JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Southwind17]

What shape do you see, Robert:



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

Robert, when are you going to be man enough to respond to this? Or are YOU pleading the Fifth?

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

And then, just to confuse everybody, they made a ghosted photo of Oswald.
You forget that too?

 

[Tomtomkent]

And then, just to confuse everybody, they made a ghosted photo of Oswald.
You forget that too?

The one we have no evidence of before it was "found" and have reason to suspect was in any way related to the alleged fakery, that occums razor suggests was more likely made after.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

You can cite contrived bullet directions till you and McAdams are blue in the face, but none of that can hold a candle to the guy who actually got hit, who insists he was hit by a separate bullet.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

I'll put you down for "fake." But I'll wait till JayUtah chimes in before revealing the truth about Reagan's square chin. There may be more (or less ) here than meets the eye.

 

[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".

Camera angle? Baloney.

 

[jargon buster]

Just had a quick scan of 'Preys Dictionary of words and phrases'
Baloney
A word to use when you cannot think of a logical response.

PS: having just checked those three photos its clear in Oswalds mugshot he has shaved off his moustache.

 

[Robert Prey]

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"?

Thompson:
"I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy?"

"Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

From:
Is deception the best way to serve one's country?
By DOUG THOMPSON
Mar 29, 2006, 07:26

Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8381.shtml

 

[EventHorizon]

You can cite contrived bullet directions till you and McAdams are blue in the face, but none of that can hold a candle to the guy who actually got hit, who insists he was hit by a separate bullet.

Do you not read other people's posts or do you just ignore them?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You can cite contrived bullet directions till you and McAdams are blue in the face, but none of that can hold a candle to the guy who actually got hit, who insists he was hit by a separate bullet.

Witness testemony, of any kind, has to be supported by material evidence.

Thena again what you claim this particular witness claims, and what his testemony actually says are different.

 

[Tomtomkent]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5773[/qimg]

Camera angle? Baloney.

Robert, what was the relative height and distance from Oswald of the camera used forthe mugshot? Where in the frame does Oswalds head appear in the mugshot compared to the backyard photos? What about the light source?

Saying "Baloney" doesn't alter or account for measurable variables.

Why have you yet to produce a single photo-artefact in the image that proves it to be a composite? Why can't you show me where the imulsion or negative were cut to form the composite?

Yes. There is more than one question there. Unfortunately if you use that an excuse not to address the issues it will strongly suggest you know you are wrong but would rather argue from blind stuborness than admit your asseretions do not withstand scrutiny.

 

[RoboTimbo]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5773[/qimg]

Camera angle? Baloney.

Still all you have is cowardly dodging? A pity.

 

[infocusinc]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5773[/qimg]

Camera angle? Baloney.

So, you are now saying that the backyard photos WERE NOT taken from a camera position LOWER than Oswalds chin?

This is getting better by the second!

Let me impart a bit of wisdom and advise Robert. One every ct like you should take to heart.

Learn the "First rule of holes..."


Camera angle...YEP!

 

[infocusinc]

I'll put you down for "fake." But I'll wait till JayUtah chimes in before revealing the truth about Reagan's square chin. There may be more (or less ) here than meets the eye.

LOL! We know the truth about Reagan's "square" chin in that photo and how poorly it was done.

 

[infocusinc]

And then, just to confuse everybody, they made a ghosted photo of Oswald.
You forget that too?

'THEY"? Ah yes the mysterious "THEY".

Spoken like a true CT, who has to backstroke because they are backed into a corner.

Where oh where did they get all parts and pieces , photographed in the exact same light to composite the BY photos Robert? Or will you dodge this one too?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Do you not read other people's posts or do you just ignore them?

Little bit of column A little bit of column B.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll put you down for "fake." But I'll wait till JayUtah chimes in before revealing the truth about Reagan's square chin.

Sheesh, obsess much?

Your photo is badly, amateurly doctored. You didn't even remember to remove the Photoshop metadata, and the original was located by several people in seconds.

 

[JayUtah]

...the disappearing shadow where the right side of his face overlaps with his jacket and the blurry/misshapen chin were a dead giveaway...

In addition to those you mentioned, the highlight in the wrong place compared to chin and cheek, and the fact that with Robert's fake chin added it fails to look anymore like the well-known President. Geez, if you're going to try to test people, don't choose a celebrity with highly recognizable features. One of the cardinal rules is that the human eye has a special affinity for facial features and recognition.

 

[Garrison]

In addition to those you mentioned, the highlight in the wrong place compared to chin and cheek, and the fact that with Robert's fake chin added it fails to look anymore like the well-known President. Geez, if you're going to try to test people, don't choose a celebrity with highly recognizable features. One of the cardinal rules is that the human eye has a special affinity for facial features and recognition.

This is another thing that bugs me about Robert's claims is that not only does he claim the photos were faked but that it was done in such an inept way that any fool could see it. Like so many others this seems to be a conspiracy where being caught would have dire consequences and yet at every step the conspirators planning never gets above 'oh well it'll probably be okay so long as no one examines it to closely'.

 

[HSienzant]

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?!

What you are calling the throat wound is actually a transiting neck wound, a bullet that struck JFK in the upper back and exited his throat and went on to strike Connally in the back. The bullet did not remain in JFK's body, and the two men were aligned for Connally to be hit with that transiting bullet.

What interview are you quoting from? Connally has consistently said that he never saw the President when he turned to the right. If you believe Connally saw the President get hit, that is your construction only and it disagrees with Connally.

I think you are looking at the Zfilm far too far along for the hit to Connally. Most lone nutters put Connally's turn to the right is before the road sign blocks both men - and before either man is hit. Most likely it came in the Z-224-225 range; when the lapel flap occurs.

His next turn to the right comes well after both men are hit; that is when he is collapsing back into Nellie's lap and already after he had cried out like a stuck pig (to use Jackie's rather indelicate turn of phrase).

Connally said he cried out only after he was shot.