JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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.

It's the only approach he has at this point.

 

[infocusinc]

Occams Razor -- An even more valid theory.

Or not....

 

[infocusinc]

"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.

Then he backed stroked...

"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."


Man you get screwed very time you post...

And we now know WHY the chin MIGHT look different...camera angle.

Can you prove its really a SQUARE CHIN Robert? If not the chin "proof' is blown away and it becomes a "maybe".

 

[Tomtomkent]

So wait a second. Robert declared his analysis was validated by his experience in putting together montages?

1) were they convincing as his Red Crayon image?
2) would that not be proclaiming himself to be an expert? A self appointed expert?

Oh no! He is going to have to retract all his claims as bunk from an "expert"!

 

[Southwind17]

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.

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.

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.

Can I just get this straight, please. Are we all agreeing that however many shots there there was definitely a 3-shot sequence thus:

Shot 1: Kennedy hit in throat;
Shot 2: Connaly hit in back;
Shot 3: Kennedy hit in head.

Am I correct in thinking that we're all agreed that there was no 'magic bullet'; that the shot that hit Kennedy in the throat was not the same shot that hit Connaly in the back? Is the only thing in dispute here that there was a fourth shot, presumably before the Kennedy throat shot, i.e. the first of four shots?

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Hank

"Beyond any question, and I'll never change my opinion, the first bullet did not hit me. The second bullet did hit me. The third bullet did not hit me."--
Gov.Connally

Doug Thompson later revealed that in 1982 he asked Connally if he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed John F. Kennedy. "Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this. Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x302357

 

[Robert Prey]

Can I just get this straight, please. Are we all agreeing that however many shots there there was definitely a 3-shot sequence thus:

Shot 1: Kennedy hit in throat;
Shot 2: Connaly hit in back;
Shot 3: Kennedy hit in head.

Am I correct in thinking that we're all agreed that there was no 'magic bullet'; that the shot that hit Kennedy in the throat was not the same shot that hit Connaly in the back? Is the only thing in dispute here that there was a fourth shot, presumably before the Kennedy throat shot, i.e. the first of four shots?

Correct, except "we" does not include Hank, nor hardly any Lone Nutters, and I do not necessarily conclude there were only 4 shots.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

Why does Ronald Reagan have a square chin???Is it real, or fake? Or is it caused by lighting,shadows and camera angle???
(No 5th amendment pleas allowed).

 

[Robert Prey]

Then he backed stroked...

"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."


Man you get screwed very time you post...

And we now know WHY the chin MIGHT look different...camera angle.

Can you prove its really a SQUARE CHIN Robert? If not the chin "proof' is blown away and it becomes a "maybe".

In your view its' a "maybe." Thank you. In my view it's a probably as in Fake.

 

[Southwind17]

"Beyond any question, and I'll never change my opinion, the first bullet did not hit me. The second bullet did hit me. The third bullet did not hit me."--
Gov.Connally

Doug Thompson later revealed that in 1982 he asked Connally if he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed John F. Kennedy. "Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this. Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

With respect to Governor Connaly his 'opinion' on whether LHO fired the gun that killed JFK counts for zip, just like yours, Robert. Next please.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Ad hominem, after Ad hominem, after Ad hominem. ZZZZzz. Let me know when you have something of substance to say.

 

[BazBear]

(No 5th amendment pleas allowed).

Ehhh? How on earth would the 5th amendment apply to anyone's opinion about this photo? Maybe you should read what it says.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Your lack of specificity betrays the limits of your argument.

 

[Southwind17]

Why does Ronald Reagan have a square chin???Is it real, or fake? Or is it caused by lighting,shadows and camera angle???
(No 5th amendment pleas allowed).

You just don't get it, do you Robert. A round chin can appear square under certain, not uncommon, lighting conditions, especially when photographed from a low angle:

[size=+2]LOW CAMERA ANGLE:[/SIZE]



[size=+2]LEVEL CAMERA:[/SIZE]



You can object as much as you like, and post as many photos of chins as you like. It doesn't alter the fact, as demonstrated.

 

[Robert Prey]

You just don't get it, do you Robert. A round chin can appear square under certain, not uncommon, lighting conditions, especially when photgraphed from a low angle:

[size=+2]LOW CAMERA ANGLE:[/SIZE]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f7836525f5a7.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f783688efa35.jpg[/qimg]

[size=+2]LEVEL CAMERA:[/SIZE]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f783638372bc.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f78366872c88.jpg[/qimg]

You can object as much as you like, and post as many photos of chins as you like. It doesn't alter the fact, as demonstrated.

In other words, you take "the Fifth". Cop-out.

 

[Southwind17]

In other words, you take "the Fifth". Cop-out.

In other words:



[SIZE=+4]COWARD[/SIZE]

 

[Tomtomkent]

In other words, you take "the Fifth". Cop-out.

In VERY DIFFERENT other words?

Do people "taking the fifth" often give direct answers illustrated with examples?

 

[BazBear]

In other words, you take "the Fifth". Cop-out.

You really should stop talking to yourself like that.

 

[infocusinc]

In your view its' a "maybe." Thank you. In my view it's a probably as in Fake.

Spoken like a true CT...

Nope its a "maybe" no matter how you cut it Robert.

 

[infocusinc]

Ad hominem, after Ad hominem, after Ad hominem. ZZZZzz. Let me know when you have something of substance to say.

You don't understand the substance and you can't directly answer questions.

So lets try again.

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

Oswald has a pointed chin. The person in the Backyard photos was photographed from a low camera angle which would make his pointed chin look square.

If that person was Oswald his chin would look square.

Occams razor.....

Its Oswald in the backyard photos.



Robert likes to play Occams razor.

Except this is what his silly attempt to apply it looks like:

Oswald has a pointed chin. The person in the by photos was photographed from a low camera angle which would make his pointed chin look square.

The chin in the photos is square.

An imposter had to be found who had the same build as Oswald.

He had to be photographed in the backyard in three poses

They had to use guns that matched those owned by Oswald.

They then had to find a photo THREE photos of Oswalds head taken from the same low camera angle as the imposter.

Those photos also needed to be taken at the same exact SUN ANGLE as the photos of the imposter.

Then they needed to seamlessly and undetectably cut and past Oswalds head on the imposters body.

They needed to rephotograph the new fake photos with the Oswald camera, which requires diaopters since the camera is a fixed focus model.

They need to plant these fake photos in Oswald's possessions,

Finally they need to brainwash Marina to make her think she took them.

Occams razor?


ROFLMBO!



Deal with it Robert.