JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

I repeat my reference to historical convention.



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



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



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.

So, in the field of human anatomy, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is a result of light and shadow, eh???

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, in the field of human anatomy, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is a result of light and shadow, eh???

What shape chin would you say this pee stained doofus with the pleather jacket has?

 

[Robert Prey]

Instead of blaming the listeners for not believing you because they are "sheeple", maybe the problem is YOU are not proving YOUR case, eh? To be honest, before reading this thread I was not sure one way or the other. So far in the debate the way I have seen your case demolished has shown to me that their is very little proof of a conspiracy and a whole lot of conjecture.

Then perhaps you might consider to just go home.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Then perhaps you might consider to just go home.

Since you've chosen to scamper away from answering questions about your looney ideas, is this the best you can do?????

 

[infocusinc]

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."

Chuckle all you want, but the facts remain. Your so called "proof" of the square chin is toast. Unless you offer up some other proof that the chin is really square and not an artifact of camera angle.

Claiming it is still in play...now that would be a pseudo triumph.

And I KNOW I can destroy the rest of your parrot claims because I have done it time and time again against better than you.

This is not my first rodeo buckaroo...just ask Fetzer, Costella, White, Lifton, Varnell, Speer, Burnham, DiEugenio, Healy ...heck drop my friend Josiah 'Tink" Thompson a line and ask...or Rollie Zavada.

You don't have a chance Robert, at least not if you have even an ounce of intellectual honesty. Based on your replies you don't which makes you a perfect parrot for the crackpots listed above.

Basic photographic principles Robert, they beat the crackpot theories guys like you parrot time and time again. Unless you can unwind these well established and well proven principles. LOL! Good luck with that.

But hey, serve them up...lets see what you have. Can you offer anything that is NOT simply "polly wanna cracker"?

BTW I ONLY do photo. I'm really not interested in the rest.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

"Game over" boast. More pseudo-triumph without evidence for it. But let's see what else Thompson said in that interview:'

“One can only conclude that Oswald’s head has been stuck on to a chin which is not Oswald’s chin. . . . My opinion is that those photographs are faked. . . . I consider the pictures to be the result of a montage.”

Expert versus expert. Naturally, the self-proclaimed superior "experts" inhabit this board.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

So, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is caused by light and shadow??? And what a heroic thing to say -- denigrate other experts while they are not around to reply. Pretty lame tac I'd say.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Figures.

 

[HSienzant]

"...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.

Quote where Connally disagrees. You have not done so yet, although you keep stating that Connally thought he was hit with a different shot than the one that hit Kennedy.

... And on the video provided, Connally clearly states he was hit by a separate shot after Kennedy was hit.

 

[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.

Occams Razor -- An even more valid theory.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Instead of saying IF, why don't you just quote Connally saying he believed he was hit by a separate shot, after the one that struck Kennedy.

You've said on a number of occasions that Connally's own words mean conspiracy, yet you seem to founder when challenged to actually quote Connally saying anything of the kind.

Instead of quoting Connally's words that you claimed would prove your case, you resort to speculation, again.

...And on the video provided, Connally clearly states he was hit by a separate shot after Kennedy was hit.

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.

Connoley's separate bullet assertion takes the magic out of the magic bullet.

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

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.

And there we have it, finally, an admission from Robert that the BY photos are NOT conclusively fake, but MIGHT be fake. So we are all in agreement there, then.

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?????

It's impossible to say - we'd have to see the actaul photo, of course. Much depends on the lighting conditions, and hence shadow effect.

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

What shape do you see, Robert:



So by your theory the Moon is probably what shape?!

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.
Nor is there any evidence that the alleged perp, LhO, even fired a rifle shot. With all that, Lone Nutters have a very steep mountain to climb in order to cling to their Lone Nutter fable.

And here we go, full circle. Robert's claims and theories get thoroughly dismantled, so he pretends the last 4,000-odd posts never happened and starts over with sweeping generalities. Yep - that's a mature approach.

 

[LSSBB]

Then perhaps you might consider to just go home.

That's where I am. The Internet sure is a powerful thing.

 

[Southwind17]

Occams Razor -- An even more valid theory.

Occam's Razor; Obama's Razor. What's the difference, Robert?!

 

[LSSBB]

Occams Razor -- An even more valid theory.

Hilarious. How simple a theory is it that there was a conspiracy to set LHO up as a patay by faking all the material evidence and leaving out "convincing" some folks at Parkland, compared to one nutjob with all the evidence at face value and understanding that witnesses can and do misremember?

 

[infocusinc]

So, in the field of human anatomy, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is a result of light and shadow, eh???

Great we agree, so prove to us the chin you say is square in the BY photos is really square and not an artifact of camera angle and or light and shadow.

Your silly theory needs it survive....

If you can't your "proof" is gone.

 

[HSienzant]

Nellie is irrelevant. She didn't get shot.

If Nellie is irrelevant, why did you post her opinion in this post?

Comment:
First shot equals ONE.
Nellie says Husband hit, makes TWO.
Then the Head shot makes Three...

 

[BazBear]

Occams Razor -- An even more valid theory.

No, no, no Robert. You're using Rube Goldberg's Kludge; Occam's Razor is the opposite of what you've been using.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So, in the field of human anatomy, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is a result of light and shadow, eh???

So, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is caused by light and shadow???

Who on this great green globe has said that?

You won't answer, of course. But, of course, you know the answer.

 

[infocusinc]

So, there is no such a thing as a square chin, unless it is caused by light and shadow??? And what a heroic thing to say -- denigrate other experts while they are not around to reply. Pretty lame tac I'd say.

Is there no such thing as a pointed chin that LOOKS square due to camera angle and shadowing?

BOTH can exist. Now prove its really a SQUARE CHIN and not an artifact of camera angle and shadowing.

I've no problem taking these guys on directly, I have MANY times. Invite them. I'll be here.

Lameness however fits perfectly your intellectual dishonesty in this matter Robert.

BTW you never did tell us how many film based composite images you have created that can withstand inspection?

Why?