one "expert" says one thing, another "expert" says another. So how is a layman jury to decide? Either by throwing out all of the "expert" testimony or deciding one is better than the other by the use of Common Sense.

After reviewing acoustical tapes of the alleged shots, the HSCA determined that there were more shots from different locations, and thus a conspiracy. Then another group of experts found that the initial group of "experts" were wrong in their analysis. Then still another group of "experts" determined that the first group of "experts" were right all along. When you place your faith in what the average person cannot see, nor hear, nor understand to a so-called "expert", then you are throwing the dice at truth. You might as well flip a coin. That is why I only go with the hard evidence that an average person can understand. That would be the medical evidence as pertains to the fatal shot to the head. And in the absence of authentic autopsy photos showing the back of the head, the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses describing a large blow-out in the back of K's head, pointing to a shot from the front, is the very Best Evidence of Conspiracy.
Click to expand...


All you keep proving is common sense is a misnomer, and not so common.

I see you have switched tactics and are now complaining about other 'anomalies' in the backyard photos you THINK you see. I will accept that as your admission that the always-bogus shadow claim has been disproven even to your satisfaction. That's another conpiracy claim flushed away.

You haven't gone with any hard evidence. You've gone with eyewitness testimony, which is the softest of evidence, often taking only the parts you like out of context and ignoring all the rest. You've discarded the hard evidence entirely - like the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, claiming that it must be altered since it conflicts with the eyewitness testimony you accept. If it the eyewitness testimony you accept conflicts with other eyewitness testimony (like the conflicts between Ed Hoffman and Sam Holland in the state of the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll), you always go with the least likely eyewitness testimony. In that particular case, you believed Hoffman's account although it has changed throughout the years and he didn't come forward until 1967 - and then he mentioned two men behind the Depository. Nothing about a Grassy Knoll shooter until the 1970's. If there is an easy resolution to a conspiratorial question (like Ann Mercer's seeing a stalled truck), you ignore the subsequent resolution through investigation, and simply continue to push the conspiratorial interpretation of an account. If a photo has been questioned in any way in the past, you continue to interpret it that way, even after the multiple experts have answered those questions and even after the same image has been reproduced. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

And it appears you are saying that all science is junk science, and science cannot solve any problem to your satisfaction with your comments about expert opinion. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding that. Otherwise, of course, you'll have to go with the earth being stationary and the entire universe rotating around us on a daily basis - it certainly looks and feels that way to me. I have no sense of motion and I see the sun rise every day and the stars move across the sky every night. So is that what you think is happening?

One question, Robert: How long will it take before you realize the conspiracy books are lying to you? They are, you know. I was once where you are now. Way back in the 1960's and 1970's, I once believed in a JFK conspiracy (yes, I am that old) :(. I decided it was solvable, and decided to go directly to the source materials to form my own interpretations, as conspiracy books often conflicted with each other in their interpretations of the evidence. When I did that, the smoke and mirrors vanished, and I realized that the evidence pointed to Oswald. I would recommend this methodology for you too. Stop relying on secondary sources and go directly to the primary sources for your information. You too, when you take this approach, will see the evidence anew, and realize what I realized - that the conspiracy books are lying to you. You have no reason not to do this - the primary source materials - like all the eyewitness testimony from the HSCA and the Warren Commission - are online and free to access nowadays. You won't have to shell out big bucks (over $2000 for a copy of the Warren Commission volumes of evidence to the President's Box Bookshop like I had to to do the research I did).

The truth is out there.
But you will never find it reading conspiracy books.

All the best, Robert.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
In a criminal trail, the prosecution may call a handwriting expert, a photo expert, a ballistics expert, a psychology expert, a medical expert, a fiber expert, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...

This isn't a court of law.

And listing types of expert doesn't answer my question does it?

"How do YOU think expertise should be validated and compared?"

But if the defense has the resources, they will also call "experts" to counter the prosecution "experts". In each case, one "expert" says one thing, another "expert" says another. So how is a layman jury to decide? Either by throwing out all of the "expert" testimony or deciding one is better than the other by the use of Common Sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, we understand how courts work. And we know that is how you think a jury works. But let's ignore the irksome niggle that the majority of lawyers, barristers, and solicitors will actually try to validate the expertise of their "expert" witnesses. Or were you unaware of that?


Hmm. Guess you forgot to actually address that after quoting it, as you never actually explain how we should consider expertise here, in this discussion where we are not in a court of law. Let's see if you can try again. You state that Jack White is an expert. You imply Jay is NOT an expert as he is "Self Appointed". Jay stated his credentials and his track record in the field you are discussing. If consider academic and professional qualifications not to be enough for validating his expertise, how do you suggest we do that?

This common sense you allude to is quite simple:

The guy who can validate his expertise with qualifications, professional literature (in peer reviewed journals) and experience working in the field you are discussing, is in a better place to comment than "Some Guy" who sees chins on a garage door, or the guy who got his day in the spotlight only to admit his "tests" were groundless and ill informed.

Is that not common sense?

Is it not common sense to realise that just ecause you can't see something in shadow, does not mean it has been erased from existance? To understand the limits of definition in photographs? Does common sense not suggest that if an image is a composite of two or more photos there will be physical artefacts in the photo left by the composition?

You talk a lot about common sense. Why not try using it. And why not admit it's limitations.
 
Robert Prey said:
More Backyard Photo Anomalies

Pictured are Backyard Photos 133A and 133C. Just above Oswald's head there is a wooden notch on the beam. Although the anchored right foot is nearly in the same position, 133C, a few inches to the back, you can see by the red line drawn that from 133A to 133C Oswald has shrunk in height.

In addition, in 133A his head is too big for his body, and in 133C his body is too big for his head.
Click to expand...




Welcome to the wonders of PERSPECTIVE.

The camera (as does the subject) moves thus the size relationships of objects within the frame change. Again no rocket science involved, just basic photographic principle.
 
Robert Prey said:
More Backyard Photo Anomalies

Pictured are Backyard Photos 133A and 133C. Just above Oswald's head there is a wooden notch on the beam. Although the anchored right foot is nearly in the same position, 133C, a few inches to the back, you can see by the red line drawn that from 133A to 133C Oswald has shrunk in height.

In addition, in 133A his head is too big for his body, and in 133C his body is too big for his head.

Photo 133A

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6d9b29b5add.jpg[/qimg]

Photo 133C

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6d9b4cd540d.jpg[/qimg]
Southwind17 said:
What you clearly fail to notice, Robert, is that the position of the photographer is different between the two photos. For 133C the camera position is clearly farther away. Notwithstanding that that will clearly result in LHO looking smaller in 133C by comparison to 133A it means that one cannot simply compare reference points and distances between them and draw any meaningful conclusions regarding fakery without detailed, scientific anaysis; something that you fail to consider because you simply don't understand its importance. Do you not realize, Robert, that as the photographer's position moves closer to LHO the notch on the beam, being beyond LHO's position, will gradually move closer to the top of LHO's head in the field of view, and eventually disappear behind his head as the photographer get really close to LHO? You really[/] don't have a clue, do you, Robert, when it comes to understanding perspective.


How big, exactly, should LHO's head be in relation to his body and his body in relaltion to his head, would you say, Robert?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Here's a quick illustration (below) I threw together using MS-Paint of the problem posed by Robert and explained by you. 133C is the B' position in my illustration; 133A is the A' position in my illustration. As you point out, one can see that as the camera moves further away, the place where the beam becomes visible behind the head gets lower when the camera position is below the level of the head (and as Marina is shorter than Lee, that is the case here).

The beam is in black. The grey Imperial Reflex camera owned by the Oswald's are the dots. Oswald is in red (of course).

This is another simple case where perspective isn't taken into account in the criticisms level by conspiracy theorists like Jack White, and parroted by Robert here.

Aside to Robert: You really have to stop parroting stuff from conspiracy books. They are lying to you.

angle.jpg

http://simfootball.net/JFK/angle.jpg
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
More Backyard Photo Anomalies

Pictured are Backyard Photos 133A and 133C. Just above Oswald's head there is a wooden notch on the beam. Although the anchored right foot is nearly in the same position, 133C, a few inches to the back, you can see by the red line drawn that from 133A to 133C Oswald has shrunk in height.

In addition, in 133A his head is too big for his body, and in 133C his body is too big for his head.

Photo 133A

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6d9b29b5add.jpg[/qimg]

Photo 133C

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6d9b4cd540d.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Was the camera locked in place on a tripod? No? Did it taake both images from the exact same place? No. Did LHO stand perfectly still for both photos? No. Did he keep his head in the exact same place at the exact same angle relative to the lens? No.

Well done Robert, you just proved that both LHO and Mariana moved between taking the different photographs. Funnily enough, if the lens and subject moves, the subject and background will be seen from different angles relative to each other. What a shocking revelation! We are looking a two dimensional representation of three dimensional space, and it has PERSPECTIVE!
 
HSienzant said:
Here's a quick illustration (below) of the problem I threw together using MS-Paint. 133C is the B' position in my illustration; 133A is the A' position in my illustration. As you point out, one can see that as the camera moves further away, the place where the beam becomes visible behind the head gets lower.

This is another simple case where perspective isn't taken into account.

Aside to Robert: You really have to stop parroting stuff from conspiracy books. They are lying to you.

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/angle.jpg[/qimg]
http://simfootball.net/JFK/angle.jpg
Click to expand...

You know, most people would call that "common sense". Given how much faith Robert places in it, I wonder why he never consulted it here?
 
HSienzant said:
He turns his body to look at the shadow, to ensure he is doing it correctly. The issue is not the body whatsover and that is simply a diversionary tactic by you. The issue is the angle of the rifle to the angle of the shadow. The claim by you (and other conspiracists) was that holding the rifle at that angle means it is impossible to get a horizontal shadow in the photo. But you just agreed that the angles appear the same.

Which was what you said was impossible to duplicate originally. It has been duplicated. You just admitted to it - "the angles appear the same".

Claiming the "depth" is not correct is another meaningless claim by you, since you don't show that the "depth" (presumably you mean the tilt of the rifle / pipe toward the camera) is different in any way between the duplication photo and the Oswald backyard photo.

It's just another empty claim by you without any supporting evidence. We've seen plenty of that.


Hank
Click to expand...

For a great shadow study of one of the backyard photos, google Hany Farid.

Not only will you find his 3d work you can also read the poor attempts at rebuttals to the work by people like James Fetzer and Jim Marrs, two diehard ct's. Their attempt is quite humorous.
 
Some conspiracy theorists on some of the boards I frequent are fond of labelling any Warren Commission defender as "a paid shill of the CIA", or as "one of the minions working to further the aims of the conspiracy", etc.

Jim Garrison was fond of saying everything had to be viewed through the looking glass, that black was white, and white was black. If the evidence pointed to Oswald, why, of course he was innocent, because the conspirators only made it look like he was guilty.

I wonder if we have that effect here, only conspiracy theorists have it backwards.

If there was a conspiracy, I could think of no more effective way to deflect criticism than to argue your own bogus nonsense and push it vigorously. The more nonsensical and the more vigorously, the better, as the more vigorously and nonsensical, the more you would drown out legitimate criticisms and the more people would see through your nonsense and decide that conspiracy criticism is nonsense and there was no conspiracy.

In this formulation, Robert could be the paid shill working for the CIA, posting the nonsense gleaned directly from the conspiracy books, and by having us posting the truth and exposing the claims as nonsense, we thereby unwittingly providing cover for the conspiracy and the conspirators. It could be even worse! Maybe all the conspiracy authors are part of the conspiracy, writing nonsense that most people will see through easily! :D

To quote Kevin Costner in the movie JFK, "Through the looking glass, people, through the looking glass."


Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
By your silence, you admit the photo is of questionable authenticity. I would agree.
Click to expand...


By your silence, then, I take it you have no rebuttal to these claims that you previously dismissed with your silly 'one question at a time' mantra or ignored entirely:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8133753&postcount=4542
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8133316&postcount=4520
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8131142&postcount=4473

Applying this rule you cite above, I think you agree the very claims of conspiracy make no sense, and are next to impossible to defend. Certainly, you've never defended them.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
By your silence, you admit the photo is of questionable authenticity. I would agree.
Click to expand...

No Robert, It's simply that without being able to examine the original no sensible person, and certainly not one with any proper expertise, is going to draw a conclusion about the authenticity of the photograph either way. Your claim however about the shape of the face being different in the backyard photograph and the mugshot can and has been refuted.
 
Infocusnic said:
Here are the links and text. Please feel free to change the links to code

Using a corner of a computer one can understand the concept of camera angle "changing the shape" of an object. Notice how the pointed corner changes its apparent shape as the camera is lowered.

[img]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/IMG_2866.jpg


Now lets move on to a person, Obama. Many images of Obama are available on the web, and he is often photographed from a camera angle below eye level. The images below compare eye level and below eye level photos.

Notice the chin go from pointed to square. This is not rocket science, just simple observation.

jugears.jpg




jugears2.jpg
Click to expand...

Sorry for any delay, was out mowing the yard. Now if you excuse me I néed to finish up on that.

Edit to add: fixed links
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
Sorry for any delay, was out mowing the yard. Now if you excuse me I néed to finish up on that.

Edit to add: never mind, the links work, the photos of the PC is there. The forum doesn't appear to want to display it for some reason. However the link to the Obama pictures seem to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Links don't work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom