JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Thanks Hank.

Have to say (and I've thought this for a while), LHO seems to have been darned lucky: first shot completely misses; second shot (farther away) hits Kennedy in the back, say a good 250mm lower than his head; third shot (farthest away) kaboom - right on the nail!

I suppose as the limo moved farther down Dealey Plaza the inclination of the rifle progressively reduced, meaning corresondingly reduced tracking, and hence accuracy, during the aim/fire sequence.

Still think he was a lucky SOB, though, given the adrenalin flow he must surely have been experiencing. Not disimilar to game hunting, though, I guess!

Yes, some ascribe the first shot miss to buck fever, others to the inclination of the shot. Another possibility is he may have used the scope for the first shot, missed, then switched over to using the iron sights, which is what he trained with in the Marines (remember the scope was found to be misaligned after the shooting. Whether it was misaligned during the shooting is unknown. It could have gotten misaligned when it was dropped between some boxes near the sixth floor stairwell as Oswald fled the building).

You are correct that as the limo got further down Elm, the trajectory flattened out, making for an easier shot (and the limo's path was nearly directly away from Oswald's sniper's nest perch for the latter half of the shooting sequence).

Remember as well that Oswald trained at 200 yards and 500 yards in the Marines. That is hardly mentioned - if ever - in conspiracy books.

The longest shot in the assassination (the head shot) was only 88.3 yards away from that window.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Who is going to catch and charge the government forgers? The same ones who did the forging? Would they rat out themselves? Actually, there is more than just a strong suspicion of forgery of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the very people who produced them, and then rejected the ones in the archives as forgeries. And then there is the matter of the fellow in charge of the Audio-Visual Dept. at Bethesda by the name of Willam Bruce Pitzer who showed the real autopsy photos to an associate, Petty Office Dennis David, which pictured a small bullet wound in the temple, and a large blow-out in the back of K's head. And we have the person ( Green Beret Special Forces Warfare Center soldier Lt. Col Dan Marvinj) who was asked by CIA to murder him, but declined. And the fact that just before retirement Pitzer was indeed found dead of a gunshot wound.

You tell me. You alleged initially that they were caught. Don't you remember saying that? Now you're admitting they weren't caught.
Thanks for backtracking on that so quickly. Usually it takes you far more time to admit a mistake.

The rest is just nonsense with no documentation that withstands the slightest scrutiny.

You are quoting 'stories' again.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Besides all of the evidence of anomalies heretofore cited...

No anomalies cited, just examples of how some people don't understand photography and propose to make a living from that ignorance.

...there is the question as to why, if the photos are authentic, would Oswald ever want to have such pictures taken?

I missed the post where you gave your credentials as a criminal profiler. Could you please link to that?

 

[HSienzant]

Besides all of the evidence of anomalies heretofore cited, there is the question as to why, if the photos are authentic, would Oswald ever want to have such pictures taken? To prove he was a Commie Nut who while reading Commie Literature, he sports a pistol and a rifle in which he contemplates the murder of President and a police officer? The obvious Patsy incriminating set-up is just too perfect.

Lol. I've heard that excuse too. When the conspiracy theorists get drubbed, their fallback position is usually just that -- Oswald must've been framed, the evidence against him is too solid!

That's 1984 through the looking glass, black is white thinking, and has no place in a reasonable person's mind.

We know: Oswald asked Marina to take those pictures.

We know: Oswald posed for those pictures.

We know: Oswald was wearing all black, had his revolver strapped on, was holding his rifle, and holding the latest issue of "The Militant" and "The Worker" (two communist publications).

We know: Oswald less than a month later shot at right wing General Edwin Walker. At the time there were no plans to kill the President or Tippit, both those were happenstance by Oswald, and this line of argument is just a straw argument by you.

We know: Oswald inscribed one of the photos "To my daughter June".

We know: Both Marina and his mother saw at least one of these photos shortly after the assassination, and burned it, and flushed the ashes down the toilet.

We know: That in that summer, between the attempted killing of General Walker, and the killing of Kennedy, Oswald tried to set the stage for an entry into Cuba. He went to Mexico City and applied for a visa, only to be turned aside, and told to apply at the Russian Embassy - that the Russians would have to approve his visa. Since he had just left Russia a year earlier, he felt his chances of getting approval were slim.

We know: Oswald tried to build up his status as a friend of Cuba in the months before his trip to Mexico City. He debated on TV as a pro-Castroite, set up his own (unauthorized) chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and he tried to infiltrate anti-Castro groups.

The reasonable conclusion for the purpose of the photos is they were part of his attempt to build up his own status as a fighter for the Cuban revolution (Castro wore fatigues until he was in his 80's, mind you) as he felt that image would help get him into Cuban and seen as a great man.

Especially if he got there after killing an enemy of the Cuban revolution. His initial target was Walker, and he planned that one out well, even photographing the Walker residence and the surrounding area. Kennedy was a victim of circumstance. He didn't think of killing Kennedy until he learned Kennedy was going right past his window.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

The "evidence" is in the square chins...

Refuted.

...the impossibly refracted shadows

The method used to attempt to determine shadow affinity is one known to produce wrong results. It's an intuitive approach attempted by amateurs trying to reason from what they wrongly believe are correct first principles. It appeals to casual observation, but it is not based on science. When examples are shown that contradict the "theory" on which this method is supposedly built, and when formal mathematical proof shows how the "theory" fails, the practitioners resort to name-calling and refuse to talk to you. Professional? Hardly! They're charlatans and they know it.

The methods used by real experts to validate the shadows derive from projective geometry principles that have been in textbooks since the 1920s. (I have such textbooks.) They are provably correct methods and have been validated over many decades to produce reliable results.

the head too big for the body in one pic, the body too big for the head in others, the arm too short for an arm, etc, etc., etc.

Infocusinc stole the thunder on this one, but he merits the praise because he is not only correct but has been tireless in spending his time demonstrating the errors of the completely made-up methods invented by these non-expert conspiracy theorists. He and I have worked together both on the Kennedy case and on the Apollo case.

The taking of measurements in photographs and rectifying those to determine affinity among objects in the depicted scene is a science. It's a demanding science, exhibiting many pitfalls into which the JFK conspiracy theorists are on record as having falling into. Further, Jack White is on record expressing ignorance of the science. How much more devastating can you get? Not only does he admit he hasn't studied the science, his findings can be demonstrated to commit the errors the science was invented to avoid.

This, not some imaginary bias, is why the conspiracy theories are rejected.

 

[infocusinc]

Refuted.



The taking of measurements in photographs and rectifying those to determine affinity among objects in the depicted scene is a science. It's a demanding science, exhibiting many pitfalls into which the JFK conspiracy theorists are on record as having falling into. Further, Jack White is on record expressing ignorance of the science. How much more devastating can you get? Not only does he admit he hasn't studied the science, his findings can be demonstrated to commit the errors the science was invented to avoid.

This, not some imaginary bias, is why the conspiracy theories are rejected.

I want to offer up yet one more example of how perspective screws up casual measurements in photos and why the next proof Robert will likely submit will also fail.

One "attempt" to measure Oswald's body uses the paper in his hand as a "yardstick" and them tries to measure items in the rest of the photo using it.

This one is widely quoted by the likes of Fetzer...wrongly.

Perspective once again rears its head and foils this method as well. Please measure one ruler with next in this photo and see if it works...

I'll help you...

Lets measure one can with the next...opps...

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, as we have seen the square chin is no longer evidence. Man up Robert.

The shadows work just fine as both VPA and a really nice 3d model has shown. Your bad attempt to show otherwise was a complete failure.

AS for the head and body sizes, please show me an example of ANYONE who has used real methods to check the size. As you well know the examples you will surely cite get it wrong because they attempt to re size a photo and then use it to "measure" another. This is faulty methodology. Then they attempt to take an object within the same photograph and attempt measure another. Again very faulty methods. The problem Robert, is once again these folks, and you fail photography 101...PERSPECTIVE!!!

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/robertrulers.jpg[/qimg]

Like I said Robert, you are in WAY over your head, and the "experts" you cite have either no real photography experience, have recanted their claims, or simply have not investigated the subject in detail.

Deal with it Robert, you will never win this one.

I have proved the rifle shadow in 133B is false with a true shadow in its place. There are no yardsticks in the backyard photos. Deal with it, Mr. Expert. Now with all that expertise up your sleeve, why can't you prove the B'Y photos are genuine? Or do you admit they might not be????

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have proved the rifle shadow in 133B is false with a true shadow in its place. There are no yardsticks in the backyard photos. Deal with it, Mr. Expert.

What times are it, Robert????


Your photo manipulation expertise appears to be above reproach.



LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:


We know: Oswald asked Marina to take those pictures.
Correction: False


We know: Oswald posed for those pictures.
Correction: False

We know: Oswald was wearing all black, had his revolver strapped on, was holding his rifle, and holding the latest issue of "The Militant" and "The Worker" (two communist publications).
Correction: False


We know: Oswald less than a month later shot at right wing General Edwin Walker. At the time there were no plans to kill the President or Tippit, both those were happenstance by Oswald, and this line of argument is just a straw argument by you.
Correction: We do not know that Oswald took a shot at Walker

We know: Oswald inscribed one of the photos "To my daughter June".
False: We don't know that either.

 

[JayUtah]

One "attempt" to measure Oswald's body uses the paper in his hand as a "yardstick" and them tries to measure items in the rest of the photo using it.

A clear demonstration that one does not understand projective geometry and the relationship between image space and affine space. I asked Robert this early on in the discussion, and his only answer was (predictably) "Baloney." Projective geometry is the mathematics behind perspective.

This one is widely quoted by the likes of Fetzer...wrongly.

It always amuses me to see Uncle Fetzer try to address professional criticisms of his findings by saying, "Why didn't [critic] use this very simple test to check his results?" then applying one of his completely bogus home-grown methods to "invalidate" the findings. How arrogantly presumptuous can the JFK conspiracy theorists get?

Oh, and in case anyone still remembers presidential chins...

 

[JayUtah]

I have proved the rifle shadow in 133B is false with a true shadow in its place.

No. You've proven you do not understand the relationship between geometric degrees of freedom in affine space versus projective space, and hence use home-grown methods that get the wrong results. This is one of the first questions I asked you, and you responded only with "Baloney" -- your code-word that means, "I don't understand this."

Despite your brush-off, I discussed the problem to the satisfaction of other posters. You did not contribute to that discussion. Perhaps you'd like to do so now.

Further, you've amply also proven that you have no idea how to properly study shadow affinity in a photograph. It's one of those things that laymen always get wrong -- and they all get it wrong in the same way. The true method, while not immediately apparent to the naive observer, is mathematically founded and becomes truly elegant when you study the mathematical and geometrical underpinnings. It's also the method that architectural and engineering rendering artists have used for almost a century to get photorealistic, mathematically accurate shadows in their drawings.

You always profess to be the "teacher." Would you care to teach us this method and explain why it works?

 

[infocusinc]

I have proved the rifle shadow in 133B is false with a true shadow in its place. There are no yardsticks in the backyard photos. Deal with it, Mr. Expert. Now with all that expertise up your sleeve, why can't you prove the B'Y photos are genuine? Or do you admit they might not be????

Actually you did not. Your attempt was woefully poor. You proved you simply have no clue. Nice job.

I see the correct application of basic photographic principle is beyond you and you are left with ignorant replies.

The yardstick destroys the claims of size difference posited by your chosen "experts" . They simply used an incorrect method to "try" and measure and you, in your ignorance, swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I'll state it again Robert, you are simply well out of your depth.

At this date, after YEARS of study by the CT's brigade, no claims of fakery of the Backyard photos have withstood detailed inspection.

You claim the Backyard Photos are faked. I'll gladly claim your so called proofs have been proven to be incorrect.

Deal with it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hank wrote:


We know: Oswald asked Marina to take those pictures.
Correction: False

No, it's true.

We know: Oswald posed for those pictures.
Correction: False

No, it's true.

We know: Oswald was wearing all black, had his revolver strapped on, was holding his rifle, and holding the latest issue of "The Militant" and "The Worker" (two communist publications).
Correction: False

No, it's true.

We know: Oswald less than a month later shot at right wing General Edwin Walker. At the time there were no plans to kill the President or Tippit, both those were happenstance by Oswald, and this line of argument is just a straw argument by you.
Correction: We do not know that Oswald took a shot at Walker

Correction: We DO know that Oswald took a shot at General Walker.

We know: Oswald inscribed one of the photos "To my daughter June".
False: We don't know that either.

No, its true.

You scored 0/5, you fail. Pretty consistently.

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually you did not. Your attempt was woefully poor. You proved you simply have no clue. Nice job.

I see the correct application of basic photographic principle is beyond you and you are left with ignorant replies.

The yardstick destroys the claims of size difference posited by your chosen "experts" . They simply used an incorrect method to "try" and measure and you, in your ignorance, swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I'll state it again Robert, you are simply well out of your depth.

At this date, after YEARS of study by the CT's brigade, no claims of fakery of the Backyard photos have withstood detailed inspection.

You claim the Backyard Photos are faked. I'll gladly claim your so called proofs have been proven to be incorrect.

Deal with it.

And I claim your arguments are full of baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

No. You've proven you do not understand the relationship between geometric degrees of freedom in affine space versus projective space, and hence use home-grown methods that get the wrong results. This is one of the first questions I asked you, and you responded only with "Baloney" -- your code-word that means, "I don't understand this."

Despite your brush-off, I discussed the problem to the satisfaction of other posters. You did not contribute to that discussion. Perhaps you'd like to do so now.

Further, you've amply also proven that you have no idea how to properly study shadow affinity in a photograph. It's one of those things that laymen always get wrong -- and they all get it wrong in the same way. The true method, while not immediately apparent to the naive observer, is mathematically founded and becomes truly elegant when you study the mathematical and geometrical underpinnings. It's also the method that architectural and engineering rendering artists have used for almost a century to get photorealistic, mathematically accurate shadows in their drawings.

You always profess to be the "teacher." Would you care to teach us this method and explain why it works?

Yiour method is theory, mine is replication.

 

[Robert Prey]

I want to offer up yet one more example of how perspective screws up casual measurements in photos and why the next proof Robert will likely submit will also fail.

One "attempt" to measure Oswald's body uses the paper in his hand as a "yardstick" and them tries to measure items in the rest of the photo using it.

This one is widely quoted by the likes of Fetzer...wrongly.

Perspective once again rears its head and foils this method as well. Please measure one ruler with next in this photo and see if it works...

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/rulers.jpg[/qimg]

I'll help you...

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/stupid_dave.jpg[/qimg]



Lets measure one can with the next...opps...

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/tower.jpg[/qimg]

It might be helpful if you would be able to cite exactly what you are talking bout in terms or what photo and what alleged anomaly????

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, yes. I've seen that quote at least a hundred times in conspiracy books.

It's an accurate quote.

But they are lying to you all the same.

Because it's not the whole truth.

Because Connally estimated how many seconds passed during the shooting; and his estimate is NEVER quoted by those same conspiracy authors. Why? Because they interested in selling books, not finding the assassins. And unfortunately, some people - can you believe it - actually swallow that stuff and never bother to check for themselves.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

That's right, Connally estimated three shots in 10 to 12 seconds!

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/comp1.htm

Any particular reason you didn't bother to quote that time estimate, Robert?
I can see only two:
1. You weren't aware it existed.
2. You felt it destroyed the whole point of automatic fire.

I think I know why conspiracy authors withhold that info, it destroys the whole house of cards theory they are trying to sell. I'm just not sure why you did. Please advise.

PS: The time span from frame 160 (about the time most lone nutters believe the first shot was fired) to frame 313 (the last shot) was (at 18.3 frames per second) about 8.4 seconds. You can see above that Connally estimated 10 to 12 seconds for the three shots, which, all things considered, is an excellent estimate (he wasn't off by a factor of ten or anything like that).

So, what is your point? C's estimate is only a couple of seconds off from the WC estimates. And it's just an estimate? What is the problem????

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:


Note that what you quoted above is Connally saying he was hit by the second bullet. I agree with that, that is not in dispute. Nowhere have you quoted Connally saying he was hit by a bullet different from the one that struck JFK; for that you need Nellie. But you already dismissed Nellie's observations, so you've pretty much eliminated your best witness.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Nellie is irrelevant. She didn't get shot.


You are simply assuming what you have to prove; that JFK was hit by the first shot. And you've already admitted that JFK might not have been hit by the first shot, so your job just became that much tougher.

We know that the first shot to the Limo was the one that hit JFK and in reaction to the sound of that shot, C turned around to the right. As he turned again to the left he was hit. That means he was hit by a separate shot. Logic 101.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, as we have seen the square chin is no longer evidence. Man up Robert.

The shadows work just fine as both VPA and a really nice 3d model has shown. Your bad attempt to show otherwise was a complete failure.

AS for the head and body sizes, please show me an example of ANYONE who has used real methods to check the size. As you well know the examples you will surely cite get it wrong because they attempt to re size a photo and then use it to "measure" another. This is faulty methodology. Then they attempt to take an object within the same photograph and attempt measure another. Again very faulty methods. The problem Robert, is once again these folks, and you fail photography 101...PERSPECTIVE!!!

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/robertrulers.jpg[/qimg]

Like I said Robert, you are in WAY over your head, and the "experts" you cite have either no real photography experience, have recanted their claims, or simply have not investigated the subject in detail.

Deal with it Robert, you will never win this one.

And so, in specific reference to a particular photo, what exactly are you trying to prove?

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually you did not. Your attempt was woefully poor. You proved you simply have no clue. Nice job.

I see the correct application of basic photographic principle is beyond you and you are left with ignorant replies.

The yardstick destroys the claims of size difference posited by your chosen "experts" . They simply used an incorrect method to "try" and measure and you, in your ignorance, swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I'll state it again Robert, you are simply well out of your depth.

As so is Hesrchel Womack, Malcomb Thompson, Jack White, by Mg. John. Pickard, and Paul Hoch, Everyone in the world but you and that other fellow. Sounds to me like you are so wound up in your own self importance, that you can only turn a deaf ear to the opinions and theories of others, lest your own theories are exposed as mere theories.