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

Probably because unlike you they understand optics and perspective. Once you comprehend how those things work your so-called anomalies disappear.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

You really don't get it? Your are the potential book burner, Mr. Hank. And that would include all those books which contain evidence of conspiracy which you don't agree with including the Warren Report and the House Report. It is you who would prefer to only deal with the brainwash you've been fed for 50 years. But when you denigrate alleged "conspiracy books" you denigrate your own primary sources -- the Warren Report and the House Report. Why don't you stick to the evaluating the evidence rather than attacking the messenger whether in the form of a person or a book or a Report?????
 
Robert Prey said:
Sadly, none of the "experts" on the HSCA photo panel ever attempted to replicate any of them.
Click to expand...


Another lie Robert gleaned from Jack White.
Or is this lie all your own, Robert?

One of the supposedly 'irrefutable" instances of photo alteration is the supposed inconsistent shadow claims. The claim is that the nose shadow of Oswald falls exactly the same despite his head being straight up in one photo and tilted slightly to his left in another.

Critics claim this is impossible and ergo, "irrefutable evidence of photo fakery!" Where have we heard that before? ;)

The HSCA replicated it simply enough.
NoseShadow.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0101b.htm

So now we've examined the claims of the critics concerning four different supposedly irrefutable evidences of photographic alteration (the chin, the rifle shadow, the height of Oswald, and the nose shadow) and found they are all bunkum, and without any merit whatsoever.

Robert, how many more bogus claims about the photos do you intend to bring up and have exposed as nonsense before you start doubting that the critics of the Warren Commission are giving it to you straight?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why don't you compare that principle to forged, altered or planted physical evidence?????
 
Without replication, all you have is speculation.
Click to expand...
Robert, have you managed to fire a bullet into a mans right temple and have it come out behind his right ear?
Without replication you only have speculation.:)
 
Robert Prey said:
The statement of a witness by itself is evidence.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness! We have hundreds of millions of witnesses to the blowout to the right side of JFK's head. I do agree with you that they trump your imaginary number of 40. Or 50. Or 30. Or all. Or whatever your imaginary number is this week. LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why don't you compare that principle to forged, altered or planted physical evidence?????
Click to expand...


lol. You are assuming what you need to prove, Robert -- that there was forged, altered, and planted evidence.

Merely contrasting eyewitness accounts with physical evidence doesn't give you the right to throw out the physical evidence. It does establish the eyewitness(es) to be wrong.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
You really don't get it? Your are the potential book burner, Mr. Hank. And that would include all those books which contain evidence of conspiracy which you don't agree with including the Warren Report and the House Report. It is you who would prefer to only deal with the brainwash you've been fed for 50 years. But when you denigrate alleged "conspiracy books" you denigrate your own primary sources -- the Warren Report and the House Report. Why don't you stick to the evaluating the evidence rather than attacking the messenger whether in the form of a person or a book or a Report?????
Click to expand...


No, Robert. The only person who brought up book burning on this forum's thread was and remains YOU. It was and remains a straw argument entirely.

I suggested you go back and check out your conspiracy book claims against the original source claims. When I denigrated conspiracy books claims I am claiming the same thing I have all along - they are not being honest with you, and their claims in most cases don't jibe with the original source material. My claim doesn't denigrate the Warren Commission conclusions, the WC 26 volumes of evidence, nor the HSCA volumes of evidence. It is and remains my claim that the evidence of conspiracy is inflated and built out of misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the evidence. Since you haven't cited the Warren Commission volumes of evidence or the HSCA for very much at all, instead citing secondary sources such as Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment (a conspiracy book), it appeared to me you hadn't read very much first hand material at all, instead relying on those conspiracy books interpretations of the evidence as your sole source for your own claims and own interpretations of the evidence.

That is not attacking the messenger, that is attacking the messenger's claims. If you didn't believe me, I suggested you check out the messenger's claims yourself, just as I did.

At which point you brought up book burning.

BTW, when you claim "But when you denigrate alleged "conspiracy books" you denigrate your own primary sources -- the Warren Report and the House Report" -- You are assuming that which is under question - that the conspiracy books accurately reflect the truth of the matter, instead of playing games with the evidence.

And when you say "Why don't you stick to the evaluating the evidence rather than attacking the messenger whether in the form of a person or a book or a Report?????", I should not need to point out that is exactly what I have been doing for about 90 pages now (evaluating the evidence and giving you the benefit of my nearly 49 years of experience with this subject).

On the other hand, you've just called me a potential book burner, Robert. Who exactly is dealing in ad hominem attacks, Robert, among the two of us?

Hint: It isn't me.

Now, you can get all huffy about that, and lie some more about what I said, or you can check out the claims in the conspiracy books, instead of embarrassing yourself further. like I originally suggested you do.

Ball in your court.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The statement of a witness by itself is evidence.
Click to expand...


I asked for material evidence confirming the witness statement, Robert. You answered a different question entirely.

But let's play your game. We're not talking about the conspiracy right now, just in general, can you answer this question:

If the statement comes twenty years later, isn't sworn, has no confirmation, and is in conflict with the statements of police officers made within a few days of the crime, which one in general should we believe?

Are the statements of police officers made while investigating the crime and in the next few days after the commission of a crime generally more accurate and more believable than some witness who only comes forward 20 years later with a different *recollection*, who has no evidence in support of that *recollection*?

As a general rule, which is likely to be more accurate?

Now, apply your general rule to this particular case, where Robert Hester came forward with a story, and only later, did his wife support him with the same recollection (which means initially, she didn't recall it at all or initially recalled it differently). How accurate is that recollection of Robert Hester likely to be?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
A shot to the right temple logically travels to the right rear.
Click to expand...


Really, Robert? Even when the head is canted 17 degrees to the left of center of the centerline of the limo, which means the right profile of JFK's head would be presented to a grassy knoll shooter at the SE corner of the grassy knoll fence?

To me, that means a shot to the right temple should exit the left side of the head, not the back.

Why don't you diagram that bullet path for us - you know, to illustrate it for those of us who don't get the concept that a bullet fired from the right side of the person and hitting the right temple naturally exits the right rear of the head?

It shouldn't be too hard, as you do remember I already gave you an overhead view of the limo in Dealey Plaza at the time of the head shot?

You might remember moving the limo in that view back and to the right (back and to the right, back and to the right) to make the limo appear to be advancing on Bill Newman, instead of already past him?

Now, take that overhead view with the limousine properly placed and draw a straight line from the shooter on the grassy knoll through JFK's head and have it exit the rear of his head.

Bet you can't, and therefore won't.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert, since the moon appears as a different shape every night, does that mean that the moon's shape physically change every night? Since most eyewitnesses to the Titanic disaster saw the ship sink in one piece, did it?

If you only want to answer one question at a time, that's fine. Why don't you take the first one.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why don't you compare that principle to forged, altered or planted physical evidence?????
Click to expand...

Because physical evidence is objective and eyewitness evidence is subjective, we can measure claims about physical evidence and in the case of the ones you made dismiss them as baseless. The only way a recollection can be evaluated is by comparing it to physical evidence, where there is a discrepancy it is reasonable to assume that the recollection is flawed however credible or compelling the witnesses might seem.
Again if you want convince people you need to accept such well established principals and build your case accordingly. If you can't do so then you are just going to continue failing to sway anyone here.
 
Robert Prey said:
Sadly, none of the "experts" on the HSCA photo panel ever attempted to replicate any of them.
Click to expand...


You've now seen replications or explanations for four different claims of alteration right here on this forum, in this thread, in the last two or three days. One of them provided by the HSCA, and three others by members of this board.

The square vs rounded chin - explained.
The rifle shadow is horizontal issue - replicated.
The Oswald height varies issue - explained and illustrated.
The Oswald nose shadow issue - replicated.

What is the next issue you will need explained to you?

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


What part of the below post confused you into thinking I was talking about burning books at any point, Robert?
  • Was it the black post labelled "Beam behind Oswald"?
  • The two dots labelled as A' and B'?
  • The red line standing in for Oswald?
  • The fact I used MS-Paint to create the image?
  • What?

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.

angle.jpg

http://simfootball.net/JFK/angle.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom