JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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.

Good. Then without access to the original you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute, pro or con.

 

[Robert Prey]

Testy when cornered eh Robert?

Here is your problem.

You stake a very big part of your claim the backyard photos are fake on the assumption the chin that appears to be square cannot be Oswalds. You say his head has been added above the chin to a body that looks amazingly like Oswalds. You are not alone, this is a CT staple, and you parrot the claims.

However you are unaware that camera position in relation to the subject can change drastically the look of an object. My MacBook Pro photo showed in graphic detail how this process works.

Clearly the camera was well below the chin level in the backyard photos, this cannot be denied.

Why?

First the camera, and Imperial Reflex was designed as a waist level finder camera. It had no eye level finder. To compose the user needed to hold the camera well below the head and look DOWN to the ground glass inside of the finder housing.

Second we also know the camera was held that low by viewing the internals of the photos themselves. On the left side of the backyard photos are a set of stairs. These stars make a great tape measure. If we can see the top side of a stair tread, the camera is above the level of the step. If we can see the underside of the stair tread the camera is below that tread. Viewing these stair tread proves the camera was well below the level of Oswald's chin.

We are looking at Oswalds chin from below.

As my image strip of Obama has shown, Obama has a pointy chin similar to Oswalds.

Viewed from eye level it looks pointy just as Oswald's does.

Viewed from below, Obama's chin appears square, just like Oswald's

The major plank of your claim rests on your statement that Oswald has a pointy chin and not a square chin and the BY photos show a square chin thus they must be fake.

Empirical testing and observation of other well know people show that the common way a pointy chin is depicted in photos from a low camera angle is to appear SQUARE.

The square looking chin on Oswald in the backyard photos is EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED. This is the exact opposite of your claim.

Clearly sometimes a square chin is just a square chin. But the nature of perspective tells us that a point chin will ALSO look square when photographed form certain angles.

There is no anomaly with Oswald's chin. It is depicted exactly as perspective demands.

Your failure here is a classic example of what happens when you parrot something without having the knowledge to know if the claim is correct or not.

Now, you can't tell us this is not Oswalds chin because it looks square. Oswalds chin SHOULD look square in the backyard photos and I've just explained why.

So NO..YOU have it wrong.

Get over it.

What happens if a man who really has a square chin is photographed by a waist high camera? Does his chin then turn into a circle?????

 

[Garrison]

Good. Then without access to the original you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute, pro or con.

Again Robert, we can assess the claim you made from the available evidence, that claim was wrong. To put it as simply as possible, proving you wrong doesn't not automatically make the photo real, it simply means that your theory can be dismissed as your alleged evidence has been discredited, as I'm afraid have you by your constant failure to learn or understand the deconstruction of your theory.

 

[Garrison]

What happens if a man who really has a square chin is photographed by a waist high camera? Does his chin then turn into a circle?????

His chin may appear to have a different shape; as has been illustrated time and again for you.

 

[Robert Prey]

Again Robert, we can assess the claim you made from the available evidence, that claim was wrong. To put it as simply as possible, proving you wrong doesn't not automatically make the photo real, it simply means that your theory can be dismissed as your alleged evidence has been discredited, as I'm afraid have you by your constant failure to learn or understand the deconstruction of your theory.

My theory being, that if a chin appears to be square, it probably is square.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Baloney. All chins do not magically transform to square when shot from a waist high camera. <snip> I've proved the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in 133B to be false as well. Deal with it.

You've proven you don't understand the concept of more than outcome being viable.
And the second matter was "dealt with": you have proven you don't understand the difference between "towards lens" and "away from lens".

Claims you have proven anything else are dishonest.

 

[Tomtomkent]

My theory being, that if a chin appears to be square, it probably is square.

But thats the rub Robert. You aren't discussing what a chin looks like. You are discussingwhat the PHOTO of a chin looks like. The effects you deny have been repeated, and other examples offered.

And you have yet to support your theory with the actual processes of analysing photos, that clearly discredit your theories.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've proved the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in 133B to be false as well. Deal with it.

What times are it? LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why don't you begin by proving the photo to be authentic or do you agree that it just might not be authentic. Take a stand.

Sophomoric attempt at switching the burden of proof noted.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Truth only needs a majority of one. And most of those who lurk on this board are dumbfounded Lone Nutters who just cant' accept proof that they've been duped and snookered for over 50 years and desperately seeking justification for their naive belief in government sponsored brainwash.

So are you more mad that the Loon sites snookered you or are you more mad at how easily you swallowed it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Good. Then without access to the original you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute, pro or con.

You've admitted that you have no access to the original, right? LOL.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Good. Then without access to the original you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute, pro or con.

But of course they don't need to add anything. If you can't overcome the null then the null stands. The burden of proof is on you alone Robert, to prove your assertions to us. If you don't then you have no reason to tell others they have failed to contribute. Or to get upset your assertions aren't being bought into.

How do you still not get that? Or do you understand it but feel a need to act superior?

 

[EventHorizon]

Baloney. All chins do not magically transform to square when shot from a waist high camera. And there are plenty of non-CT photo experts (Malcomb Thompson, Maj. John Pickard) that agree there is something fishy about the chin. Nor is the chin the only obvious anomaly. I've proved the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in 133B to be false as well. Deal with it.

Why don't you begin by proving the photo to be authentic or do you agree that it just might not be authentic. Take a stand.

Excellent. So it appears to me that the chin is fake and it appears to you it may not be fake, but you admit that it just might be fake. so both of us agree, the chin just might be fake. End of story.

Truth only needs a majority of one. And most of those who lurk on this board are dumbfounded Lone Nutters who just cant' accept proof that they've been duped and snookered for over 50 years and desperately seeking justification for their naive belief in government sponsored brainwash.

Good. Then without access to the original you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute, pro or con.

My theory being, that if a chin appears to be square, it probably is square.

You know what? You're just not mentally equipped to handle a debate like this. Either that or you are intentionally being dishonest. Actually I guess that's a fancy way of saying you are either lying or mistaken. Ironic isn't it.

 

[infocusinc]

What happens if a man who really has a square chin is photographed by a waist high camera? Does his chin then turn into a circle?????

Wow, is that the best you have? Really?

You have attempted and failed toy deal with the gravity of your problem.

You claim the square chin eliminates Oswald as the person seen in the BY photos.

Sadly, for you, there is an alternative explanation that puts YOUR claim in jeopardy.

Since its YOUR claim its' incumbent upon you to show that the chin is in fact really SQUARE and not just appears square from the low camera angle.

As a CT I fully expect you will shuck and jive, and given your posting history in this thread, its a fair bet you will continue.

However that will not mitigate the fact that the fatal flaw in your theory has been exposed.

Your so called "proof" is nothing of the sort. It's just you parroting a false claim made by other and doing so in a state of ignorance of the basic principles of photography.

Clearly this is well beyond your ken. I've debated and destroyed your pals White and Costella many times. As bad as they, you are not even close to being in the same league.

So here is your problem. Either you can prove the chin is really square and not an artifact of camera angle, or your "proof" dies.

Deal with it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Nor is the chin the only obvious anomaly. I've proved the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in 133B to be false as well. Deal with it.

You have not. Stop lying.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Why don't you [JayUtah] begin by proving the photo to be authentic or do you agree that it just might not be authentic. Take a stand.

Third time's the charm*:

Clyde, you're making the claim that the photos are fake. That means you have to prove it.

Is this too technical a point for you to understand?

*Well, including the first time I posted it, this is actually the fourth.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Truth only needs a majority of one. And most of those who lurk on this board are dumbfounded Lone Nutters who just cant' accept proof that they've been duped and snookered for over 50 years and desperately seeking justification for their naive belief in government sponsored brainwash.

Ladies and gentlemen! Behold the mighty Human Ego!

 

[infocusinc]

Baloney. All chins do not magically transform to square when shot from a waist high camera. And there are plenty of non-CT photo experts (Malcomb Thompson, Maj. John Pickard) that agree there is something fishy about the chin. Nor is the chin the only obvious anomaly. I've proved the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in 133B to be false as well. Deal with it.

Your problem..AGAIN, its that camera angle CAN and DOES change the apparent shape of objects and that alone destroys your claim the chin eliminates Oswald as the subject in the BY photos. As you well know you can't offer any more proofs that the chin is NOT Oswalds, and thus your claim fails as a a proof.

Thompson? Really? Can you show us actual work produced by Thompson to back up his OBSERVATIONS? Of course not. His is simply a statement from authority, with no data to back it up.

Lets look at the expertise of Thompson:

INTERROGATOR. How easy is it to make a photo montage like this, how would people go about it?
Mr. THOMPSON. If one has a background scene, the subject photographed against a white background making it simpler to cut out the subject from the back.
INTERROGATOR. How do you think this photo montage was achieved?
Mr. THOMPSON. The montage could be achieved by a photograph of the background and a photograph of a body against a white background and having been cut away from that white background and then multed as we see, it here and then being in possession of a photograph of Oswald's head, merely mounting that on to the top of the body, stuck down and touched in such a way that your lines are not going to be too, cut and dried between the body and the background and then rephotographed on to a negative and then from that negative of course producing as many prints as you like and possibly rephotographing the print from the negative in order to soften down the background and that would develop each time the photograph was copied.
INTERROGATOR. Is that very easy to do.
Mr. THOMPSON. It is not difficult at all, don't ask me to do it, I am a forensic photographer. The last. thing I would do is to retouch or indulge in any form of montage. My duty would be to present to the court what I know about the ease and illustrate what I know about it in straightforward photography but there are retouchers in many facets of professional photography, they do resort to photo montages, in particular the advertising profession.
INTERROGATOR. Would the investigator agencies in America like the FBI and the CIA have that sort of professional expertise themselves
Mr. THOMPSON. I would hope they don't have it. because it is not part of their duties as forensic photographers to produce anything in court which has been retouched.
INTERROGATOR. Yes; but regardless of your hopes, I am asking whether you believe that the professional agencies in America have that sort of photographic expertise
Mr. THOMPSON. I wouldn't think they have it but most certainly it wouldn't be difficult to get access to it. Every moderate studio in America has its retoucher in the same way as the biggest studios in Britain have their retoucher but in America you do have photographic artists, profession all to itself, and they are spread all throughout the United States, access to one of those persons, its mostly ladies who do it and do an extremely good job in producing from a black and white picture, anything from anything as far as an oil printing from photographs.
INTERROGATOR. How quickly could you make a photographic montage like that
Mr. THOMPSON. I would guess and say that you need at least 4 hours to produce it and that is working hard and possibly a team working at it, not just one man but I have no personal experience of how long it takes.

Now, I have spent the last 30+ years of my working life doing Advertising photography. I've made countless film based composite photos and the same using digital techniques. Can you say that for your "expert" Thompson? Of course not. He tells us "It's not difficult."

Sorry but he is incorrect. Convincing composites are very difficult.

And then of course there is this about Thompson...

"When the HSCA's photographic panel concluded that the backyard photos were authentic, Thompson deferred to the panel on most of the issues concerning the genuineness of the pictures. However, Thompson said he remained troubled by the chin on Oswald in the photos, which is different from his chin in other pictures."

And we now know all about how the chin thing works!


And Pickard...1 hour of viewing bad prints and no testing? Really? That's the expert you want to present? Really?

As to the shadow you have done no such thing. I've seen your statements, and they too are not backed by data, and you clearly are NOT dealing from a position of authority.

Your hand waving is just that hand waving.

Now if you want to try and defend the rest of the silly claims of anomalies in the backyard photos, please continue to parrot them. I'll be quite happy to take them all on.

Deal with it Robert. Your game is over.

 

[infocusinc]

My theory being, that if a chin appears to be square, it probably is square.

And your theory has been blown to kingdom come, yet you still cling to it. Intellectual honesty anyone?

 

[Garrison]

My theory being, that if a chin appears to be square, it probably is square.

And it has been shown in several different ways that your theory is wrong. Shadows, the angle of the camera etc. Can all affect the apparent shape of someone's face in a photograph. That you seem incapable of accepting that these effects plausibly explain the difference between the backyard photo and the mugshot is entirely a failing on your part.