JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[EventHorizon]

And I claim your arguments are full of baloney.

Translation: I don't understand because I'm not capable of understanding.

 

[HSienzant]

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????

You cited only the mention of the automatic gunfire; leaving out entirely Connally's actual estimate of the time frame of the three shots - from ten to twevle seconds!

Leaving out that detail leaves an entirely different impression of what Connally believed. He believed three shots in ten to twelve seconds, which is consistent with the Warren Commission's reconstruction (as you admit) and entirely do-able with a bolt-action rifle.

What you quoted sounds like it had to be multiple shooters or someone with an automatic weapon. And that impression you leave is false because you only quoted a portion of Connally's actual testimony.

the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took,

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Nope. We don't know that.

You're still assuming what you have to prove and what you previously had already disavowed.

Prove the first shot to the limo hit JFK.

Remember you previously posted this (less than a week ago, in fact):

The first shot that hit JFK was not necessarily the first shot that was shot [fired]...

Now you are telling us the exact opposite (above):

We know that the first shot to the Limo was the one that hit JFK ...

I think you need to make up your mind, and actually prove an assertion.
Your claims change more frequently than the wind in Chicago.

Hank

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Aha. I see you dropped Oswald from your litany of those who claimed to have discovered evidence of forgery.

That establishes that my prior remark must have hit too close to home.

...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.

And you say "everyone in the world" but a few posters here agree with you. That is nonsense, and a lie.

The HSCA PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERTS studied the first generation materials said there was no evidence of forgery.
The FBI studied the first generation materials for the Warren Commission, and determined there was no evidence of forgery.

All you have is some people who haven't studied the first generation materials, and saying what they think.
Most of those people aren't even photographic experts.

And you never even responded to my Paul Hoch question.
What and where did Hoch say about the photos?
What's his training in (medicine, law, computer science, photoanalysis, other)?
Please advise.

Hank

 

[infocusinc]

And I claim your arguments are full of baloney.

You bray until the cows come home but you have yet to PROVE that they are.

You are just a garden variety CT Robert. You don't have the first clue about any of this and the best you can do is parrot others who fall into the same ...PROVABLE...boat.

Get back to us when you can actually PROVE something.

 

[JayUtah]

Yiour method is theory, mine is replication.

And if you knew the theory, you'd know why your replication doesn't prove your point.

 

[JayUtah]

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

That the methods employed by the people you named in the subsequent post are provably and demonstrably wrong. Therefore they do not produce reliable results. Therefore your claims of "anomalies" are not really anomalies, but merely examples of what you and the other men you name don't understand.

 

[Robert Prey]

[/I]

Nope. We don't know that.

You're still assuming what you have to prove and what you previously had already disavowed.

Prove the first shot to the limo hit JFK.

Remember you previously posted this (less than a week ago, in fact):




Now you are telling us the exact opposite (above):

[/I]

I think you need to make up your mind, and actually prove an assertion.
Your claims change more frequently than the wind in Chicago.

Hank

Hank

Of course there is nothing inconsistent about those two statements, though you wish there were.

 

[HSienzant]

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????

Jack White has claimed the rifle serves as an internal yardstick in the backyard photos. That is, we know the length of the rifle owned by Oswald, so if we measure that, then we can determine how tall Oswald is in the photo. But as shown in the photo with actual rulers, the methodology used by Jack White fails to take into account perspective, and therefore yields an incorrect and misleading answer.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?
Mr. WHITE. Yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?
Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Jack White has also claimed the newspaper in Oswald's hand serves as the same kind of internal yardstick in the photos. With much the same erroneous results.

The HSCA and the FBI have both examined the backyard photos and determined they were legitimate.

Your photo of the man with the broomstick is erroneous in that the man is holding the brookstick away from the camera, not toward it. Oswald is holding the rifle with the butt of the rifle resting on his hip, which brings the barrel of the rifle forward toward the camera - exactly as was done in this reproduction below.

 

[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 after years of study of Lone Nutter's hopeless devotion to government dogma, no matter how illogical, I have proven that you and your fellow traverler's analysis of the photos in question is long in theory, but very short on proof.

 

[Robert Prey]

Jack White has claimed the rifle serves as an internal yardstick in the backyard photos. That is, we know the length of the rifle owned by Oswald, so if we measure that, then we can determine how tall Oswald is. But as shown in the photo with actual rulers, the methodology used by Jack White fails to take into account perspective, and therefore returns an incorrect and misleading answer.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?
Mr. WHITE. Yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?
Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.


Jack White has also claimed the newspaper in Oswald's hand serves as an internal yardstick in the photos. With much the same erroneous results.

The HSCA and the FBI have both examined the backyard photos and determined they were legitimate.

Your photo of the man with the broomstick is erroneous in that the man is holding the brookstick away from the camera, not toward it. Oswald is holding the rifle with the butt of the rifle resting on his hip, which brings the barrel of the rifle forward toward the camera - exactly as was done in this reproduction below.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare.jpg

A few inches make a big difference. Your model does the twist and betrays his own shadow as at about 11 o'clock while at the same time dropping the stick to a level unlike that of Oswald. While Oswald's shadow is nearly at 12 o'clock, he does not do a half twist to the right, nor dip the rifle to the level of your model. On the other hand, my example is very close to the angles and distances in 133B, and refracts a much more natural and much more believable shadow.

 

[infocusinc]

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.

Womack..LOL! Here is Womack:

"The fact that the matte photograph was worked up from the precise backyard photo that was withheld from the Warren Commission makes me suspect that the 'ghost' photo, the withheld133-C photo, and Brown's demonstration photo may all have been part of thes ame trial series. Once the 'practice' was over and the actual forgery completed, the incriminating materials were discarded -- or so they
thought." (p. 387)

As McAdams so kindly points out this 'researcher' is full of beans.

"On the preceeding page (386) they point out that "The matte print . . .
shows the backyard photographed in the Secret Service-sponsored
re-enactment on November 29, not the seasonally different background of
the 'true' Oswald backyard photos (shot eight months earlier, on March 31,
1963) . . . "

Indeed, the "Oswald ghost" photo that the LaFontaines print shows
important seasonal differences. The bush in the background has grown much
larger than it is in the background of the Oswald photos, and leaves in
the background of the Oswald photos have shriveled and fallen. So the
"reenactment" photos that Womack says were part of the process of faking
133-A and 133-B were in fact shot months later!"

Scratch Womack.

White? ROFLMAO! Here is White again for you...expert? No chance in Hell! I've got Jack White crackpot claims proven wrong by the bucketfuls Robert! LMAO!

Thompson..he recanted.

Pickard...dude he studied really bad copies FOR LESS THAN AN HOUR. A perfect CT "expert".

And finally Hock. Wy don't you show us the actual work Hock has done on the Backyard photos Robert. Not simply his opinion, but the actual work that SUPPORTS it.

I'm not interested in opinion Robert, I'm interested in facts...facts that can be checked. That's why the photo evidence is so powerful. Its all very black and white. Either something conforms to the strict rules that govern photography or it fails.

And of course that's the main reason so many of the silly CT theories that have infected your brain fail.

Time for you to deal with it Robert. The real facts destroy you and your silly ct friends.

 

[infocusinc]

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

I'm showing you WHY the so called "proofs" you think show the body, head arms and rifle sizes to be incorrect...are junk. They were made using improper methods.

And you don't know any better.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...no matter how illogical, I have proven...

Are you madder at the Loon sites that lied to you or madder at yourself for how gullible you were in swallowing it all without question????

Do you think you'll be able to use the education you've gotten here in the future?????

Are you going to go back to the Loon sites and show them just how dishonestly wrong they are????

If I were you, I'd mock them like you're getting it here.

Oops! Three questions!!!! LOL.

 

[infocusinc]

And after years of study of Lone Nutter's hopeless devotion to government dogma, no matter how illogical, I have proven that you and your fellow traverler's analysis of the photos in question is long in theory, but very short on proof.

Actually you have done no such thing and to the contrary you have been offered proof that the work you so covet and follow blindly is based on garbage.

You have been shown how theory translates in to cold, hard photograph fact.

That you can't understand this work, or don't have the intellectual honesty to see it destroys you, is your shortcoming.

You are the perfect fetzorian. Blind devotion to a worldview that is not fact based and so vested in your mythical CT beliefs you can't behave in an intellectually honest manner.

Deal with it Robert.

 

[HSienzant]

Of course there is nothing inconsistent about those two statements, though you wish there were.

Here is what you wrote in those two statements:

The first shot that hit JFK was not necessarily the first shot that was shot [fired].

We know that the first shot to the Limo was the one that hit JFK ...

Now, let's say the first shot DIDN'T hit JFK:
- Then your second statement is wrong, and we don't know that the first shot to the limo was the one that hit JFK.

Now, let's say the first shot DID hit JFK:
- Then your first statement is wrong, and the first shot was necessarily the the first shot that was fired.

Did I leave out any possibilities? No? I seemed to have covered them all?
Either the first shot hit JFK or it didn't.

At least one of your statements is wrong.

But regardless of that, you still have to prove the second one is correct -- that the first shot hit JFK.

Where's your evidence for THAT?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

A few inches make a big difference. Your model does the twist and betrays his own shadow as at about 11 o'clock while at the same time dropping the stick to a level unlike that of Oswald. While Oswald's shadow is nearly at 12 o'clock, he does not do a half twist to the right, nor dip the rifle to the level of your model. On the other hand, my example is very close to the angles and distances in 133B, and refracts a much more natural and much more believable shadow.

The point was never about Oswald's shadow. That is just more moving of the goalposts by you.

The original complaint was that a rifle held at the 11 o'clock position would NOT, under any circumstances, create a horizontal shadow.
Your challenge was to duplicate the shadow. It's been done. So of course you move the goalposts.

As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent and the example of your Dartmath "expert" has nothing to do with 133B. The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.

That claim has been disproven. The shadow of the rifle has been duplicated. So you retreat into other objections about Oswald's shadow and how the man is standing. That is nonsense. A rifle held at 11 o'clock can cast a horizontal shadow, disproving your original claim. The image below proves that.

 

[JayUtah]

And after years of study of Lone Nutter's hopeless devotion to government dogma...

Give it a rest. Both demonstration and theory soundly trump your "experts," and they can only respond -- as do you -- with feeble invective and insults. There's not "government dogma" at work here. Just demonstrable, provable science. To which you've ever only been able to cry, "Baloney!"

 

[JayUtah]

On the other hand, my example is very close to the angles and distances in 133B...

If you had been able to answer my degrees-of-freedom question with more than "Baloney," you'd know whether this statement has a scientific basis. Pity. Now you may never know. Here's a hint: the pros know.

 

[HSienzant]

A few inches make a big difference. Your model does the twist and betrays his own shadow as at about 11 o'clock while at the same time dropping the stick to a level unlike that of Oswald. While Oswald's shadow is nearly at 12 o'clock, he does not do a half twist to the right, nor dip the rifle to the level of your model. On the other hand, my example is very close to the angles and distances in 133B, and refracts a much more natural and much more believable shadow.

Nope, Oswald has the rifle resting on his hip in this image (right side).

That means the rifle is leaning forward toward the camera (the barrel of the rifle is closer to the camera than the butt - it is impossible to rest the rifle on your hip as Oswald is doing and have the rifle barrel further back than the butt - there is no support for the rifle that way).

The strap also reveals - by the way it falls in front of the hand, and by obscuring part of the rifle - that the rifle is tilted forward. If the rifle was tilted back, gravity would pull the stap down and to the side of the rifle - away from the hand. Here, it is pulling down, but that means it obscures part of the hand and rifle as the rifle is tilted forward.

That means your recreation has the broomstick at the wrong angle - pointing backward instead of pointing forward. So of course your shadow doesn't correspond to what is seen in the backyard photo. Because you didn't faithfully recreate the initial conditions.

Hank