JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

Either you can prove the photo in question is genuine...

I repeat my reference to historical convention.

...or you have nothing to critique as to its alleged anomalies.

First you have to prove they're anomalies and not just your failure to understand what's going on.

I say it is not genuine.

Indeed, but you have no proof of this that stands up.

You say, what???? Nothing.

Nonsense -- we say that your proof doesn't stand up. And we've shown how. Under what miscarriage of investigation is someone else required to prove some other affirmative claim in order to test yours? You made a case and it failed. Deal with it.

 

[infocusinc]

And I have spent 25 years in publishing and advertising and i know very well that the task of making a composite montage, even before the digital age, is baby simple. Deal with it.

LOL! Its not a "composite montage", Robert, its a believable and UNDETECTABLE composite image.

So, in your 25 years how many of these undetectable composite images have you produced with your own hands, using film?

Zero you say?

Poof, that's your appeal to authority exploding in your face.

BTW, I see you are attempting...and failing to change the subject away from your lost "proof" and "experts".

Why is that Robert?

 

[infocusinc]

Either you can prove the photo in question is genuine, or you have nothing to critique as to its alleged anomalies. I say it is not genuine. You say, what???? Nothing.

No, I only need to show there are other, plausible, reasons why things you claim are anomalies are seen in the BY photos\ could just as well be natural artifacts of the photographic process.

And the best part is that I don't need access to original material. We are taking basic photographic principles here. Principles YOU should understand if your alleged 25 years in advertising and published were in a capacity above the level of janitor.

I can destroy your claims of "proof" and reduce them to rubble.

The chin issue is gone for you.

Got ANYTHING left?

BTW, I've looked for your detailed proof for your claim you have shown the shadow in 133b to be fake. I can't find anything but your empty words proclaiming it fake. Care to share the location of your experimental data?

 

[HSienzant]

The WC places the Tague shot as the missed, first shot. And on the video provided, Connally clearly states he was hit by a separate shot after Kennedy was hit.

The Warren Commission did NOT state the first shot was the one that hit Tague. That is just another falsehood by you. I previously quoted this:

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page116.php

"At a different location in Dealey Plaza, the evidence indicated that a bullet fragment did hit the street. James T. Tague, who got out of his car to watch the motorcade from a position between Commerce and Main Streets near the Triple Underpass, was hit on the cheek by an object during the shooting. Within a few minutes Tague reported this to Deputy Sheriff Eddy R. Walthers, who was examining the area to see if any bullets had struck the turf. Walthers immediately started to search where Tague had been standing and located a place on the south curb of Main Street where it appeared a bullet had hit the cement. According to Tague, "There was a mark quite obviously . that was a bullet, and it was very fresh." In Tague's opinion, it was the second shot which caused the mark, since he thinks he heard the third shot after he was hit in the face. This incident appears to have been recorded in the contemporaneous report of Dallas Patrolman L. L. Hill, who radioed in around 12:40 p.m.: "I have one guy that was possibly hit by a richochet from the bullet off the concrete." Scientific examination of the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts disclosed metal smears which, "were spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony." The mark on the curb could have originated from the lead core of a bullet but the absence of copper precluded "the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher."

Quite simply, the Warren Commission said the fragment that hit the curb and then struck Tague was not a whole bullet, but the lead core of a bullet which had struck something hard enough to separate the core from the copper jacket. But it made no determination as to which shot did that. Most likely the head shot was the one, but it never determinated the head shot was the final one.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...Connally clearly states he was hit by a separate shot after Kennedy was hit.

Really?

Quote that!

You cannot.

It is not in the video you cited.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That the backyard photos are fake is an opinion I expressed from the very beginning and proved it with 133B...

Robert, I believe I have it on good authority that your statement above is false. A person who considers himself an authority on the backyard photos on this board has told us this:

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

According to this person, one would need access to the original backyard photos to render a conclusion one way or the other, or even to contribute anything of value. Do you disagree with that?

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And I have spent 25 years in publishing and advertising and i know very well that the task of making a composite montage, even before the digital age, is baby simple. Deal with it.

"Baby simple?" Then you should have no trouble whatsoever providing proof of your assertion re: Oswald photos.

You won't, of course.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That the backyard photos are fake is an opinion I expressed from the very beginning and proved it with 133B.

Just a friendly bit of advice: repeating your lies again and again do not make them true statements.

You're welcome.

 

[JohnG]

And I have spent 25 years in publishing and advertising and i know very well that the task of making a composite montage, even before the digital age, is baby simple. Deal with it.

Appeal to authority

Interesting revelation about your career and experience, by the way. A little odd, though that this is (IIRC) the first time you've mentioned it

Yes, making a "composite montage" is fairly simple, even before the digital age (I worked at a small newspaper in the 90s before they went digital so I have a bit of hands-on experience in old-school techniques that would have been employed in the 60s), but most montage (or any type of photo-manipulation) isn't really designed to fool experts, nor does it need to. It's strange then that the only people who appear to be fooled by the supposedly bogus Oswald photos happen to be recognized experts in the field of photography, while self-styled experts (with all the oblivious confidence that comes with the Dunning-Kruger effect) can spot the "obvious" manipulation at first glance.

Save us from the cult of the amateur.

 

[Southwind17]

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."

 

[HSienzant]

That the backyard photos are fake is an opinion I expressed from the very beginning and proved it with 133B. As far as the originals, none of the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have seen them, and so by their own admission,they are not qualified to even assert a critical opinion. But the B/Y photos only prove cover-up conspiracy. They do not directly prove assassination conspiracy. That is proven by the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head pointing to a shot from the front. And there are other proofs of conspiracy as well, including the separate shot to Connally and the numerous grassy knoll witnesses who heard and saw a shot or flash from the grassy knoll. There is also the Odio incident as well as the fingerprint taken from the 6th floor belonging to LBJ soldier and convicted murderer, Malcomb Wallace...

Robert, I have it on good authority by someone who is a regular poster that what any of the witnesses said is irrelevant, unless they were shot. I pointed out in one post what Nellie said and contrasted it with where she was looking, and I was told:

Nellie is irrelevant. She didn't get shot.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement? If you agree, then none of the witnesses you cited above are relevant, as none of them got shot.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Quote Governor Connally saying the first shot hit JFK, and the second shot hit him. You cannot, because as Governor Connally has consistently maintained, he doesn't know what happened with the first shot, as JFK was seated behind him.

Connally has consistently maintained (on the video you cite and in testimony before the House and the Commission) that he was hit by the second shot, and JFK was struck in the head by the third shot. Connally heard only three shots; and never said the President was struck with the first one.

You cannot maintain your original position on this without continuing the lie.

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

It's a typo, genius. Ayn Rand.

A complete lack of attention to detail, I'd call it. Now, where have we seen that before?!

 

[LSSBB]

NO. It is the Lone Nutters who have not proved their case. Not even able to prove their designated Perp, Patsy LHO even fired a single rifle shot. And try to explain the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, the only response is they were either all mistaken or all lying.

Good Night.

It looks to me looking at summaries of their testimonies by John McAdams at Marquette that of your 40 plus Parkland witnesses, some have had their stories change over time, and some that are claimed as back of the head witnesses are not. In any case, I'd rather not sidetrack from you trying to base your case on chins not looking different from different angles in a photo, so I will leave you to your floundering.

 

[Robert Prey]

Quote Governor Connally saying the first shot hit JFK, and the second shot hit him. You cannot, because as Governor Connally has consistently maintained, he doesn't know what happened with the first shot, as JFK was seated behind him.

Connally has consistently maintained (on the video you cite and in testimony before the House and the Commission) that he was hit by the second shot, and JFK was struck in the head by the third shot. Connally heard only three shots; and never said the President was struck with the first one.

You cannot maintain your original position on this without continuing the lie.

Hank

You confuse the issue with this 1st, 2nd or 3rd shot nonsense. When he turned to the right, JFK had his arms up indicating he was shot in the throat. If Connally was hit by what he thought was the following shot and then there was another shot to K's head makes 3 shots, then the 4th shot that missed, and hit the curb and Mr. Tague equals conspiracy, unless you disagree with the WC and try to make that shot as a part of the head shot. And that is a stretch.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, I believe I have it on good authority that your statement above is false. A person who considers himself an authority on the backyard photos on this board has told us this:




According to this person, one would need access to the original backyard photos to render a conclusion one way or the other, or even to contribute anything of value. Do you disagree with that?

Hank

Not at all, but merely applying the self-proclaimed principles of the Self-Proclaimed "Experts."

 

[Robert Prey]

The Warren Commission did NOT state the first shot was the one that hit Tague. That is just another falsehood by you. I previously quoted this:

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page116.php

"At a different location in Dealey Plaza, the evidence indicated that a bullet fragment did hit the street. James T. Tague, who got out of his car to watch the motorcade from a position between Commerce and Main Streets near the Triple Underpass, was hit on the cheek by an object during the shooting. Within a few minutes Tague reported this to Deputy Sheriff Eddy R. Walthers, who was examining the area to see if any bullets had struck the turf. Walthers immediately started to search where Tague had been standing and located a place on the south curb of Main Street where it appeared a bullet had hit the cement. According to Tague, "There was a mark quite obviously . that was a bullet, and it was very fresh." In Tague's opinion, it was the second shot which caused the mark, since he thinks he heard the third shot after he was hit in the face. This incident appears to have been recorded in the contemporaneous report of Dallas Patrolman L. L. Hill, who radioed in around 12:40 p.m.: "I have one guy that was possibly hit by a richochet from the bullet off the concrete." Scientific examination of the mark on the south curb of Main Street by FBI experts disclosed metal smears which, "were spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony." The mark on the curb could have originated from the lead core of a bullet but the absence of copper precluded "the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally's stretcher."

Quite simply, the Warren Commission said the fragment that hit the curb and then struck Tague was not a whole bullet, but the lead core of a bullet which had struck something hard enough to separate the core from the copper jacket. But it made no determination as to which shot did that. Most likely the head shot was the one, but it never determinated the head shot was the final one.

Hank

"...one shot probably missed...." WR, page 117.

Thus, if the script is to keep the shots within just 3, then the WC must conclude that a shot that hit K in throat also hit Connally. But, Connally clearly disagrees. Thus, the missed shot is a 4th shot and proof of conspiracy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You confuse the issue with this 1st, 2nd or 3rd shot nonsense. When he turned to the right, JFK had his arms up indicating he was shot in the throat. If Connally was hit by what he thought was the following shot and then there was another shot to K's head makes 3 shots, then the 4th shot that missed, and hit the curb and Mr. Tague equals conspiracy, unless you disagree with the WC and try to make that shot as a part of the head shot. And that is a stretch.

Is that what the Loon sites get you to swallow?

 

[Robert Prey]

No, I only need to show there are other, plausible, reasons why things you claim are anomalies are seen in the BY photos\ could just as well be natural artifacts of the photographic process.

And the best part is that I don't need access to original material. We are taking basic photographic principles here. Principles YOU should understand if your alleged 25 years in advertising and published were in a capacity above the level of janitor.

I can destroy your claims of "proof" and reduce them to rubble.

The chin issue is gone for you.

Got ANYTHING left?

BTW, I've looked for your detailed proof for your claim you have shown the shadow in 133b to be fake. I can't find anything but your empty words proclaiming it fake. Care to share the location of your experimental data?

I always have to chuckle when an adversary has to make ridiculous statements of pseudo triumph, like "I can destroy your claims and reduce them to rubble ..." or The chin issue is gone for you."

 

[RoboTimbo]

I always have to chuckle when an adversary has to make ridiculous statements of pseudo triumph, like "I can destroy your claims and reduce them to rubble ..." or The chin issue is gone for you."

Baloney. LOL.