JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

Get up to speed, TomTom.

I see this sentiment a lot among JFK conspiracy theorists. Apparently one of the standard tactics is to browbeat one's critics, saying that they haven't sufficiently reviewed "the literature." It took me a while to decode that rhetoric. What it means is, "You haven't read every single scrap of conspiracy hokum, therefore you're not qualified to discuss my theory." "The literature" in this case is not the general body of knowledge that pertains to an investigation; in conspiracy jargon "the literature" means the vast amount of self-published speculation and paranoid drivel churned out by conspiracy authors.

I think that "the literature" ought better to refer to the body of real knowledge, such as the epistemology of investigation and the science of photographic analysis -- you know, the things that actually govern how similar investigations are done in the real world, where the results actually matter. But no, conspiracism -- especially among JFKers -- seems to be a whole lot of chest-thumping about how those conspiracists know so much more about something than anyone else. Those guys have an inferiority complex big enough to drive a truck through. Steeping themselves in conspiracy lore seems to be a substitute for real education and experience.

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.

But somehow you can.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Changing horses. The discussion was about the alleged anomalies in the backyard photos in their unmatted form. You are still unable to explain why they are supposed to be anomalous, except to state that neither you nor your patently uninformed pseudo-experts understand what's happening in them. That's not proof of anomaly; that's evidence of your ineptitude. And in case there was any doubt, we tried to discuss them in greater depth, but you dismissed that discussion with your infamous one-word responses. Your ineptitude is therefore proven, and thus your personal expectations for what real photos should look like is provably inadequate.

And you know this. That's the sad part. Your behavior is not consistent with wanting to learn more. It's more consistent with wanting to remain in a fantasy world.

 

[vtbub]

Hank,

For Robert's claim to be correct regarding a second shooter, would not that shooter had to have fired from the triple overpass to cause that kind of wound?

Also, would Zapruder and Sitzman be one of the first to notice if a shot had come from a different direction based on the fact that a knoll shot would have been much louder?

Ron

 

[Robert Prey]

Changing horses. The discussion was about the alleged anomalies in the backyard photos in their unmatted form. You are still unable to explain why they are supposed to be anomalous, except to state that neither you nor your patently uninformed pseudo-experts understand what's happening in them. That's not proof of anomaly; that's evidence of your ineptitude. And in case there was any doubt, we tried to discuss them in greater depth, but you dismissed that discussion with your infamous one-word responses. Your ineptitude is therefore proven, and thus your personal expectations for what real photos should look like is provably inadequate.

And you know this. That's the sad part. Your behavior is not consistent with wanting to learn more. It's more consistent with wanting to remain in a fantasy world.

And your behavior is consistent with a one-note song entitled 'Ad Homimen
Attack" which is your only proven expertise.

 

[Robert Prey]

I see this sentiment a lot among JFK conspiracy theorists. Apparently one of the standard tactics is to browbeat one's critics, saying that they haven't sufficiently reviewed "the literature." It took me a while to decode that rhetoric. What it means is, "You haven't read every single scrap of conspiracy hokum, therefore you're not qualified to discuss my theory." "The literature" in this case is not the general body of knowledge that pertains to an investigation; in conspiracy jargon "the literature" means the vast amount of self-published speculation and paranoid drivel churned out by conspiracy authors.

I think that "the literature" ought better to refer to the body of real knowledge, such as the epistemology of investigation and the science of photographic analysis -- you know, the things that actually govern how similar investigations are done in the real world, where the results actually matter. But no, conspiracism -- especially among JFKers -- seems to be a whole lot of chest-thumping about how those conspiracists know so much more about something than anyone else.

More ad hominoms from a self -proclaimed 'expert". His usual boring one-note song.

 

[Robert Prey]

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
[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare2.jpg[/qimg]

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

The body of the model perp is crucial to the conclusion. Obviously, not something you'd like to consider.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

If you don't know about the 4th missed shot, you have missed something in your reading of your alleged 500 books on the assassination.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank,

For Robert's claim to be correct regarding a second shooter, would not that shooter had to have fired from the triple overpass to cause that kind of wound?

Also, would Zapruder and Sitzman be one of the first to notice if a shot had come from a different direction based on the fact that a knoll shot would have been much louder?

Ron

I would say no to the first, as JFK's head was determined to be canted to the left of the centerline of the limo 17 degrees but also tilted forward at the time of the head shot.

When Robert drew a line through the head, he had a hard time getting it above the horizontal - he knew he had to get that line above the horizontal (higher in the front) because the Grassy Knoll is a good 15-20 feet above Elm Street from where the shot would have been. But even Robert's line is too low to point high enough to get to the knoll, or the overpass. So I suggested perhaps the driver shot him?

Another candidate might be James Tague (he said tongue-in-cheek), but anyone on the overpass would be too high, in my opinion, to fit the forehead entry and right rear exit wound Robert alleged.

Regarding Zapruder and Sitzman, depending on the weapon used, the source of the sound might have been different, but it might not have sounded different, as Lee Bowers said, there is a certain amount of reverberation from the overpass & the TSBD - echoes. So I don't know if we could put that much reliability on two earwitnesses one way or the other.

I know I am comfortable pointing out that the vast majority of witnesses:

1. Heard only three shots
2. Thought all the shots came from the same location (which might have been the knoll, or the TSBD, or whatever).

Very few witnesses thought they came from multiple locations AND thought there was more than three shots. A few of the men on the overpass and Jean Hill are the only ones to come to mind (and to be fair, Jean Hill heard from "four to six" shots. She was undecided on exactly how many.


Hank

 

[JayUtah]

And your behavior is consistent with a one-note song entitled 'Ad Homimen Attack" which is your only proven expertise.

You keep singing this sad song, proving you understand neither the nature of expertise nor what an ad hominem argument is. Your experts aren't really experts. Get over it.

Why did you dodge my point about changing horses? You clearly evaded that man's question.

 

[JayUtah]

More ad hominoms from a self -proclaimed 'expert". His usual boring one-note song.

Yes, my song is and has always been that you don't know what you're talking about. I can speak at length on the various principles you're ignoring, satisfying plenty of people that I have the expertise I claim to have. Why can't you? Why must you always respond with "Baloney?"

You can't actually talk about the sciences that pertain to your claims. So you're left with name-calling. When are you going to actually read "the literature" and speak intelligently about the science of photographic analysis?

 

[HSienzant]

If you don't know about the 4th missed shot, you have missed something in your reading of your alleged 500 books on the assassination.

I know I haven't seen anything beyond allegations of a fourth shot. No evidence of a fourth shot to date.

Will you be posting that evidence anytime soon?

You originally said the Governor's testimony proved conspiracy because he said he was hit by a separate shot than hit JFK. I corrected that; you admitted the correction, but changed the subject away from Connally's testimony to 'evidence of a fourth shot'. But you have yet to introduce any into the record.


Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

And your behavior is consistent with a one-note song entitled 'Ad Homimen
Attack" which is your only proven expertise.

More ad hominoms from a self -proclaimed 'expert". His usual boring one-note song.

Baloney. Stop using phrases that you clearly have demonstrated that you don't know the meaning of. You're only serving to further embarrass yourself. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

I've never been a "holocaust denier" nor ever discussed that or anything supporting 9/11 conspiracies. These remarks are not only off point to the thread, not only untruths, but slanderous. An apology and a retraction, please.

 

[JayUtah]

The body of the model perp is crucial to the conclusion. Obviously, not something you'd like to consider.

I asked you to consider exactly that sort of thing when I was talking about degrees of freedom in the affine versus projective spaces. Your answer was "Baloney." Apology and retraction, please.

 

[HSienzant]

The body of the model perp is crucial to the conclusion. Obviously, not something you'd like to consider.

Nope; that's certainly not what you said to start with.

The argument you made and White made and various conspiracy books and websites all make is:

"a rifle held at 11 o'clock can't cast a horizontal shadow".

The image I posted proves it can, and does. And I posted the video the frame capture is from, so you can't claim the comparison shot is faked.

The 11 o'clock argument has been and always will be bogus nonsense by people who don't know any better.

And moving the goalposts now by talking about the shadow of the man is just more nonsense by someone unwilling to admit his error.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

I know I haven't seen anything beyond allegations of a fourth shot. No evidence of a fourth shot to date.

Will you be posting that evidence anytime soon?

You originally said the Governor's testimony proved conspiracy because he said he was hit by a separate shot than hit JFK. I corrected that; you admitted the correction, but changed the subject away from Connally's testimony to 'evidence of a fourth shot'. But you have yet to introduce any into the record.
Hank

James "Jim" Thomas Tague (born October 17, 1936, Plainfield, Indiana) was a witness to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. He received a minor wound on his right cheek during the assassination. He is the only person, in addition to Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally, known to have been wounded by gun fire in Dallas' Dealey Plaza that day.
\Soon after the shots were fired Tague was approached by a Dallas sheriff detective, Buddy Walthers, who had noticed that Tague had specks of blood on his right facial cheek. (Tague also had a small left facial scab, caused by an unrelated event which occurred a week prior to assassination) The detective asked Tague where he had been standing. The two men then examined the area and discovered — on the upper part of the Main Street south curb — a "very fresh scar" impact that, to each of them, looked like a bullet had struck there and taken a small chip out of the curb's concrete. They came to the conclusion that one bullet ricocheted off the curb and the debris hit Tague. This curb surrounding the scar chip was removed and replaced on Saturday November 23, 1963 (the day after the assassination) and is now in the National Archives. The scar chip was 23 feet 6 inches (7.2 m) east of the east edge of the Triple Underpass railroad bridge, about 20 (6.1 m) feet from where Tague stood during the attack.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tague

 

[EventHorizon]

James "Jim" Thomas Tague (born October 17, 1936, Plainfield, Indiana) was a witness to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. He received a minor wound on his right cheek during the assassination. He is the only person, in addition to Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally, known to have been wounded by gun fire in Dallas' Dealey Plaza that day.
\Soon after the shots were fired Tague was approached by a Dallas sheriff detective, Buddy Walthers, who had noticed that Tague had specks of blood on his right facial cheek. (Tague also had a small left facial scab, caused by an unrelated event which occurred a week prior to assassination) The detective asked Tague where he had been standing. The two men then examined the area and discovered — on the upper part of the Main Street south curb — a "very fresh scar" impact that, to each of them, looked like a bullet had struck there and taken a small chip out of the curb's concrete. They came to the conclusion that one bullet ricocheted off the curb and the debris hit Tague. This curb surrounding the scar chip was removed and replaced on Saturday November 23, 1963 (the day after the assassination) and is now in the National Archives. The scar chip was 23 feet 6 inches (7.2 m) east of the east edge of the Triple Underpass railroad bridge, about 20 (6.1 m) feet from where Tague stood during the attack.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tague

And this is evidence of a 4th shot.....how exactly?

 

[Robert Prey]

Changing horses. The discussion was about the alleged anomalies in the backyard photos in their unmatted form. You are still unable to explain why they are supposed to be anomalous, except to state that neither you nor your patently uninformed pseudo-experts understand what's happening in them. That's not proof of anomaly; that's evidence of your ineptitude. And in case there was any doubt, we tried to discuss them in greater depth, but you dismissed that discussion with your infamous one-word responses. Your ineptitude is therefore proven, and thus your personal expectations for what real photos should look like is provably inadequate.

And you know this. That's the sad part. Your behavior is not consistent with wanting to learn more. It's more consistent with wanting to remain in a fantasy world.

And your behavior is consistent with....

 

[Robert Prey]

And this is evidence of a 4th shot.....how exactly?

3 plus one equals 4.

 

[LSSBB]

And your behavior is consistent with....


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f71fcd526eef.jpg[/qimg]

Baloney.