• 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.
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...


No. It was a "heads I win tails you lose" trick . Answer it was a shadow on a garage, and the self-proclaimed "expert" would have gleefully cried, "Why no, it was face. You lose!!!" An infantile challenge. The self-proclaimed expert is not worthy of anyone's time.
 
Last edited:
infocusinc said:
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.
Click to expand...

NO. You have it wrong. Sometimes a square chin really is a square chin. Deal with it.
 
HSienzant said:
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:

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/Z223-Z224.gif[/qimg]

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

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/Z224-Z225.gif[/qimg]

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
Click to expand...

Nellie is irrelevant. She didn't get shot.
 
JayUtah said:
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?



Sour grapes.



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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

Cop-out.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. It was a "heads I win tails you lose" trick.
Click to expand...

No, a fairly standard test. You, and only you, failed. This is probably why you and only you see "anomalies" in the photographs. Deal with it, admit your error, and move on.

Answer it was a shadow on a garage, and the self-proclaimed "expert" would have gleefully cried, "Why no, it was face. You lose!!!"
Click to expand...

Supposition. It's sad when the only way you can save face is to make stuff up.

An infantile challenge. The self-proclaimed expert is not worthy of anyone's time.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes. You just want a pretense not to have to listen to qualified people who can refute you.

You, Jack, and John are the self-proclaimed experts. Unlike you guys, I happen to have been trained for this. And it seems to be fairly apparent to the other readers that I'm not bluffing.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

And just how do you know what is or is not authentic??? Or do you just blow hot air?
 
Robert Prey said:
Sometimes a square chin really is a square chin.
Click to expand...

And sometimes it isn't. We've been endeavoring to point out to you the means commonly used to determine when it is a square chin or when it merely looks like a square chin. You're not interested. In fact, your admission that there can be more than one outcome pretty much undermines your previous argument.

You're now on the hook to prove that this is one of the times when the chin really is square. Not just assert, but prove.
 
JayUtah wrote:
.
The correct answer was "what chin?"

Correction:
NO. The "correct" answer was whatever you decided it to be . Infantile.
 
JayUtah said:
And sometimes it isn't. We've been endeavoring to point out to you the means commonly used to determine when it is a square chin or when it merely looks like a square chin. You're not interested. In fact, your admission that there can be more than one outcome pretty much undermines your previous argument.

You're now on the hook to prove that this is one of the times when the chin really is square. Not just assert, but prove.
Click to expand...

So you finally admit that sometimes a chin that looks square, really is square???
What happened to 'historical convention"????
 
Robert Prey said:
So you finally admit that sometimes a chin that looks square, really is square???
What happened to 'historical convention"????
Click to expand...

One question mark at a time, please. LOL.

Your disorderly retreat has blossomed into a full on rout as you scamper away from answering questions.
 
JayUtah said:
No, a fairly standard test. You, and only you, failed. This is probably why you and only you see "anomalies" in the photographs. Deal with it, admit your error, and move on.



Supposition. It's sad when the only way you can save face is to make stuff up.



Sour grapes. You just want a pretense not to have to listen to qualified people who can refute you.

You, Jack, and John are the self-proclaimed experts. Unlike you guys, I happen to have been trained for this. And it seems to be fairly apparent to the other readers that I'm not bluffing.
Click to expand...

I'd say bluffing and a whole lot of puffing.
 
For Hank:

There just isn't any question about the separate shot if you see this video at approx 2:55, Gov.C says he heard a shot, thougt it was a shot, turned around to his right, and at that instant on the video you can see JFK with his arms up from the shot to the throat. Then Gov. C. began to turn to his left and was slammed with a shot. That's two shots. Then he heard the third and K's head exploded. That's 3 shots. The Tague shot makes at least four and equals conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4svgOqQmS3o

Now if you can't see all this clearly on the video as the Gov. relates it, then I can't help you any further.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
So you finally admit that sometimes a chin that looks square, really is square???
Click to expand...

Just not in the photographs you've referenced. You really don't understand the subtleties here do you Robert? you made a claim about the shape of Oswald's face in the backyard photo compared to the mugshot. You claimed that the different appearance of the chin proved the photo had been tampered with. Now your claim has been thoroughly discredited and that you have no understanding about light, shadow, or perspective. However that your claim was wrong doesn't automatically mean that the photograph was genuine; without access to the original no one could make the certain judgement you keep demanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom