JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Probably because unlike you they understand optics and perspective. Once you comprehend how those things work your so-called anomalies disappear.

HOw do Optics and Perspective explain the creation of a ghosted backyard photo of Oswald????

 

[Tomtomkent]

HOw do Optics and Perspective explain the creation of a ghosted backyard photo of Oswald????

What evidence, other than a claim, do you have that the two are related in anyway other than the "ghost" being an after-the-fact pile of bunk?

The image.is NOT the original photo with Oswald matted out. It is an entirely different image of the same location made at some unspecified time that in no meaningful way matches the images of Oswald, the matte has been applied is the ghost FROM known images. It is as simple to state this is proof of a later hoax, as it is for you to make your. Assertion. In the absence of any photoartefacts in any known image of oswald indicating composite images, or of any Oswald image using this background, we have no reason to suspect this "ghost" existed before 1990. It is fools gold, no matter how much you like the glitter.

 

[Southwind17]

From: "JFK Conspiracy of Silence" by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D.

"Had I been allwoed to testify, I would have told them that there is no doubt in my mind that the bullet that killed President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll area...

The entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing...based on my experience with trauma to the head from gunshots, I knew that only a high velocity bullet from a rifle could dissect a cranium that way. Part of his brain, the cerebellum was dangling from the back of his head...

...From the damage I saw there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium the missle obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum...

The hundreds of trauma cases involving gunshots that I have seen and treated since 1963 further convince me that my conclusions about President Kennedy's wouinds were correct....The men on the Commission heard exactly what they wanted to hear, or what they were instructed to hear and then reported what they wanted to report or what they were instructed to report.... the Warren Report (is) a fable, a virtual insult to the intellilgence of the American People." [emboldening added]

He sounded so convincing, didn't he, until he could no longer resist the urge to show his emotional, and hence unobjective, bias. The truth always comes out! Thanks you for highlighting that testimonial flaw, Robert; much appreciated.

And if that were followed in a court of law, there would be virtually no witnesses. Utter baloney.

I just uttered 'baloney', Robert; nothing happened! Should I shout it out loud, do you think!?

HOw do Optics and Perspective explain the creation of a ghosted backyard photo of Oswald????

They don't, but they explain all of the anomailes that you allege.

 

[Robert Prey]

What evidence, other than a claim, do you have that the two are related in anyway other than the "ghost" being an after-the-fact pile of bunk?

The image.is NOT the original photo with Oswald matted out. It is an entirely different image of the same location made at some unspecified time that in no meaningful way matches the images of Oswald, the matte has been applied is the ghost FROM known images. It is as simple to state this is proof of a later hoax, as it is for you to make your. Assertion. In the absence of any photoartefacts in any known image of oswald indicating composite images, or of any Oswald image using this background, we have no reason to suspect this "ghost" existed before 1990. It is fools gold, no matter how much you like the glitter.

Get up to speed, TomTom. The ghosted image is of Oswald in pic 133C and was admitted to have been made Dallas Detective Bobby G. Brown shortly after his "re-enactment" though he can't explain how or why he did so.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Get up to speed, TomTom. The ghosted image is of Oswald in pic 133C and was admitted to have been made Dallas Detective Bobby G. Brown shortly after his "re-enactment" though he can't explain how or why he did so.

No. Thats the CLAIM. It is unsupported by evidence.

There is ZERO evidence to support your assertions in this thread it was an intermediary stage for any photo fakery.

Your new claim does not alter that,or offer any credence to your claims of fakery.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Edited for truthfullness. You may also have noticed that:
1) this is not a court of law.
2) there is no logical reason for a critical thinkers forum to adopt the evidence requirements for a court of law, canonisation, or any other debating floor.
3) that is still Robert making excuses why should lower our standards to be convinced by what he has to offer, instead of offering a convincing argument.

Robert, in real courts, in the real world, eye witness testemony does not discredit physical evidence, but physical evidence can be used by a barrister to completely discredit a witness. Eye witnesses are often thoroughly pulverised simply because the sworn testemony they make on the stand wavers from that recorded in statements. You greatly exagerate the importance placed upon it.

On what legal experience do you base this?

 

[infocusinc]

Hank wrote:

Robert, stop lying.

Here's number one:


Comment: You really need to take another look at your model perp. I mean that shadow that he reflects of himself as opposed to the shadow that Oswald reflects. There is no twisting and turning in the Oswald pose, nor any dropping down of the rifle. It is not a valid replication. On the other hand, the one I offered is.

Have you viewed the work of Hany Farid?

 

[infocusinc]

Get up to speed, TomTom. The ghosted image is of Oswald in pic 133C and was admitted to have been made Dallas Detective Bobby G. Brown shortly after his "re-enactment" though he can't explain how or why he did so.

Which proves exactly WHAT?

That someone COULD put a matte on a photo?

Congratulations! Your proof that mattes CAN be added to a photo breaks the case wide open! [/sarcasm}

 

[Robert Prey]

Quote:
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to identify these prints?
Mr. LATONA. I--the ones I developed, I did identify.
Mr. EISENBERG. Whose prints did you find them to be?
Mr. LATONA. They were identified as a fingerprint and a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

But later testimony:

Mr. Latona.
I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.
Now,

 

[jargon buster]

But later testimony:

hahahah..I thought you would fall for that Robert.

So you are saying that under questioning he changed his mind?
Sort of casts doubt on your 40 witnesses being credible evidence doesnt it?

 

[Robert Prey]

Edited for truthfullness. You may also have noticed that:
1) this is not a court of law.
2) there is no logical reason for a critical thinkers forum to adopt the evidence requirements for a court of law, canonisation, or any other debating floor.
3) that is still Robert making excuses why should lower our standards to be convinced by what he has to offer, instead of offering a convincing argument.

Robert, in real courts, in the real world, eye witness testemony does not discredit physical evidence, but physical evidence can be used by a barrister to completely discredit a witness. Eye witnesses are often thoroughly pulverised simply because the sworn testemony they make on the stand wavers from that recorded in statements. You greatly exagerate the importance placed upon it.

On what legal experience do you base this?

Summary of the Rules of Evidence
By Vincent Dicarlo of State of California Attorney General Medical Fraud Bureau

Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.

http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html

 

[RoboTimbo]

The first bullet, whether magic or not, did not kill Kennedy.

Unbelievable! You got one thing right! I'm not going to mock you in this post at all to celebrate. Well done.

 

[jargon buster]

Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.

Isnt that because opinions dont require additional evidence Robert?

 

[Southwind17]

Summary of the Rules of Evidence
By Vincent Dicarlo of State of California Attorney General Medical Fraud Bureau

Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.

'Most basic' being the operative words, as are 'shot' and 'foot', I'd say!

The fact that it requires no other form of prerequisite evidence says nothing about its veracity, only that it stands alone, and, of course, falls alone (in many cases!).

 

[HSienzant]

... 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. That piece of misinformation is refuted in the Governors' own words. He heard a first shot, then he was hit, then came a 3rd shot. We know of at least one more shot making 4 and conspiracy. And you didn't know that from the 500 books you claim to have read?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAc

The Governor heard three shots, correct? The part I boldfaced is exactly what I am claiming. There's nothing in there that says JFK was hit by the first shot. I note you originally said the Governor's own words meant conspiracy. You are changing your story - and moving the goalposts. Another logical fallacy by you.

"We" don't know about a fourth shot. "We" know that the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza who spoke of the number of shots reported hearing only three shots. You do think that witnesses are good sources of evidence, don't you -- what's that, only if they agree with you?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So far I've learned he's a gold bug, thinks legal tender is funny money, is against pursuing energy alternatives and think the answer is to "drill baby, drill", is a holocaust denier and I believe I seen him on the 9/11 sub forum spouting truther rot (although I could be wrong at that, if so I apologize).

Real charmer, no?

It takes all kinds.

We got all kinds!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

From: "JFK Conspiracy of Silence" by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D.

"Had I been allwoed to testify, I would have told them that there is no doubt in my mind that the bullet that killed President Kennedy was shot from the Grassy Knoll area...

The entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing...based on my experience with trauma to the head from gunshots, I knew that only a high velocity bullet from a rifle could dissect a cranium that way. Part of his brain, the cerebellum was dangling from the back of his head...

...From the damage I saw there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front...

Wait a second, isn't that why they have autopsies? If doctors could diagnose the cause of death accurately from the operating table, we could save a lot of money and just lay off all the forensic pathologists in the land. Crenshaw's OPINION here about the bullet path is meaningless. I am amazed you would cite it. On second thought, without this kind of meaningless information added to your pile to give the appearance of a massive amount of evidence pointing to a case, you wouldn't have any argument. As it turned out, Crenshaw had it nearly right - the wound went back to right-top and right side, leaving a gaping hole on the right hemisphere exactly as he described.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Summary of the Rules of Evidence
By Vincent Dicarlo of State of California Attorney General Medical Fraud Bureau

Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility.

http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html

Yes the most basic kind of evidence that does not require a prerequisite.
It can of course be invalidated by other forms of evidence. Having prerequisites, like the chain of custody discussed before does not make other forms of evidence less robust or reliable.

They are often in place to safeguard against the out of hand dismissals that you have attempted in this thread.

Either you dont entirely understand that document, you are misrepresenting it, or for some reason you are now undermining your own posts.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

Robert, stop lying.

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

Comment: You really need to take another look at your model perp. I mean that shadow that he reflects of himself as opposed to the shadow that Oswald reflects. There is no twisting and turning in the Oswald pose, nor any dropping down of the rifle. It is not a valid replication. On the other hand, the one I offered is.

The body of the person has never been the issue -- you are moving the goalposts again.

The claim has always been that the rifle held at an 11 o'clock position can not ever, under any circumstances, cast a horizontal shadow.

That claim has been disproven by the image cited.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare2.jpg

So now you are moving the goalposts and saying something else - claiming the body now is pertinent. It's not to the initial claim, and it's not to the shadow of the rifle cast. The person in the image (Caeruleo) is twisting and turning to check the shadow of the rifle. Is there any doubt that if he held the pipe the same way and simply turned to face the camera, the shadow of the rifle still would not change?

The pipe angle matches the rifle angle -- you yourself admitted as much in your initial post. Give it up, Robert, the conspiracy claim from Jack White and the conspiracy books you frequent has been exposed as nonsense.

Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

(Edited for clarification)

And if that were followed in a court of law, there would be virtually no witnesses. Utter baloney.

Is that a joke or do you really have that much difficulty with English?