JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

Excellent idea.

Distortion of image space is often a factor in photographic analysis, despite your clearly facetious use of it here. What error analysis did you perform on the backyard photos to measure and control for image-space distortion? If none, can you describe how you determined that such analysis was unnecessary?

 

[Robert Prey]

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?



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.

A routine pic found in a child's puzzle book. And that's where all your junk belongs. In the toy department.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

It wasnt a fact ,it was a claim he made.

You are again mixing up what people claim and what is actually real, a bit like your alledged 40 plus witnesses.

Connally never made any such statement. I would caution you against accepting anything Robert claims as true about the Kennedy assassination. Since he gets most of his information from conspiracy books, and they take almost everything they cite out of context, Robert's ideas of what is true and factual is usually incorrect.

Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

And you are an "expert" at self-deception. Your "pareidolia test" is childish baloney.

If the test were truly childish you would have easily passed it. Calling something baloney is what a child would do. Saying something is obvious that is apparent to only one person is what a child would do. Hand-waving away lengthy, well thought out responses with one sentence is what a child would do. Posting a test to, as JayUtah put it, measure your aptitude for spatial reasoning is not at all childish. Claiming that it is however? Childish. There's really only one person acting childish in this thread. Obviously.


I'll try again:
Robert, since the moon appears as a different shape every night, does that mean that the moon's shape physically changes every night?

 

[JayUtah]

A routine pic found in a child's puzzle book. And that's where all your junk belongs. In the toy department.

More sticks, more stones, and the clear inability to engage your critics on anything but a puerile level.

A successful photographic interpreter must be conscious of the pariedolic propensity of his visual system. This is, in many ways, the portion of our visual apparatus that is fooled by optical illusions. Photography presents us all the time with optical illusions generated by the various processes involved in it, as well as by the underlying nature of projective geometry. It is the interpreter's duty to know when his perception of the affine nature of the scene is likely affected by such effects.

You have ignored entirely a discussion of all those effects, and you have failed a test of your ability to recognize those effects. How can I conclude except that you are uninterested in how such analysis is ordinarily carried out?

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

There is no evidence that contradicts my claim -- only subjective, imagined theory.

Any Rand postulated that one good way of discerning reality from fantasy is to jump off a ten story building. On the way down, you may imagine that it's not really happening. at least until the eventual "Splat."

 

[JayUtah]

There is no evidence that contradicts my claim -- only subjective, imagined theory.

Your claim is entirely subjective. The factors you refuse to discuss are the customary methods used by the relevant qualified experts to control for subjectivity in interpretation. You simply dismissed them as "Baloney." Ignoring them does not make them go away. Your unwillingness to discuss them is evidence of your intent to deceive.

The factors I have mentioned are not imaginative. They have been demonstrated practically to you with this thread. You decline to comment on them. You are willfully dodging them. More intent to deceive.

Is all this deception and name-calling really how the JFK conspiracy theorists attempt to seize moral high ground?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

No, Robert, you never quoted Connally ever saying any such thing. And you never proved it, nor even came close to proving it. You never once quoted a damn thing Connally said.

Quote where Connally said that. You cannot.

Connally always insisted he was hit by the second shot, not by a separate bullet that hit JFK. He always said he didn't know when the president was hit because he never saw the president during the shooting.

You're now telling us that JFK wasn't necessarily struck by the first shot fired (1), and Connally was struck by the second (2). Please spell out the shooting sequence as you see it, so we can have fun tearing it apart.

You're also telling us there' s a throat shot in there (3) that may or may not have struck the windshield (3 or 4), another shot that hit JFK in the back (4 or 5), a shot that hit Tague (5 or 6), and the head shot (6 or 7).

I am up to six or seven shots in your scenario by now. You might have more. But roughly 90% of the witnesses heard only three. And the man you are claiming proves the conspiracy all by himself, John Connally, heard only two (he said he never heard the shot that hit him, and explained why - that the bullet travels faster than sound, so his being struck and the trauma and pain that bullet produced pretty much meant he was not paying attention to any noise at that point).

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is no evidence that contradicts my claim -- only subjective, imagined theory.

Any Rand postulated that one good way of discerning reality from fantasy is to jump off a ten story building. On the way down, you may imagine that it's not really happening. at least until the eventual "Splat."

That noise you hear is the wind whistling past your ears. The large thing approaching you is ground.


LOL.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"What happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back?"

Comment:
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.

It wasn't found in the body, Robert. X-Rays established that. Did it vanish or exit the neck? What happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back?

Try answering the question.

You have your own magic bullet. Or three:

What happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back?
What happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the neck?
What happened to the bullet that hit Connally?


Hank

 

[LSSBB]

Any Rand postulated that one good way of discerning reality from fantasy is to jump off a ten story building. On the way down, you may imagine that it's not really happening. at least until the eventual "Splat."

Any Rand, or one Rand in particular?

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:


2. What happened to the bullet that hit Connally?

That's THREE magic bullets you have to explain. I personally think you're going in the wrong direction if you're trying to eliminate a magic bullet. Do you want to go for FOUR magic bullets?

Comment: There were zero magic bullets. Connelly was hit by a separate bullet.

And what happened to it? Was it the bullet found in Parkland?
I believe you previously alleged that bullet was planted.

If you're arguing the plant, then where's Connally's bullet? What happened to it? Did it just vanish?

Another magic bullet you have yet to explain.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Connally said no such thing either way. He said he heard a shot, then he was hit with the second shot (which he never heard), and then there was a third shot that scattered brain and blood all over the car.

It was his wife, Nellie Connally, who said she saw JFK get hit by the first shot, then her husband was hit, then the shot hit JFK in the head.

But she wasn't facing backward to look at JFK until after JFK started to react to the wound (the same one Connally is reacting to in the Z224 range).

So Robert can't use Nellie to support the claim of separate bullets hitting both men and causing their non-fatal wounds either, because it's clear she didn't look at JFK until after both men were already shot. That means she looked first at JFK and saw he was wounded, then at her husband, and saw he was wounded, and assumed they were wounded in that order by separate bullets. It was her best reconstruction of the event that happened quite quickly.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
No. He says it was definitely a separate shot from the one that hit Kennedy. And I don't need Nellie to affirm that, he affirms it himself. And that makes the "magic" bullet just another bullet.

"'Mr. Specter: In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
"'Governor Connally: The second one.
"'Mr. Specter: And what is your reason for that conclusions, sir?
"'Governor Connally: Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot . . . and after I heard the shot, I had the time to turn to my right and start to turn to my left before I felt anything. It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.'

Strike one. That quote above says nothing about the first shot hitting JFK. It merely says Connally said he was hit by the second shot. We agree on that. That is not in dispute. See what I wrote in the quote above yours.

Your challenge was to quote Connally saying he wasn't hit by the same bullet that struck JFK. You cannot. You understand the challenge, as you wrote "He [Connally] says it was definitely a separate shot [that hit him] from the one that hit Kennedy..."

Once again, Connally never said he was struck by a separate bullet. That is sleight of hand by conspiracy authors who have you watching the left hand while the left hand picks your pocket. And you fell for it, quoting something else entirely.

Try again.

Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

Strike one. That quote above says nothing about the first shot hitting JFK. It merely says Connally said he was hit by the second shot. We agree on that. That is not in dispute.

Your challenge was to quote Connally saying he wasn't hit by the same bullet that struck JFK. You cannot.

Once again, Connally never said he was struck by a separate bullet. That is sleight of hand by conspiracy authors who have you watching the left hand while the left hand picks your pocket.

Try again.

Hank

Can't believe I missed that quote from Robert. Is English not his first language? What was unclear about that Connally quote?

 

[HSienzant]

According to Tague, it was a missed bullet that went over the Limo and when Harold Weisberg, former Senate investigator asked to see the spectographic analysis, the FBI said it had been destroyed to save space (1/32nd of an inch of space). See the Men who Killed Kennedy, Episode One.
And when you see those phony WC drawings of the alleged head shot, nothing could possibly line up with that fictional shot moving downward and to the right.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f737c663412f.jpg[/qimg]

lol - you are citing a drawing! That's your evidence - and you call it a fictional bullet path - and call it a phony WC drawing!

Destroying your own argument!

You cite what you yourself called fictional and phony. Let me clue you in on what evidence is - it's not something you should describing as fictional and phony.

On the other hand, I cited the windshield damage PHOTO. I cited the chrome damage PHOTO. I cited the Harper fragment seen blown forward and to the left of the limo in the Zapruder FILM - and pointed it went in the same direction as the Tague bullet fragment. I cited the large explosion of blood and brains seen blasting up and forward in the Zapruder FILM.

You yourself cited the statement of motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis, riding to the right of JFK, who said he got hit with blood and brain matter. That brain matter had to go UP, not DOWN into the car. You need to recall the points you make from week to week. If your scenario made any sense you would not have these problems. The problem is you don't have a scenario that makes sense - so you wind up quoting points A and B to support C, not realizing A and B contradict your other point D.

You claimed that the bullet went down into the car and cited a DRAWING to prove it. You ignore the evidence and cite a drawing you yourself call phony. Spectacular. I would be surprised if you have anything left below the knee.

And I'll bet you can't cite Tague's opinion that it was a missed shot that went over the limo, either.

Face it, your beliefs are built on speculation and conjecture, and little else. Certainly not evidence.

You ignored all the evidence above in reaching your conclusion.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

????????
So how did he know the third shot was in fact the third shot and not the second?

Here's his testimony on that, he heard only two, and was struck by neither.

Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all. Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.


His full testimony to the Warren Commission is here:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm

He also testified to essentially the same thing to the HSCA:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm

Mr. CONNALLY. ...I would have to volunteer the very, very strong opinion, I know much has been written, much has been discussed, I was being a participant, I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well, be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit.
Mr. CORNWELL. I am sorry, I didn't understand one statement. You said Mrs. Connally doesn't agree it was the second bullet or the same bullet?
Mr. CONNALLY. The second bullet.
Mrs. CONNALLY. That what?
Mr. CONNALLY. That hit me. That hit him and me--
Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard three shots, I had three reactions, three separate reactions. The first shot, then I looked and saw the President, the second shot, John, and third, all this matter all over us.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you agree that your recollection is it was the second shot that hit the Governor?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it was the second shot that hit the Governor.
Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I did.
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.

____________
Robert needs Nellie's quote if he's going to allege JFK and Connally were struck by separate shots. The problem is, Nellie didn't turn and look at the president until both JFK and the governor were reacting to being shot. So it's only her impression, based on the order she perceived the men, that the order was JFK first shot, Connally second shot, JFK third shot (to the head). The Governor never said he was struck by a separate shot, as Robert has been falsely insisting all along.

 

[Mudcat]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f7166abaf110.jpg[/qimg][size=+10]=A[/size] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f7166759ebef.jpg[/qimg][size=+10]=B[/size]

A=B; B=A - deal with THAT, Robert!

I can't speak for Robert who is so easily fooled by simple perspective change and tricks in light and shadow but I don't really see that much of a difference in the two photos. May because I'm not a moron who's easily fooled by perspective changes and tricks in light and shadows like a certain Robert who shall remain nameless.

 

[HSienzant]

he used that method when he worked out his number of witneses at Parklands.

LOL!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

Your logic fails. Deal with it.

Wanna try again

No. That's the point. He doesn't have a square chin, except in the backyard photos. Deal with it.

Now Robert is alleging it's Obama in the backyard photos!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

More sticks, more stones, and the clear inability to engage your critics on anything but a puerile level.

A successful photographic interpreter must be conscious of the pariedolic propensity of his visual system. This is, in many ways, the portion of our visual apparatus that is fooled by optical illusions. Photography presents us all the time with optical illusions generated by the various processes involved in it, as well as by the underlying nature of projective geometry. It is the interpreter's duty to know when his perception of the affine nature of the scene is likely affected by such effects.

You have ignored entirely a discussion of all those effects, and you have failed a test of your ability to recognize those effects. How can I conclude except that you are uninterested in how such analysis is ordinarily carried out?

A couple of other images might help Robert process this. Or throw him for a loop entirely.

A satellite image of Mars was interpreted by some as a face:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Another image was interpreted as a little Mermaid:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7205004.stm