JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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?

So is the pic genuine or not??? It's a simple question.

 

[JayUtah]

So is the pic genuine or not??? It's a simple question.

You've already answered that it's fake. We're trying to examine the reasons why you think it's fake, but so far all we can get from you is that it's fake because you say it looks fake. You won't participate in further discussion, and instead choose only to call me names and drop insults. Now you're trying again to shift the burden of proof to distract from your inability to discuss your claims intelligently.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

Let's take a review of the "failed" test authored by self-proclaim photo "expert" JayUtah:

Here was the question:

Hm, Robert, what shape would you say this guy's chin is?

An honest question???

NO. A very dishonest question and an even more dishonest answer.

Nothing there about the leaves or the obvious shadows. The direct question was as to the chin of the face the shadow suggested. I answered the question about the chin, and Mr.Xpert says I failed the test. Baloney. On the contrary, I would grade the author of the question as having failed the test of honesty, integrity and maturity in his posts, and his childish sophomoric challenges. When you have something of substance to contribute, let it be known. So far, in the department store of photo analysis, your posts belong in the toy department.

 

[Robert Prey]

You've already answered that it's fake. We're trying to examine the reasons why you think it's fake, but so far all we can get from you is that it's fake because you say it looks fake. You won't participate in further discussion, and instead choose only to call me names and drop insults. Now you're trying again to shift the burden of proof to distract from your inability to discuss your claims intelligently.

It's a simple question and for 20 pages you have refused to answer. Is the photo genuine or not. Can't have it both ways.

 

[pgwenthold]

____________
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.

This is the beauty of the Zapruder film. We can watch it and see exactly when Mrs Connally turned to look at the President.

My impression from the testimony is that she claims to have turned to look at the President after the first shot. Is that consistent with her actions we see in the Z-film?

 

[Robert Prey]

Any Rand, or one Rand in particular?

It's a typo, genius. Ayn Rand.

 

[JayUtah]

NO. A very dishonest question and an even more dishonest answer.

The correct answer was "what chin?" You failed; get over it. You failed in the same way that the test predicts for people with poor spatial reasoning skills, hence why it and questions like it can be used reliably to measure that skill. It is the expected answer from someone who can't engage in an intelligent conversation regarding the theoretical factors that apply, and who ignores a practical demonstration of them.

And like a poor loser, you're now trying to attack the test. You're like my college students who failed the material outright, but try to argue that the questions are poorly worded, unfair, or too difficult. Trying to save face instead of correcting the underlying problem.

Welcome to the real world, Robert. There are tests. You will fail some of them. It's natural, because no one is an expert at everything. But unfortunately you don't get to claim to still be competent after you fail the test. There's a reason every qualified photo analyst disputes your findings and those of your "authorities" Jack White and John Costella, and can explain thoroughly why. It's because they're wrong; you're wrong. Get over it.

When you have something of substance to contribute, let it be known.

You're the only one who doesn't agree that I have presented substantial material. Everyone also agrees that you have produced nothing beyond your say-so.

So far, in the department store of photo analysis, your posts belong in the toy department.

Sour grapes. Jack and John finally had to resort to name-calling too.

 

[EventHorizon]

It's a simple question and for 20 pages you have refused to answer. Is the photo genuine or not. Can't have it both ways.

This is not how it works. You've asserted that the photos are fake. It's on you to prove it. You've been asked for your evidence since nearly the beginning of the thread yet you've shown none. You have pointed out that the shadows look different but it's been shown to you that does not prove that the photos are fake. If that's all you've got then we can dismiss your claim. JayUtah's opinion has nothing to do with it and you're asking him is yet another dishonest dodge on your part.

 

[LSSBB]

It's a typo, genius. Ayn Rand.

See, you can admit an error! Was that so hard? If you can make a mistake typing, could you also make a mistake in identifying whether a photo is fake by the chin? I won't fault you for it, if you admit it. I make typing mistakes and admit it, same as you. I also have jumped to conclusions, and have admitted it, often reluctantly. And the world didn't end when I did, and I didn't look as stupid if I would have in continuing to defend an indefensible position.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's a simple question and for 20 pages you have refused to answer. Is the photo genuine or not. Can't have it both ways.

Wow. YOu really can't grasp the burden of proof idea can you Robert?

It isn't his place to answer the question. It isn't the place of anybody else to prejudice their possition with conclusions before the assertion.

The NULL is that the photo has not been tamered.
Your ASSERTIONS are that features show it ot have been faked.
To critique your ASSERTION we put aside any preconceptions (like if we start from an assumption of fakery or not) and compare your ASSERTION to the NULL.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but you are getting your knickers in a twist because Jay and others are offering you the best possible oppertunity to prove your assertions correct. You are trying to make things harder for yourself by expecting others to be as unprofessional and unacademic as you? What an odd thing to do!

 

[Robert Prey]

The correct answer was "what chin?" You failed; get over it. You failed in the same way that the test predicts for people with poor spatial reasoning skills, hence why it and questions like it can be used reliably to measure that skill. It is the expected answer from someone who can't engage in an intelligent conversation regarding the theoretical factors that apply, and who ignores a practical demonstration of them.

And like a poor loser, you're now trying to attack the test. You're like my college students who failed the material outright, but try to argue that the questions are poorly worded, unfair, or too difficult. Trying to save face instead of correcting the underlying problem.

Welcome to the real world, Robert. There are tests. You will fail some of them. It's natural, because no one is an expert at everything. But unfortunately you don't get to claim to still be competent after you fail the test. There's a reason every qualified photo analyst disputes your findings and those of your "authorities" Jack White and John Costella, and can explain thoroughly why. It's because they're wrong; you're wrong. Get over it.



You're the only one who doesn't agree that I have presented substantial material. Everyone also agrees that you have produced nothing beyond your say-so.



Sour grapes. Jack and John finally had to resort to name-calling too.

No name calling. Just an accurate description of a an obviously arrogant, sophomoric and immature challenge. That was no "test" but a dishonest question. It is you who is not only wrong, but too afraid to even take a stand on the truth or untruth of the photo in question. Can't have it both ways. For the umpteenth time, is the pic genuine or not???

 

[EventHorizon]

This sentence:

Just an accurate description of a an obviously arrogant, sophomoric and immature challenge.

actually describes this:

For the umpteenth time, is the pic genuine or not???

Attempting to shift the burden of proof is arrogant, sophomoric, immature and completely dishonest.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a simple question and for 20 pages you have refused to answer.

That is correct, because you are asking it only to try to shift the burden of proof.

Further, the strength of your answer to the question, which you have already given, and the rationale for it, which you have already presented, are utterly irrelevant to whatever answer someone else may give. You didn't require someone else's answer previously in order to offer yours. Your sudden need for it coincides with your recognition of failure to substantiate your rationale and your late resort to puerility.

If you want to explore a differential diagnosis, then I refer you once again to historical conventions regarding the burden of proof for questions of authenticity. You are the "teacher," yet you seem blissfully unaware that everyone who has gone before you in historical investigation has been aware of those conventions. Please "teach" us and tell us what historical convention applies to a question of authenticity, and why. Stop trying to browbeat your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

No name calling.

You call me names. Those guys called me names. All after they failed to exhibit even the most basic perceptual skills that qualified photo analysts are expected to have. I think it's hilarious that you complain about "ad hominem" attacks when your argumentation of late has been nothing but attempts to poison the well. Do you think we're dumb?

Just an accurate description of a an obviously arrogant, sophomoric and immature challenge.

Sour grapes.

It is you who is not only wrong...

Wrong about what? Despite your desperate attempts to exact one, I've not made any affirmative claims about the photos in question. We're examining your affirmative claims, already made.

...but too afraid to even take a stand on the truth or untruth of the photo in question.

Desperation noted. What you propose to dismiss as fear is actually the wisdom to recognize when a cornered proponent is trying to save face by shifting the burden of proof.

For the umpteenth time, is the pic genuine or not???

And for the umpteenth time, your affirmative claims have nothing to do with what someone else's affirmative claim might be. Yours either stands according to the rationale you have provided, or it doesn't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No name calling. Just an accurate description of a an obviously arrogant, sophomoric and immature challenge. That was no "test" but a dishonest question. It is you who is not only wrong, but too afraid to even take a stand on the truth or untruth of the photo in question. Can't have it both ways. For the umpteenth time, is the pic genuine or not???

Sophomoric attempt to shift the burden of proof noted. You are so far out of your league.



LOL.

 

[HSienzant]

This is the beauty of the Zapruder film. We can watch it and see exactly when Mrs Connally turned to look at the President.

My impression from the testimony is that she claims to have turned to look at the President after the first shot. Is that consistent with her actions we see in the Z-film?

It's after the first shot. But as far as I can tell, this turn is also after the second shot as well (the one that struck both men).

Nellie is still facing forward in frames 223-224. Note the lapel flip of the governor, which many researchers (myself included) believe denotes the passage of the bullet through both men. As the bullet exits the Governor's chest, it flips the lapel up, obscuring part of his white shirt:

Both the President and Governor are both reacting in 224-225.

By 227, the Governor's arm has flipped up from his lap after being shot through the wrist. It actually starts to move up before that, but the images aren't as clear.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z227.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z228.jpg

This motion of the arm and the wounding of JFK and Connally is best seen in slow motion in the moving images:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CJvHUZcaS8

Nellie doesn't turn back to look at the President until after both men are clearly reacting to gunshot wounds (that I can see).


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Let's take a review of the "failed" test authored by self-proclaim photo "expert" JayUtah:

Here was the question:

Hm, Robert, what shape would you say this guy's chin is?

An honest question???

NO. A very dishonest question and an even more dishonest answer.

Nothing there about the leaves or the obvious shadows. The direct question was as to the chin of the face the shadow suggested. I answered the question about the chin, and Mr.Xpert says I failed the test. Baloney. On the contrary, I would grade the author of the question as having failed the test of honesty, integrity and maturity in his posts, and his childish sophomoric challenges. When you have something of substance to contribute, let it be known. So far, in the department store of photo analysis, your posts belong in the toy department.

The correct answer would have been, "It's a garage! With a shadow of the tree on it. There's no guy and no chin in the image." You failed to give the correct answer.

I laughed out loud when I saw the image, because I saw immediately where this was going. You didn't.

Obviously.

Hank

 

[infocusinc]

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

And Obama does not have a square chin, only when he is photographed from a camera position that is below his chin, just like Oswald in the backyard photos. does the Obama chin look square. And that was the entire point.

You do understand that the camera height for the backyard photos was well below the level of Oswalds chin?

You have it wrong. Deal with it.

 

[jargon buster]

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

I dont take anything Robert says at face value I just couldn't be bothered double checking it.
Anyway Connelly is a non-starter as far as a credible witness to the number of shots fired, he can only say for certain two were fired because thats all he heard and everyone (apart from Robert and a few nuts) is aware that three shots were fired.

 

[HSienzant]

I dont take anything Robert says at face value I just couldn't be bothered double checking it.
Anyway Connelly is a non-starter as far as a credible witness to the number of shots fired, he can only say for certain two were fired because thats all he heard and everyone (apart from Robert and a few nuts) is aware that three shots were fired.

I think you're overlooking the fact that he admitted he didn't hear the shot that hit him (totally understandable in my opinion) due to shock or trauma. So while he said he only heard two, he admits to three being fired, with the middle one being the one that struck him. He heard one before he was struck, and another (the head shot) after he was struck. Three shots is what I count.

I treat Connally as one of the most credible witnesses of the assassination. There isn't much I think he got wrong.

Another very credible witness in my view is Sam Holland. But Robert thinks Holland is a knoll - and four shot - witness. We can discuss this further when Robert jumps in to argue the point.

Hank