JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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

None of the first three have been replicated. AS for the nose shadow, as I have previously stated, I do not subscribe to all of White's claims and that is one of them. The nose shadow is just too short to make any claims pro or con.

Robert, stop lying.

Here's number one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8138914&postcount=4679

Here's number two:

Here's number three:

Here's number four for good measure:

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hmmm.
I don't think it was the diagramme which triggered Robert Pre's wrath here-

I think it was saying that conspiracy books lie.
I've seen this same reaction from a colleague of mine who buys into the chemtrails, etc conspiracy.

Fair enough. I assumed it was the illustration as that was the only new point I introduced in that post.

The fact of the matter is I've already documented quite a number of occasions where the conspiracy books were not faithful to the evidence. Robert should be able to rebut those claims and show where I was wrong if he is going to insist the conspiracy books he's been reading and using as his primary source material are accurately summing up the state of the evidence.

He cannot.

He is in a tough spot right now. He can either do as I suggest, start reading the primary source material and forego the conspiracy books for the moment, or he can continue to assume they are telling him the truth, and get his points crushed when he posts them.

Like all the preceding ones he's posted.

His call.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Science does not assume anything.

That's right; science discovers. And from that century of study in photographic principles, which in turn relate to 400 years worth of study in optics, we have a huge body of knowledge regarding how things are depicted through projection. You simply assume you know all of it, and therefore can categorically say what did and did not cause some particular visible effect. It takes all of ten minutes to show the dozen things you aren't aware of, all of which lead away from your predetermined conspiracy explanation.

You have no demonstrable skill or knowledge in this field, and you're not a scientist. Get over yourself.

Without replication, all you have is speculation.

And when I replicated various photos that your highly-praised experts said were theoretically possible, all they could do was stammer and call me names. Your "experts" have neither theoretical knowledge nor practical experience. They are amateur blowhards with zero credibility in the field.

 

[HSienzant]

Only the fake prints on the rifle,

Asserted. Not proven. J.C.Day photographed those fingerprints on the afternoon of the assassination. They are there, and you can see them in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence.

the planted rifle sales receipt,

Asserted. Not proven. Robert, consider this: If the conspirators were going to frame Oswald for owning a rifle, why didn't they frame him for owning a good one, instead of the 20-year-old military surplus rifle?

the fake palm print,

Asserted. Not proven. The palm print was established to have come off the rifle by the impressions of the rifle found on the lift. The Warren Commission had the FBI investigate the Dallas Police statements on this, and the FBI concluded the lift came from the rifle.

all of the fake autopsy photos declared fake by those who took and developed them,

Asserted. Not proven. We understand there are some people who claimed to have developed the photos who said that they don't recall certain aspects of the photos (more than three decades after the fact).
What you need to prove is that:

1. They developed the photos
2. Their 33-year old memory is correct.

the altered x-rays, etc.,etc.,

Asserted. Not proven. The HSCA validated the autopsy X-Rays by a variety of means. They established they were post-mortem x-rays of the president.

You can continue to assert these claims, or you can try to prove them by actually introducing evidence.

I will wager you will chose the former.

Hank

 

[Garrison]

So forged, planted, altered evidence trumps 40 plus witnesses all claiming to the same observations, eh??? Excellent reasoning.

Robert you have yet present any credible evidence for such tampering, until you do so you aren't entitled to expect the rest of us to assume it as fact. Until you present some valid reason to ignore it the physical evidence trumps the vagaries of human memory.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

He is in a tough spot right now...

Y'know what? I would wager he doesn't think he's anything but righteously victorious, from the first reply to his first post to the present. He's not interested in debate, learning, or even consideration. And wherever he posts elsewhere now or in time to come I have a strong sense he'll maintain his position wasn't dented or even smudged. Ego-boosting beliefs are like that.

Call him the Rick Santorum of conspiracy theorists.

 

[JayUtah]

And when I replicated various photos that your highly-praised experts said were theoretically possible..

I meant theoretically impossible.

 

[HSienzant]

Y'know what? I would wager he doesn't think he's anything but righteously victorious, from the first reply to his first post to the present. He's not interested in debate, learning, or even consideration. And wherever he posts elsewhere now or in time to come I have a strong sense he'll maintain his position wasn't dented or even smudged. Ego-boosting beliefs are like that.

Call him the Rick Santorum of conspiracy theorists.

Well, I disagree. The fact that he lost his cool and called me a potential book burner is evidence, I think, that some of these criticisms have hit him where it hurts.

Every conspiracy theorist needs to confront his assumptions at some point. I did it back in the early 1980's. It might be Robert's time.

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You may be correct; my cynicism often gets the better of me.

However, this is also a person who has posted at length against same-sex marriage* with a disregard for evidentiary information helpfully provided for his/her consideration, the same as I've seen in this thread. I don't know that one can be diving at such a rate that he can manage to pull back on the stick with enough force to overcome such inertia.

*Perhaps other topics in other sub-forums as well. I don't peruse everything here.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I am just curious. How do the JFK whackjobs explain away the almost perfect recreations of the "magic bullet" shot both in real life and in a computer animation?

 

[TheRedWorm]

I am just curious. How do the JFK whackjobs explain away the almost perfect recreations of the "magic bullet" shot both in real life and in a computer animation?

To (mis)quote Sarah Palin: "Ignore, baby, ignore!"; or if you prefer a slightly more pithy rendition: "Shills, baby, shills!"

 

[HSienzant]

I am just curious. How do the JFK whackjobs explain away the almost perfect recreations of the "magic bullet" shot both in real life and in a computer animation?

They treat it the same way they treat everything else - they criticize it.

The bullet hit a few inches too low on Connally, after exiting too low on JFK; it did not penetrate the Connally leg like the real bullet, merely striking it and bouncing off; etc. etc.

They want a recreation to duplicate an event exactly; and if it doesn't; then the recreation is a failure and doesn't prove anything.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You may be correct; my cynicism often gets the better of me.

However, this is also a person who has posted at length against same-sex marriage* with a disregard for evidentiary information helpfully provided for his/her consideration, the same as I've seen in this thread. I don't know that one can be diving at such a rate that he can manage to pull back on the stick with enough force to overcome such inertia.

*Perhaps other topics in other sub-forums as well. I don't peruse everything here.

I have limited myself here at the present time to the JFK assassination board, my main interest, so I can't speak to Robert's actions elsewhere. I do hope that, if nothing else, he is learning something about the Kennedy assassination here that the conspiracy books don't begin to tell him.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

I am just curious. How do the JFK whackjobs explain away the almost perfect recreations of the "magic bullet" shot both in real life and in a computer animation?

One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

 

[JayUtah]

One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.

And how would he know?

That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

No, there is never one "bellwether" bit of evidence that proves a farfetched conclusion "by itself" while leaving the rest of the evidence to wallow in some imagined ambiguity. This is how conspiracy theorists work, but it's not how historians work.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert you have yet present any credible evidence for such tampering, until you do so you aren't entitled to expect the rest of us to assume it as fact. Until you present some valid reason to ignore it the physical evidence trumps the vagaries of human memory.

If you don't find the people who created and developed the original autopsy photos as "credible," then who would you find credible as to their authenticity?

 

[Rich_C]

One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

No. You're really desperate now, aren't you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

That proves the shot came from the rear since Connelly couldn't see it.

 

[Robert Prey]

You already told us McAdams site is garbage. So why are you citing anything there?

This is what you said about Dulaney thus far:



I'll ask again, why are you counting him as a back-of-the head witness? Perhaps this time you will answer without citing a person & a website you already claimed you don't trust.

Hank

Hank, you really do need to get up to speed on this. Dulaney was one of 4 doctors selected by the Nova Program in 1988 to view the alleged autopsy photos. McAdams cited them and one of the posters here (pakeha)referred to that McAdams web site. I merely revealed what each of those doctors statements of the wounds were contemporaneous to Nov. 22, 1963 and in the process demolished the McAdams' brainwash.

For your reference: pakeha wrote:
Posts: 3,720http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
Were the doctors lying here, Robert?

 

[HSienzant]

One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

Another conspiracy myth you repeat here. Connally said he was hit by the second bullet. He had no way of knowing what happened with the first bullet, as he was facing forward at the time of the first shot. He said he was basing his *conclusion* that JFK was hit by the first shot on what his wife Nellie said, but he also was careful to point out that he couldn't speak to that of anything he personally saw.

Hank