• 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:
Southwind wrote:

The LHO/Obama square chin comparison is arguably the best example of those assertions of yours that have convincingly been quashed.

Comment:
In your dreams. A = A, B = B, and Square chin in three separate photos = square chin. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

[size=+10]=A[/size] [size=+10]=B[/size]

A=B; B=A - deal with THAT, Robert!
 
Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.
Click to expand...
????????
So how did he know the third shot was in fact the third shot and not the second?
 
Robert Prey said:
Argumentum Adsurdatum
Click to expand...
I think you mean 'argumentum ad absurdum', Robert. If your attention to detail with your wording is representative of your attention to detail generally it seems perfectly clear why you're barking up so many wrong trees!

 
Robert Prey said:
The record shows that all Humes did was stick his finger in the hole and it went nowhere. There was no tracking of that alleged bullet.
Click to expand...
"The record shows ..." What 'record' would that be, Robert? And how does that particular record differ from other records, like the Zapruder film? In other words, Robert, how do you decide what records are reliable and what aren't? Or is it simply a case of citing those records that support your argument and simply ignoring those that don't?! :rolleyes:
 
Robert Prey said:
As previously stated, and proved, Connally insisted till the day he died he was hit by a separate bullet. That fact alone, if true, proves conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Just like the Oswald backyard photos, if false, prove conspiracy?

It's fascinating how you continue to suggest conspiracy possibilities that are easily shown to be in error. It's as if you're insisting on the efficacy of your mathematical proof while maintaining that 1+1=37.
 
Robert Prey said:
Southwind wrote:

The LHO/Obama square chin comparison is arguably the best example of those assertions of yours that have convincingly been quashed.

Comment:
In your dreams. A = A, B = B, and Square chin in three separate photos = square chin. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Robert, since the moon appears as a different shape every night, does that mean that the moon's shape physically changes every night?
 
Robert Prey said:
Southwind wrote:

The LHO/Obama square chin comparison is arguably the best example of those assertions of yours that have convincingly been quashed.

Comment:
In your dreams. A = A, B = B, and Square chin in three separate photos = square chin. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Square Qbama chin in countless photos does not equal Obama having a square chin.

Your logic fails. Deal with it.

Wanna try again?
 
Robert Prey said:
Southwind wrote:

The LHO/Obama square chin comparison is arguably the best example of those assertions of yours that have convincingly been quashed.

Comment:
In your dreams. A = A, B = B, and Square chin in three separate photos = square chin. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

So who faked Obamas chin?
What happens to the moon when it wanes?
What shaped chin does a garage door have?
Why are you unaware these "anomalies" can and have been explained easily?

Why do you say "square chin in" and not "appearance of square chin in"?

They have not been convincingly quashed to anybody who was not already convinced of a conspiracy.
 
Robert Prey said:
In your dreams. A = A, B = B, and Square chin in three separate photos = square chin. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it has been dealt with. You're the only one who still clings to the absurd notion that the factors we mentioned do not affect your perception and mislead your interpretation of the shape of the chin. And since you flunked the pareidolia test (the shadow on the garage door), the reason for your misconception is laid bare. You are a poor interpreter of photographs. Deal with it.
 
JayUtah said:
The problem is that it has been dealt with. You're the only one who still clings to the absurd notion that the factors we mentioned do not affect your perception and mislead your interpretation of the shape of the chin. And since you flunked the pareidolia test (the shadow on the garage door), the reason for your misconception is laid bare. You are a poor interpreter of photographs. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

And you are an "expert" at self-deception. Your "pareidolia test" is childish baloney.
 
Robert Prey said:
And you are an "expert" at self-deception.
Click to expand...

Sticks and stones. To this day, the only response you have been able to muster to my posts expressing the expertise I profess is, "Baloney." You are clearly unable or unwilling to engage in a fact-based discussion regarding your claims, and you seem able now only to hurl insults. This is the best the JFK conspiracy theory crowd can muster?

Your "pareidolia test" is childish baloney.
Click to expand...

No, it's the kind of test routinely administered to measure an individual's aptitude for spatial reasoning. Good spatial reasoning skills are required from people who want to be successful at photographic interpretation. You failed the test. It's not uncommon for people who fail tests to try to blame the test, but the fact remains that for this and other reasons we've discussed, your ability to determine the nature and authenticity of photos by inspection is indeed suspect.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. That's the point. He doesn't have a square chin, except in the backyard photos. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I "deal with it" by noting that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the concepts of "looks like" and "is." The distinction is highly important in the field of photographic analysis and interpretation. We have attempted to bring to your attention the known factors that comprise that distinction. We have provided you real-world examples of how that distinction expresses itself in photography. And we have measure your ability to recognize and interpret those distinctions when they appear in other photographs -- you failed.

At this point the only remaining plausible conclusion is that you are willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your claim. Is that how the JFK crowd proposes to arrive at truth? If so, then they are being rightly marginalized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom