JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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.

[qimg]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg[/qimg]

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.

His turns are irrelevant. It's when the bullet hits that counts.

 

[EventHorizon]

On and on and on. You just keep citing Connally's testimony which is consistent with a separate shot. Why you do that, I do not know. There is just no question about it. You may argue, very weakly, like the WC that he must have had a delayed reaction, but that is patent nonsense. He was hit by a separate shot. That makes too many shots for a bolt action riffle and equals conspiracy. Deal with it.

This is essentially proof that your lack of reading comprehension skills are preventing you from understanding the assassination. This is why you fail.

 

[infocusinc]

Oh, but the forgers were caught. By Lee Oswald, by Hesrchel Womack, by Malcomb Thompson, by Jack White, by Mg. John. Pickard, by Paul Hoch, and many others including Robt. Prey.

Uh no. None of those guys has offered a single piece of evidence that holds up under inspection that proves anything, other than that they fail photo 101.

Wanna try again or will you just continue to wave your hands?

 

[JayUtah]

Just trying to make it easy for you.

Your exercise was pointless.

...but a just an example of how easy it is to make a fake composite.

If your goal is to duplicate what your alleged conspirators did, then the goal is to make an undetectable composite, and using purely photochemical methods since digital photo manipulation was not available in 1963. All you have done is to prove how easy it is to detect amateur forgeries.

What took you so long to figure that out???

It took me less than one minute. I found your source image in less than ten seconds by searching the web for photos of Ronald Reagan. It took 20 seconds to find your Adobe Photoshop 4 bread crumb in the image EXIF data, and 30 seconds to check a few telltales in the image itself.

In contrast, many experts over many decades have failed to find evidence of tampering or fabrication in the Oswald backyard photos.

Can you explain that?

 

[infocusinc]

Just trying to make it easy for you. This was not a heads I win, tails you lose like your silly game, but a just an example of how easy it is to make a fake composite Of course Reagan does not have a square chin. What took you so long to figure that out???

But you created a LOUSY composite using tools that are far superior to the film based world.

And you STILL have yet to tell us how many film based composites you have made with your own hands.

That you can't or won't speaks volumes about how poor your suggestion of "baby simple" really is.

You are toast Robert.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, but the forgers were caught. By Lee Oswald, by Hesrchel Womack, by Malcomb Thompson, by Jack White, by Mg. John. Pickard, by Paul Hoch, and many others including Robt. Prey.

None of whom can speak intelligently about how to detect real images from fakes, and who repeatedly fail ordinary tests of skill at photographic analysis and interpretation.

We're back to Square One. You're claiming these people somehow have a special skill to detect forged photographs. But none of them can demonstrate any such skill, and provide no examples of where that skill has been successfully tested by others. Further, the points they raise are patently examples of their lack of understanding of the various principles that apply to photography. You blatantly beg the question that their "anomalies" are truly anomalous, and that they aren't just things these men don't understand. We can amply prove the latter, which causes them generally to go off the deep end, behave very unprofessionally.

Sorry, that "analysis" is a joke in the real world.

 

[JayUtah]

And you STILL have yet to tell us how many film based composites you have made with your own hands.

I'm old enough to have worked in the film world too, and part of my training and apprenticeship was in the retouching part of the studio business, since I had separate art training. I too have created many "doctored" photographs, since little work in commercial photography goes out the door without some work being done on it.

The question is not so much how many film-based composites Robert has made with his own hands, but rather how many he submitted to experts intent on detecting whether any composition or doctoring occurred. My guess is none. I certainly never did, when I was in the production end of things. Only when I moved into the analysis part of the field did I become aware of what things experts look for when attempting to detect forgeries. And armed with that knowledge I can confidently say that none of my "fakes" from the studio would have passed inspection; they would have all been revealed as doctored photos.

So I highly doubt that Robert is qualified to determine whether any of his composites, or any of anyone else's composites, would pass authenticating muster. I have a good friend David who is a professional photographer, and one of his professional specialties is Photoshop composites. He photographs families in the studio and then composites them fairly convincingly into exotic backgrounds. He is very good at matching lighting, but I can still tell which are studio composites and which are actual location shots. I won't tell him how I can tell, but one of the things he has yet to master is creating convincing ambient occlusion. And in all fairness, Hollywood has had that problem for decades.

 

[Southwind17]

Curiously, you still haven't quoted Connally saying that. You keep saying he said that, you even say he INSISTS that is what occurred, but somehow you still can't quote him saying that.

Instead, you repeatedly quote him saying he got hit by the second shot, which is not in dispute, and is not the same thing at all.

Especially since Connally is on the record as saying he never saw the president during the shooting.

To the House Committee in 1978:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm
Mr. CONNALLY. I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot. I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and pulled me down into her lap.

To the Warren Commission in 1964:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
Governor CONNALLY. ...We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

So Robert, if Connally never saw the President, how did he know the President was hit by a separate shot? Not the second one, but a separate one?

This is why I have said all along you will have to quote Nellie for that. You clearly don't have any evidence Governor John Connally saw the president hit by a separate shot. Only Nellie, among the passengers in the car, said her husband was hit by a separate shot, but I don't even see her turn to look at the president until both men are reacting to bullet wounds.

Do you?

Hank

Hank - I'd just like to clear up what Robert posted earlier:

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.

With reference to the video interview posted by Robert, at the point when Connolly states that he turned to his right after hearing the first shot (2:52) the Zapruder film is showing Kennedy clearly holding his throat. Staying with the Zapruder film, Connolly does then turn to his right (and in my opinion does actually turn so far as to look at Kennedy (2:56) notwitstanding that he states that he "didn't catch him in the corner of my eye"). At time 3:21 in the video Connolly seems to be looking almost directly at Kennedy, in my view. Indeed, he seemed to be speaking as he started to turn to look over his right shoulder, presumably directed at Kennedy, and is quite possibly still speaking to Kennedy at time 3:21. Connolly seems to get hit by the bullet at around 3:23 in the video as he's turning back to his left - a good few seconds after Kennedy was hit in the back/throat.

 

[JohnG]

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.

I'm on tenterhooks. BTW as long as we're being coy, there's another forehead slappingly amateur move you made in your cunning plan to make the debunkers look foolish, but I'd rather keep that to myself for now in case you decide to persist on this embarrassingly pointless tack.

Just trying to make it easy for you. This was not a heads I win, tails you lose like your silly game, but a just an example of how easy it is to make a fake composite Of course Reagan does not have a square chin. What took you so long to figure that out???

Yes, it is trivially easy to make an amateurish "fake" composite. I'll alert the media

Everyone here immediately saw that it was fake. What exactly does that prove? It didn't take Jay or anyone else long to figure it out. You posted the picture early on a Sunday morning. Most people (including you) weren't online for most of yesterday, so it isn't exactly a shocker that most people didn't get around to looking at your masterpiece until today.

Break the habit of a lifetime and gracefully concede the point. You won't burst into flames.

 

[JayUtah]

You posted the picture early on a Sunday morning. Most people (including you) weren't online for most of yesterday...

I was out in the field, photographing ghost towns, on Sunday, and at a private party Sunday night. If Robert is complaining about the wallclock time it took some people to respond over a weekend, then that seems quite pedantic.

 

[infocusinc]

I'm old enough to have worked in the film world too, and part of my training and apprenticeship was in the retouching part of the studio business, since I had separate art training. I too have created many "doctored" photographs, since little work in commercial photography goes out the door without some work being done on it.

The question is not so much how many film-based composites Robert has made with his own hands, but rather how many he submitted to experts intent on detecting whether any composition or doctoring occurred. My guess is none. I certainly never did, when I was in the production end of things. Only when I moved into the analysis part of the field did I become aware of what things experts look for when attempting to detect forgeries. And armed with that knowledge I can confidently say that none of my "fakes" from the studio would have passed inspection; they would have all been revealed as doctored photos.

So I highly doubt that Robert is qualified to determine whether any of his composites, or any of anyone else's composites, would pass authenticating muster. I have a good friend David who is a professional photographer, and one of his professional specialties is Photoshop composites. He photographs families in the studio and then composites them fairly convincingly into exotic backgrounds. He is very good at matching lighting, but I can still tell which are studio composites and which are actual location shots. I won't tell him how I can tell, but one of the things he has yet to master is creating convincing ambient occlusion. And in all fairness, Hollywood has had that problem for decades.

In the commercial world as in motion the goal is not always to make composites that will pass authentication, but rather to be "good enough" to pass casual observation. In fact it is painfully hard to get this to authentication levels even with digital...depending on the subject.

Shadows for example are a real mess to create sans a 3d program to model them. They can be a huge red flag.

Having made a bunch of advertising composites in the past I can say from my experience its really tough to get one so correct it could withstand the scrutiny put to the Backyard photos and say the Zfilm.

Robert is in way over his head. He reminds me of Jack White. I've had many a joust with White, and he simply has zero composite experience. He will tell you he wore out 3 airbrushes but when pushed you will find that was mostly background removal. The composites he used in his work were created by others. He tries to talk a good game but the experience is just not there.

Just like Robert.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I was out in the field, photographing ghost towns, on Sunday, and at a private party Sunday night. If Robert is complaining about the wallclock time it took some people to respond over a weekend, then that seems quite pedantic.

True, but in all fairness that, lies, and dodging is all he really has left. If he had ever had any evidence, he would have presented it by now.

 

[EventHorizon]

Just trying to make it easy for you. This was not a heads I win, tails you lose like your silly game, but a just an example of how easy it is to make a fake composite Of course Reagan does not have a square chin. What took you so long to figure that out???

Why are you still saying the part in bold? If you had said it was a shadow of leaves/trees you would have been right. If somebody had said you were wrong THEY would be wrong. But you said it was a face. You lose.

 

[Southwind17]

Hank - I'd just like to clear up what Robert posted earlier:


With reference to the video interview posted by Robert, at the point when Connolly states that he turned to his right after hearing the first shot (2:52) the Zapruder film is showing Kennedy clearly holding his throat. Staying with the Zapruder film, Connolly does then turn to his right (and in my opinion does actually turn so far as to look at Kennedy (2:56) notwitstanding that he states that he "didn't catch him in the corner of my eye"). At time 3:21 in the video Connolly seems to be looking almost directly at Kennedy, in my view. Indeed, he seemed to be speaking as he started to turn to look over his right shoulder, presumably directed at Kennedy, and is quite possibly still speaking to Kennedy at time 3:21. Connolly seems to get hit by the bullet at around 3:23 in the video as he's turning back to his left - a good few seconds after Kennedy was hit in the back/throat.

Actually, I've just watched the video interview again and there appears to be either some confusion on the producer's part and/or some dishonest editing. Connolly talks about shuffling in his seat to get comfortable, which I believe occurred before or around the time of the left turn into Dealy Plaza. He states that he heard the first shot immediately thereafter, putting the limo much farther up the road than the corresponding section of the Zapruder film shows in the video.

Connolly's turning to the right that is shown in the Zapruder film now, after more viewing, appears to be his reaction to being hit. You can actually detect him flinching immediately before he turns at exactly the same time as Kennedy reacts to being hit.

So, what Connolly describes in the interview as his turning to the right after hearing the first shot seems to have been ascribed to an unrelated part of the Zapruder film showing him turning to the right as a reaction to being hit by the same bullet that first hit Kennedy. As rightly pointed out by Hank:

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

Sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused there. All seems very clear now, and Robert has obviously fallen hook, line and sinker for what, admittedly, had me questioning for a while, before I saw it for what it really is.

BTW - is that a deliberately dishonest piece of editing or not?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Prey:

Enough with the silly Ronald Reagan rotoscope.* You need to provide positive proof** that your Oswald chin photo is fake. Not that it looks fake to you but that it is. Your attempts, once again, to divert attention away from your claim are pointless and you should stop.

Present your evidence the "square chin" photo is a composite. Or admit you cannot.



*Yes, I know it's not a rotoscope. I'm just in the mood for a little alliteration.

**See?

 

[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 ... we're waiting!!!

 

[HSienzant]

On and on and on. You just keep citing Connally's testimony which is consistent with a separate shot. Why you do that, I do not know. There is just no question about it. You may argue, very weakly, like the WC that he must have had a delayed reaction, but that is patent nonsense. He was hit by a separate shot. That makes too many shots for a bolt action riffle and equals conspiracy. Deal with it.

Wait a second! Now it's only "consistent with a separate shot"?

For weeks you've been telling us he insisted he was hit by a separate shot, now you're backtracking Big Time and only claiming his testimony "is consistent with a separate shot"!

Which is it, Robert?

Not that long ago, you were claiming something much stronger than merely "consistent with". Now it's clear you are in full retreat.

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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.

As previously stated, and proved, Connally insisted till the day he died he was hit by a separate bullet. That fact alone, if true, proves conspiracy.

... none of that can hold a candle to the guy who actually got hit, who insists he was hit by a separate bullet.

And there is no need for a delayed reaction. That is just a straw argument by you. Both men clearly react within a few frames of the lapel flip.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And he told them he was hit by a separate shot.

lol. Please quote that for me. You cannot, because it is not in the article you cited.

Here it is again:

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

PS: If this is legit, wouldn't you think he would at least have used a spell-checker?

He spells the Governor's name

Connally
Connnolly
Connolly

This is not a hastily-thrown-together post in rebuttal of some idiot's points. In theory, this is a legit article. At least, you seem to think so. But the man who reveals such blockbuster news cannot even be bothered to proof-read the article and get the Governor's name correct?

Again, I am not buying it. Maybe you have a lower threshold for this kind of nonsense than me. I don't know. But I personally find the story not credible.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, but the forgers were caught. By Lee Oswald, by Hesrchel Womack, by Malcomb Thompson, by Jack White, by Mg. John. Pickard, by Paul Hoch, and many others including Robt. Prey.

Name just one of these "caught" forgers. Tell me when they were tried, and convicted. You cannot, because no forgers were ever caught, because there was no forgery in the back yard photos.

Another claim of your that has no basis in fact.

I think what you meant to say is "there are unproven, amateur allegations of forgery, and those who allege such forgery continue to allege such forgery, despite being shown, in many different ways, by many different people, that their claims are nonsense."

That claim is far more accurate than your bogus boast that "the forgers were caught".

BTW, did you mean this PAUL HOCH?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoch.htm

"The single bullet theory is not a joke. Despite its well-known flaws, the Warren Commission/House Committee reconstruction may be in better shape than any other single detailed reconstruction. At least, it has to be taken seriously. To me, a key lesson from the state of the physical evidence is that much of the other conspiracy evidence would be weakened if subject to comparable scrutiny."


PS: By adding Oswald above as among those who detected the forgery, you pretty much prove the point I made here:

...Aside to everyone else: I think Robert will probably recoil from admitting they might be real, and instead insist they have already been proven fake - despite the fact that every expert who has ever examined the first-generation materials has concluded there is no evidence of forgery to be found in the backyard photos. I think an admission they might be fakes (and ergo, might be real) is probably as far as Robert is willing to go at this time, and as much of a concession as we can realistically expect). The whole belief system of many conspiracy theorists hinges on the backyard photos being fakes. See, Oswald himself asserted in custody that they were fakes, and if he was lying about the photos, then he could be lying about other stuff, like not owning a rifle, or not bringing his rifle to work, or not shooting the president. So they must believe Oswald was being truthful in custody and the photos are fakes as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

His turns are irrelevant. It's when the bullet hits that counts.

Bravo, Robert. You told me before that Connally's wife was irrelevant, now you're telling me that Connally's actions are irrelevant too.

But just a few days ago, you were using Connally's turns and citing them as evidence of when the shot hit.

Nellie is irrelevant. She didn't get shot.

You confuse the issue with this 1st, 2nd or 3rd shot nonsense. When he [Connally - Hank] turned to the right, JFK had his arms up indicating he was shot in the throat.

You previously claimed Marina's testimony was nonsense. Pretty soon you'll eliminate all the witnesses. And then you'll be able to make up whatever you want. Not that it would be a significant change for you or anything.

Do you agree or disagree that Connally was a good witness? If you think he was a bad witness, then you've been citing a bad witness (and doing it badly) to try to prove the separate shots. If you think he's a good witness, I fail to understand why you - all of a sudden - want to claim what Connally said about the shot sequence relative to his turning isn't worthy of any consideration. Wait, nevermind, I think I just answered my own question. You want to avoid considering what Connally said about his turns because you want to avoid the conclusion that he was struck about frame Z224. Which is about the same time the President is reacting.

Hank