• 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.
SpitfireIX said:
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. ....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...

What a prophet you have proved yourself to be!
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

And after all that, you simply concluded that all of the on the scene medical witnesses who saw this, were simply mistaken or lying, eh? some scholarship.



 
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a nonsensical argument. How many people have viewed the original B/Y photos? How many have only viewed copies including the Cover of Life Magazine used to convict the Dead Patsy in the court of public opinion? The answer is millions. But there was never an caveat in the publishing of those photos that that might not be real, being only copies. Fact is, sensible conclusions can be drawn from the irrefutable anomalies in these photos, even if they be only copies, they are clear, sharp copies. And when you take into account the circumstances on which these photos were "discovered", including the ghosted photo which the WC never saw, and the background photo minus Oswald which was seen by two photo processors, the night of the assassination, then it is a reasonable to conclude that there is something very fishy about these photos, which only a firmly planted head-in-the sand Lone Nutter would deny.
 
Robert Prey said:
And after all that, you simply concluded that all of the on the scene medical witnesses who saw this, were simply mistaken or lying, eh? some scholarship.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Robert, you can't PROVE they did see that. Your own witnesses put the hole on the OTHER SIDE of the head.

Some scholarship indeed!

All you have ae self contradicting claims, disproven by material evidence such as film, photographs, the documentary record, etc.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's a nonsensical argument. How many people have viewed the original B/Y photos? How many have only viewed copies including the Cover of Life Magazine used to convict the Dead Patsy in the court of public opinion?
Click to expand...

One question at a time.

Also: Your analysis of the statement is wrong.

What ever conclusions people may, or may not, think they are capable of drawing from their viewing of ALLEGED anomalies does NOT replace actual analysis of the photographs.

Especially when your alleged anamolies that you have attempted to discuss have all been shown to be utter bunk.

Odd that you both dislike the court of public opinion, when it condemns Oswald, yet in the SAME POST state something must be right, because so many people think those shadows are anomalous.

Some people think the earth looks flat. Or that the moon dissolves and reforms once a month. It's a good job we have science to put those ideas to the test.
 
HSienzant said:
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.

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

Fact is, there is very little difference in distances and perspective between the two photos. The distances and angels in your illustration are misleading and contrived. The best reason for the anomalies is that they were the result of a composite forgery.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's a nonsensical argument. How many people have viewed the original B/Y photos? How many have only viewed copies including the Cover of Life Magazine used to convict the Dead Patsy in the court of public opinion? The answer is millions. But there was never an caveat in the publishing of those photos that that might not be real, being only copies.
Click to expand...
Of course there was, to the same extent that everything unoriginal that's published carries a tacit caveat as to accuracy. As Jack Martin uttered to Garrison in 'JFK': "You are so naivie".

Robert Prey said:
Fact is, sensible conclusions can be drawn from the irrefutable anomalies in these photos, even if they be only copies, they are clear, sharp copies.
Click to expand...
They've been refuted, Robert, and successfully so. That renders any conclusions nonsensicle.

Robert Prey said:
And when you take into account the circumstances on which these photos were "discovered", including the ghosted photo which the WC never saw, and the background photo minus Oswald which was seen by two photo processors, the night of the assassination, then it is a reasonable to conclude that there is something very fishy about these photos, which only a firmly planted head-in-the sand Lone Nutter would deny.
Click to expand...
The only thing that's reasonable to conclude from this, Robert, is that your naivety knows no bounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom