JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[infocusinc]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5768[/qimg]

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 tell me?

 

[Robert Prey]

You tell me?

[qimg]http://content9.flixster.com/rtactor/42/34/42347_pro.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/EVTPOD/PBDRORE-EC144.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4K7IGE77kUs/TBxAirvPXpI/AAAAAAAAB8I/pDAQfPbJGY4/s1600/postcards_reagan_450.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/MMPH/256252.jpg[/qimg]

So you take the "Fifth" too?? Oh, come on. Now what is your considered 'expert" opinion. Is the chin real or fake????? You don't have any trouble with judging Oswald's chin. Why not Ronald Reagan???

 

[Garrison]

So you take the "Fifth" too?? Oh, come on. Now what is your considered 'expert" opinion. Is the chin real or fake????? You don't have any trouble with judging Oswald's chin. Why not Ronald Reagan???

No Robert poster have explained how the difference in the two photographs you presented of the mugshot and Oswald in the backyard can be explained by simple effects of light, shadow, and camera angle. The sequence of Reagan photos presented in rebuttal to your single shot reinforces that, and I might add shows that even the expression can change the apparent shape of the face.

And as others have pointed out presenting evidence to directly contradict your claims is not taking the fifth, it appears that is yet another thing you lack knowledge of.

 

[infocusinc]

So you take the "Fifth" too?? Oh, come on. Now what is your considered 'expert" opinion. Is the chin real or fake????? You don't have any trouble with judging Oswald's chin. Why not Ronald Reagan???

I didn't 'judge' Oswald's chin, YOU did that. I simply showed you an plausible alternative to your lame theory.

You just can't come to grips with the fact that your so called 'proof' is nothing of the sort.

You are just going to need to learn to deal with your new reality Robert. And I understnd you don't know how to respond to the news that a low angle can make a chin look square when it really not square. None of your CT 'experts" have an answer to give you. You have nothing to parrot.

This has happened to all the cts after I found this wonderful tidbit of information.

Its a brave new world for you now Robert. You have to deal directly with some cold hard facts that are very foreign to you worldview.

Lets see how intellectually honest you are.

BTW, Ronald's chin was really poorly faked Robert. If that that's the best you can do with the digital tools of today there is no way you ever did a convincing film based composite...

 

[infocusinc]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5768[/qimg]

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).

Fake,and very poorly done. You suck at this Robert.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Didn't Oswald's wife say she took the photos? Was she really an undercover CIA agent?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So you take the "Fifth" too?? Oh, come on. Now what is your considered 'expert" opinion. Is the chin real or fake????? You don't have any trouble with judging Oswald's chin. Why not Ronald Reagan???

Cowardly dodge noted.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your lack of specificity betrays the limits of your argument.

Third cowardly dodge noted. You don't have much of substance, do you Robert?????

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Fourth cowardly dodge noted. Props for your consistency.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Good. You're saying your view is that it may be real. You admit more than you mean to at times.

As you know, if you're positing that the chin is someone else's, you'll need to provide evidence for that. Try not to cowardly dodge that.

 

[EventHorizon]

If this is the part where Robert Prey reveals that this was just an elaborate 6-month-planned April Fool's joke and he's not really a conspiracy theorist at all I'm going to scream.

 

[JohnG]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5768[/qimg]

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).

I'm going with "fake". It looks like someone's rather clumsy (or should I say "baby simple"?) attempt at altering the photo via a fairly ancient version of Photoshop (if the metadata inside the file itself is any indication).

Here's the original photo, if anyone's interested.

Like others here I spotted the manipulation immediately; the disappearing shadow where the right side of his face overlaps with his jacket and the blurry/misshapen chin were a dead giveaway. I then opened your photo in Photoshop and zoomed in to confirm just how clumsy the manipulation was. I Googled for the original photo and found it within minutes. The entire investigation took only about ten minutes.

After 20+ years of looking at the Oswald photos I see no evidence of similar tampering. Now, those facts are either an indictment of my investigative skills, or yours.

 

[pakeha]

If this is the part where Robert Prey reveals that this was just an elaborate 6-month-planned April Fool's joke and he's not really a conspiracy theorist at all I'm going to scream.

I'd be very happy to scream with you, but I think Robert's crudity is a sign of his ah sincerity.
On to Xmas!

 

[HSienzant]

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?

No. One shot missed. Kennedy had a back wound that your theory above doesn't account for.

The Warren Commission believed three shots were fired, based on the vast majority of the witnesses saying that was the number they heard, as well as the three shells being found in the sniper's nest window.

The Warren Commission never took a firm stand on which of the three shots missed. Most 'lone-nutters' have come to conclude that the first shot was the one that missed the limo entirely.

Regarding the other two shots, one hit JFK in the head and two fragments from that bullet most likely caused the damage to the windshield and the damage to the chrome near the visor. The two fragments that caused this damage most likely were the copper-jacket remnants found in the limo after the assassination. James Tague, a bystander, was also struck by a fragment during the shooting, and this fragment was most likely part or all of the lead core of the head shot, as the curb in front of him bore a lead smear and traces of antimony, just as Oswald's bullets.

The other shot (which was most likely the second shot is believed by lone nutters to have struck JFK in the upper back, exited his throat, and gone on to strike Connally in the back, exit his chest, slice through his wrist, and strike Connally in his thigh.

Critics of this shot say that's too much to expect from one bullet, and claim the men weren't aligned to receive a bullet; typically showing a bullet alignment that looks something like the image on the upper right-corner of this page or the next image from the same book:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus3.gif

But that is inaccurate. And the correct alignment looks like this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg

Note that the lone nutter version is easy to explain and accounts for all the bullets and damage with just three shots and fits the physical evidence. Note that no conspiracy version ever advanced fits anywhere nearly as well. Robert has been asked on a number of occasions to put forward his theory in the detail I just put forth the standard lone nutter version and never has come close to meeting this challenge.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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."--

Robert, once again you offer a quote that doesn't say what you said it does.

You claimed that Connally said he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that struck Kennedy. Your quote above says nothing about that, it only says that Connally said he was struck by the second bullet. That is not in dispute, and I pointed out a long while ago that it wasn't in dispute.

Why you keep quoting Connally saying he was hit by the second shot, and offering it as synonymous with saying he and JFK weren't hit by the same bullet is beyond me, unless, of course, you don't have any such quote to back up your initial claim.

Here's your initial claim, which you've repeated now a number of times, without once offering the supposed quote that you claim "...Connelly ...insisted [on] till the day he died...":

One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.

Here's a few of the times I've told you Connally saying he was hit by the second bullet is not in dispute, and doesn't prove the separate bullet claim you insist Connally made:

Another conspiracy myth you repeat here. Connally said he was hit by the second bullet. He had no way of knowing what happened with the first bullet, as he was facing forward at the time of the first shot. He said he was basing his *conclusion* that JFK was hit by the first shot on what his wife Nellie said, but he also was careful to point out that he couldn't speak to that of anything he personally saw.

That's correct. We agree on something. JFK was hit by the second shot. Connally was [also] hit by the second shot, as he testified and his wife testified (or are you going to argue now they were both wrong, and Connally was hit by the THIRD shot?).

Connally said no such thing either way. He said he heard a shot, then he was hit with the second shot (which he never heard), and then there was a third shot that scattered brain and blood all over the car.

 

[HSienzant]

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

What's the real source of the Doug Thompson claim? Can I view a videotape of John Connally saying the above on youtube? I don't know who Doug Thompson is, the link for him ends in a dead link, and I have no reason to believe the veracity of the claim above, which is from an anonymous poster ["Ghost in the Machine"] from a conspiracy board.

Why do you cite these kinds of specious "facts"?

 

[HSienzant]

Didn't Oswald's wife say she took the photos? Was she really an undercover CIA agent?

You got here late, but Robert at one time seized upon Marina mis-remembering certain details (at one time, after about two decades had passed, she erroneously believed she took the photos with her back to the stairs, but the stairs are in the photo) to claim that the conspirators substituted fake photos of Oswald with a rifle for the real photos of Oswald with a rifle that Marina took!

Yes, he did.

When it was pointed out that either set would work for the purpose of 'framing' Oswald for the crime Robert believes Oswald didn't commit (and conspirators had no reason to fake photos when suitable real ones already existed), Robert backed away from that claim, calling all of Marina's claims nonsense -- but of course, still claiming the backyard photos were fakes.

He then went back to claiming the conspirators swapped out the originals for the forgeries now in evidence.

And when it was pointed out that Oswald gave one copy to his wife as a keepsake for his daughter, inscribed 'To my daughter June', Robert changed the subject entirely, and insulted me in the process.

In other words, Robert treated this pretty much like he's treated every other piece of evidence in this case.

In the below, emphasis by Robert in the original:

(11/6/2011)
Let me try to make this ABC kindygarten simple. If Marina did not take the photos that are in evidence, then her claim is

She Did Not Take the Photos.

Her claim that she took other photos is a whole different claim.

(12/16/2011)
The only sense one can make of Marina's many versions is nonsense. But again, believe what you want about the phony b/y photos. It still doesn't add up to proof of one Lone Nut.

(12/21/2011)
I don't accept anything Marina says. But assuming she did take some photos, perhaps they the govt. perps wanted to "improve" on them, perhaps adding a rifle and or a gun and or some commie literature. A more perplexing question would be why Oswald would ever want such pics taken...

(12/21/2011)
I take it you don't see anything unusual about this Marxist "hunter of Fascists" joining up with the Marines, perhaps to fight commies and get killed somewhere, a Marxist who got a secret clearance to work at the Atsugi Airbase tracking U2's, a Marxist who had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well.... Just your normal, every day Marxist hunter of Fascists wanting to impress what? his daughter. I don't know what your day job is, but I suggest you don't go into any kind of detective work.

 

[infocusinc]

You got here late, but Robert at one time seized upon Marina mis-remembering certain details (at one time, after about two decades had passed, she erroneously believed she took the photos with her back to the stairs, but the stairs are in the photo) to claim that the conspirators substituted fake photos of Oswald with a rifle for the real photos of Oswald with a rifle that Marina took!

Yes, he did.

When it was pointed out that either set would work for the purpose of 'framing' Oswald for the crime Robert believes Oswald didn't commit (and conspirators had no reason to fake photos when suitable real ones already existed), Robert backed away from that claim, calling all of Marina's claims nonsense -- but of course, still claiming the backyard photos were fakes.

He then went back to claiming the conspirators swapped out the originals for the forgeries now in evidence.

In the below, emphasis by Robert in the original:

Boy, Robert must be trying out for the summer Olympics, his backstroke is simply amazing!

 

[TheRedWorm]

All this nitpicking about photos is irrelevant anyway. Robert is someone who does not even believe any of his own arguments, which is why he'll blather on about the photos for a while, then jump back to parkland witnesses. Or have I now ruined that particular troll...

 

[Southwind17]

No. One shot missed. Kennedy had a back wound that your theory above doesn't account for.

The Warren Commission believed three shots were fired, based on the vast majority of the witnesses saying that was the number they heard, as well as the three shells being found in the sniper's nest window.

The Warren Commission never took a firm stand on which of the three shots missed. Most 'lone-nutters' have come to conclude that the first shot was the one that missed the limo entirely.

Regarding the other two shots, one hit JFK in the head and two fragments from that bullet most likely caused the damage to the windshield and the damage to the chrome near the visor. The two fragments that caused this damage most likely were the copper-jacket remnants found in the limo after the assassination. James Tague, a bystander, was also struck by a fragment during the shooting, and this fragment was most likely part or all of the lead core of the head shot, as the curb in front of him bore a lead smear and traces of antimony, just as Oswald's bullets.

The other shot (which was most likely the second shot is believed by lone nutters to have struck JFK in the upper back, exited his throat, and gone on to strike Connally in the back, exit his chest, slice through his wrist, and strike Connally in his thigh.

Critics of this shot say that's too much to expect from one bullet, and claim the men weren't aligned to receive a bullet; typically showing a bullet alignment that looks something like the image on the upper right-corner of this page or the next image from the same book:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus3.gif

But that is inaccurate. And the correct alignment looks like this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg

Note that the lone nutter version is easy to explain and accounts for all the bullets and damage with just three shots and fits the physical evidence. Note that no conspiracy version ever advanced fits anywhere nearly as well. Robert has been asked on a number of occasions to put forward his theory in the detail I just put forth the standard lone nutter version and never has come close to meeting this challenge.

But it does seem, from the Connally interview, that he claims that a separate bullet hit him in the right shoulder from that which exited Kennedy's throat. When he looks over his right shoulder after hearing the first shot, Kennedy is clearly hit in the throat, i.e. by the first shot (or at least the first shot heard by Connally). Only when he starts to turn back to his left does he say he felt the shot hit him in the right shoulder: "... and that's when I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me." His emphasis on 'me' indicates to me he's thinking two separate bullets at that point. It does seem that two separate bullets hit JFK and Connally prior to the head shot, based on both what we see in the Zapruder film and what Connally recalls. Am I missing something here?!