JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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, the illustration is meant to illustrate how the angle changes and how a person's perceived height against a object in the distance will change as the camera is moved in towards the subject or out away from the subject.

For that reason alone, your claim that "the distances and angels [sic] are misleading and contrived" are nonsense, as the illustration is meant to illustrate the principle, not be a precise duplication of the actual distances. You do understand what an illustration is, right?

The best reason for the apparent anomalies continues to be the sheer ignorance of basic principles of perspective and photographic analysis on the part of Jack White, and apparently, of anyone citing him as a source of any anomaly in the backyard photographs. As has been pointed out numerous times in numerous ways right in this thread.

Jack White was your source of the nonsense claim about Oswald's height, right?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you had any knowledge worth imparting from all those non-conspiracy books you claim to have read, you would have an answer for the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head, but you don't. All you have is your standard, head in the sand mantra -- they are all either lying or mistaken. Some scholarship. Did you really read all of the statements of the Parkland doctors?????

Just a reminder, Robert, I believe I did point out in the past that the conspiracy books I've read outnumber the lone-assassin books I've read by a good margin. They would almost have to, as the conspiracy books in print outnumber the lone-assassin books by a large margin as well. The difference between you and I is I have actually researched the claims against the original source material, while you have apparently simply accepted the conspiracy claims you've read as the gospel truth, never attempt to research any of them, and simply parrot the silly, easily-refuted claims here. So you get stuck making some claim you believe to be true, and even call it 'irrefutable', but then constantly get your claims shown to be false in its substance and even nonsensical in any reasonable interpretation.

You do echo some silly claims that have been shown to be false since the original investigation back in 1963.

Like the Julia Ann Mercer claim of the rifle on the knoll.

And others that likewise make no sense whatsoever, like Marina took backyard photos of Oswald with his rifle, just not the ones in evidence. Of course, as previously pointed out to you, that interpretation of the evidence means the conspirators had 100% legit photos of Oswald with his rifle that would serve to convince the American public that Oswald was the assassin, and choose to destroy those instead of publishing the irrefutable photographic evidence that had no anomalies, and instead substituted faked photos that only the keen eye of Jack 'Shaman' White could discern the discrepancies with, whereas they fooled entirely any legitimate photo expert who actually examined the original first generation material.

At which point you always haul out your typical 'baloney' response and change the subject to some other 'irrefutable' claim.

And we repeat the cycle again.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Some scholarship, indeed.
How can you possbly be so dishonest?
A drawing, that is.
Not a photo.




Google's your friend, Robert.
Here's the first hit when I googled JFK's head wound:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm

The truth's out there, you know!

I really wonder why anyone bothers to cite Mr. McAdams for anything. Yeah, he's got many of the docs listed there and their sworn statements. Have you bothered to even read any of them????

Here's just one. The others are basically the same, describing a large blow-out hole in the back of the head.


"...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted."

Dr. McCelleland.

You might also note that the there are only drawings on the McAdams site , the same phony drawings that were shown to the Warren Commission.

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, if a shooter had fired from the grassy knoll the blowout would have been on Ks left.

Why do you keep destroying your own argument?

 

[Robert Prey]

All you are doing here Robert is revealing why no one takes you seriously. No researcher worth his salt would settle for just checking second or third generation copies of an image to verify whether it had been tampered with.

Fine. Then from herewith as an alleged researcher, you must dismiss yourself from all further discussion of the topic until such time as you are able to acquire a first generation original photo.

 

[HSienzant]

...The guy shrinks in 133C because he is simply pasted in.

I would be willing to wager you won't be able to come close to attempting to prove that that without resorting to circular reasoning or one or more other logical fallacies.

Wouldn't it have been easier to:

A) simply photograph someone with Oswald's rifle in Oswald's backyard at Neely Street (and then just change the head to Oswald's head)? than to

B) photograph the empty backyard and then paste in a figure, retouch the photo to put in the appropriate shadows and the correct size rifle, and then also substitute an Oswald head over the actual head of the figure pasted in?

The A option above seems so much simpler and leads to fewer artifacts that could reveal the tampering. All the shadows would be correct, the fingernails would be correct, the rifle length would be correct, the height of the person would be correct, etc. etc.

The B option above seems so much more complex and time-consuming (but hey, maybe it's just me), more likely to reveal the tampering, and less likely to survive 49 years without revealing the conspiracy.

But according to you, the conspirators again choose the hard way to do it, the one more likely to reveal the conspiracy, instead of the easy way, the one most likely to survive scrutiny and least likely to reveal the conspiracy. Why'd they do it that way, Robert? Any idea?

If not, why don't you simply argue for option A, instead of option B?

Either way, you would still not have any evidence to support your argument, but at least you would not be arguing for the most elaborate and time-consuming and least likely construction one could think of in the annals of conspiracy argumentation. You'd at least be arguing for the least-elaborate, easiest, and most-likely construction of photographic forgery.

Why did your conspirators insist on doing everything the hard way instead of the easy way, Robert?

You got the conspirators planning a turkey shoot by shooting the President from multiple positions and then framing a patsy shooting from only one position; that necessitates body alteration and planting of evidence to frame Oswald; none of which would be necessary if they simply shot JFK from the TSBD sniper's nest window with Oswald's rifle.

You got them making the photos hard to forge, instead of easy.

You got them throwing away legitimate backyard photos, and then substituting easy ones.

Do you claims every make any sense?

Hank

Hank

 

[jargon buster]

Have you got the original backyard photo Robert, if not then you're out too.

 

[Robert Prey]

Did you even read the thread? "Lying or mistaken" is your mantra. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding "not supported by evidence" and "invalidated by evidence."

If you want us to give a flying **** about your eyewitnesses VALIDATE THEIR CLAIMS WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Otherwise we don't care. Why do you keep repeating the same rubbish over and again when you KNOW there is no point?

If you aren't trying to convince us, why do you keep telling us our heads are in the sand? Do you just like being rude?

If you do want to convince us, then I have patiently explained what will convince us, many times over. So why ignore it and try to insult us time and again, knowing there is a minimum standard of evidence you wont reach?

Why does it even matter to you that we don't beleve the claims you can't validate?

It's your own boring mantra. The physical evidence is worm food. The autopsy pics are declared fake by those who took the originals. So where is your "physical" evidence?????

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's your own boring mantra. The physical evidence is worm food. The autopsy pics are declared fake by those who took the originals. So where is your "physical" evidence?????

One question mark at a time, please. You might ask your pee stained doofus friend.

Hey, in some pictures, the doofus has a square chin! Did you fake that picture and paste in an idiot????? LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

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

Perhaps you would like to sponsor a conspiracy book burning party where you could finally never again have to deal with all the stuff you disagree with. Perhaps at that book burning would have to include sources such as "The Warren Report" and its supporting volumes where many of the sworn statements of the medical personnel describing a large blow-out wound in the back of the head are sourced. Perhaps you would also like to burn other "conspiracy" sources, such as the final report of the HSCA which concluded that the President was assassinated as the result of a Conspiracy. Perhaps then, and only then you could finally take your own head from out of the sand and be free of any arguments that conflict with your own 50 years of brainwash.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, if a shooter had fired from the grassy knoll the blowout would have been on Ks left.

Why do you keep destroying your own argument?

A shot to the right temple logically travels to the right rear.

 

[jargon buster]

A shot to the right temple logically travels to the right rear.

With a BB gun maybe.

 

[pakeha]

.... Perhaps at that book burning would have to include sources such as "The Warren Report" and its supporting volumes where many of the sworn statements of the medical personnel describing a large blow-out wound in the back of the head are sourced. ...

"...the sworn statements of the medical personnel describing a large blow-out wound in the back of the head..."

This has already been treated fairly extensively in the links even I, a newcomer, provided.
You simply assert and repeat a claim.
Why is that?

And the link to the descriptions of the real perps?
I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

[HSienzant]

Fine. Then from herewith as an alleged researcher, you must dismiss yourself from all further discussion of the topic until such time as you are able to acquire a first generation original photo.

Bang! Robert just took off his left left at the knee!

Jack White is dead as a photographic analyst. So is everyone else Robert cited.

That leaves only the conclusions of the HSCA photographic panel experts, who were unanamous that the photos showed no evidence of falsification that they could find.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

A shot to the right temple logically travels to the right rear.

Could you post a picture of those "boomerang" bullets????? LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

Interestingly most of the claims of fakery of the BY photos don't need original materials to check the validity of the claims. Like the false claim of the square chin, pretty much all of the specious claims can be easily checked by just having a decent understanding of basic photographic principle.

Sadly most CT's fail in this regard. Seems those here at JREF share the same fate.

Sadly, none of the "experts" on the HSCA photo panel ever attempted to replicate any of them.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

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

Perhaps you would like to sponsor a conspiracy book burning party where you could finally never again have to deal with all the stuff you disagree with. Perhaps at that book burning would have to include sources such as "The Warren Report" and its supporting volumes where many of the sworn statements of the medical personnel describing a large blow-out wound in the back of the head are sourced. Perhaps you would also like to burn other "conspiracy" sources, such as the final report of the HSCA which concluded that the President was assassinated as the result of a Conspiracy. Perhaps then, and only then you could finally take your own head from out of the sand and be free of any arguments that conflict with your own 50 years of brainwash.

Sadly for Robert, I argued for none of that.

I merely pointed out his sources are falsifying evidence by citing statements out of context, etc. Now he wants to go on a witch hunt, apparently, and burn the Warren Report because his sources lie to him.

I think your sugested methodology for resolving conflicts in interpreting the evidence might be a little -- extreme.
Robert, why not research the claims instead of suggesting we burn the source material that could help us resolve the conflicts in interpretation?
Remember, nobody brought up burning anything except you.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, I've asked this before, and you never answered. What's the evidence the Hesters actually saw what they claimed they saw? Is it simply their word, roughly two decades after the fact, with no supporting evidence, that you accept? Or did they actually support their claims with some material evidence?

Hank

PS: Three of those supposedly "irrefutable anomalies" (the horizontal shadow, the chin, and Oswald's apparent height change) have been refuted. What other "irrefutable anomalies" you got that we can refut for you?

The statement of a witness by itself is evidence.

 

[Garrison]

The statement of a witness by itself is evidence.

Not really, eyewitnesses in general have been proven over the years to be highly unreliable; they misinterpret or misremember events, they simply fail to take in details or their stories are influenced by discussing the event with others or badly conducted interviews, and that's of course excluding those occasions where there is deliberate deception. An eyewitness account may be a starting point to look for evidence but by itself its just a story.

 

[pakeha]

I really wonder why anyone bothers to cite Mr. McAdams for anything. ...You might also note that the there are only drawings on the McAdams site , the same phony drawings that were shown to the Warren Commission.

Ah, that link DID get you react, didn't it?
Yes, I read through a number of the sources and I really get the impression you're cherry-picking.

Calling a drawing 'phoney', particularly in your case, where you yourself cite that particular drawing in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8140642&postcount=4694
seems very dishonest, to say the least.
I find it amusing the drawing you yourself cited there is one you later claim is phoney .