JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Garrison]

And I claim your arguments are full of baloney.

You keep claiming that, you keep failing to prove it.

 

[HSienzant]

There are no yardsticks in the backyard photos.

lol. That's not what Jack White says. Robert, do you not understand that White's attempt to use the newspaper or the rifle as a yardstick is bound to fail because he doesn't take perspective into account?

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 i and that using the known dimensions of the newspaper, he can compute the height of the Oswald image. With much the same erroneous results.

Not sure why you're claiming there are no yardsticks in the backyard photos, as those internal yardsticks are central to the critics arguments.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If a few inches can make a lot of difference, will Robert retract his claims of "proof" from a photo of a rifle not only being held inches out of place, but also tilts the rifle towards, not away from the camera, and clearly has the "rifle" holder also held two handed (meaning the body is twisted at the wrong angle the same way he believes invalidates other examples)?


Amazing how nits can be picked in any evidence he disagrees with, but his own is "exact enough" with the same flaws. Almost as though there was a double standard...

 

[EventHorizon]

I have proven

You are either lying or you don't understand the definition of the word proven. Either stop lying or try to learn some English.

 

[bynmdsue]

I'd like to take a moment and acknowledge the truly amazing work being done here by JayUtah and infocusinc on the photographic front and Hank as well. Truly brilliant stuff guys. Puttin' the "e" back in jref.

 

[Robert Prey]

Infocusink wrote:


"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.

Comment:
Neither Womak nor Prey ever claimed the background of the ghosted photo was the same as any of the others, but merely an interim step for positioning the pose (as in 133C) for the final forgery composite.


It really isn't necessary to use large type to scream and shout your mistakes in order to make them appear to have any value. Take it easy or you could get a stroke or something.

 

[infocusinc]

Infocusink wrote:


"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.

Comment:
Neither Womak nor Prey ever claimed the background of the ghosted photo was the same as any of the others, but merely an interim step for positioning the pose (as in 133C) for the final forgery composite.


It really isn't necessary to use large type to scream and shout your mistakes in order to make them appear to have any value. Take it easy or you could get a stroke or something.

Lets review the posted quote that rushed right over your head Robert...

"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) . . . "

Did that part confuse you Robert?

LETS SAY IT LOUD!

THE PHOTO USED FOR THE GHOST IMAGES WAS TAKEN MONTHS AFTER THE REAL BY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN!

So they used a photos taken by the Secret Service On November 29, ... AFTER the assassination ...and after the BY photos were found?

DID THEY USE A TIME MACHINE TO TAKE THEM BACK?

roflmao!

The comedy value of your posts is truly amazing!

BTW, exactly what skills does Hock bring to the table Robert? Tell us all about the photo skills of your special expert.

 

[Southwind17]

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, on what basis do you claim to know that the first shot hit JFK? Very simple question, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Southwind17]

I wonder whether Robert believes that the dark areas to both sides of LHO's lower jaw bone are shadow, or evidence of the actual shape of LHO's jaw bone (in which case what, exactly, are those black 'objects' set against a grey background?!):



If Robert were to conclude that it's shadowing, then, notwithstanding that removal of that shadowing alone would result in a much more rounded lower face, he should also conclude that the cause of such shadowing inevitably manifests itself in a similar shadowing of the bottom of the chin. Why is this so obvious to everybody here except Robert?!

 

[HSienzant]

Robert what reached him first the bullet in his back or the bang in his ears?

Connally has consistently stated he never heard the shot that hit him - probably because, as he noted, the impact of the bullet might have put him in shock.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not...​

Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?

Governor CONNALLY. The second one.​

Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.​

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.​

 

[HSienzant]

There are no yardsticks in the backyard photos.

Sure there are. You yourself attempted to use one not too long ago, posting that Oswald's apparent height changed between two of the photos when compared to the post behind him. You also used Oswald head size as a yardstick to attempt to determine his overall height, as well.

Do you remember posting this?

More Backyard Photo Anomalies

Pictured are Backyard Photos 133A and 133C. Just above Oswald's head there is a wooden notch on the beam. Although the anchored right foot is nearly in the same position, 133C, a few inches to the back, you can see by the red line drawn that from 133A to 133C Oswald has shrunk in height.

In addition, in 133A his head is too big for his body, and in 133C his body is too big for his head.

Photo 133A

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6d9b29b5add.jpg[/qimg]

Photo 133C

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6d9b4cd540d.jpg[/qimg]

Do you remember the explanation looking like this?

 

[HSienzant]

Got this question sent to me privately. Am responding here with identifiers removed. My responses are in bold preceded by "--"

Hi,

I stopped posting some time ago. I never posted in CT (well, a few of my posts may be there--but only because the thread was moved).

I ... have yet to see a CT that made any sense at all.

You seen to know a lot about the JFK assassination, yes?

My only experience with guns are shooting cap guns and water pistols.

Is this fairly accurate? (If you choose to reply, I don't need a long analysis)

The shot Oswald took was really, really easy.

I realize you have probably read statements and claims that the shot was extraordinarily difficult, a shot beyond Oswald's capabilities. It's simply not true; those statements are invariably made by people who simply don't know anything about rifles, aren't acquainted with the facts, or don't care about facts.

1. The distance Oswald was shooting at was less than 60 to 90 metres (depending on which of the three shots we're talking about.)

-- the longest shot was 88.3 yards​

In terms of rifle accuracy, this is an amateur's shot. Beginners commence practicing at 100 metre targets. Rifles are designed to be shot with accuracy with great ease; at 90 metres pretty much anyone who has ever handled a rifle who does not have Parkinson's disease should be able to kill whomever they're aiming at. You give me any willing adult, who has never fired a rifle before, and I can teach them to hit a target the size of a human head at 80 metres at least four times in five by the end of the first day of training. It's freaking east. It is frankly unimpressive that Oswald missed one out of three shots.

-- Oswald trained at 200 and 500 yards in the Marines.​

2. While Kennedy was moving, he was moving almost directly away from Oswald, and doing so very slowly - his limousine was only moving at about 15 miles per hour at the time.

-- 11.3 mph was the official average time during the shooting sequence, as I recall.​

The deflection (the difference you have to account for in aiming at a moving target) would have been insignificant.

-- True​

3. It's often claimed that Oswald would have had to load and fire three times in 5.6 seconds to achieve his feat. First of all, in and of itself that's not really as hard as you think. There's only two loads in there - you could have loaded the rifle five minutes before taking the first shot - so it's shoot-work the action-shoot-work the action-shoot. Just do it yourself with a stopwatch; 6 seconds is not THAT rushed. And of course, while conspiracy sources claim it was 5.6 seconds, THAT probably is not true, either; it may well have been more like 8.5 seconds.

-- That is also true, with a first shot at about Zapruder frame 160, and a final shot at 313, that's about 8.46 seconds at 18.3 frames per second.​

Whatever else is true, the shot Oswald took was a shot that someone with almost any experience firing a rifle could have made.

In my investigoogling, there are a lot of claims that LHO was either not a good enough shooter--or perhaps other claims that are not coming to mind right now.

-- Whitman - who shot a number of people dead from the top of the Texas Tower in 1966 - had roughly the same marine shooting score as Oswald. One qualified with a 210, one with a 212 (out of a possible 250). Both were awarded with the second highest grade you can receive for shooting in the Marines (Marksman, I think).​

​

I used to avoid the CT sub-forum--but it is actually rather interesting--for at least 2 reasons:

--the psychology of the CTer.
--the educational factor--what I learn when I read responses to them from folks like you.

No offense will be taken if you don't reply. I'm merely curious. And I only recently started reading the JFK thread--I don't have the patience to read the whole thing, to see if the issue was discussed)

Regards,

Xxxx

 

[Southwind17]

Robert, the backlog of unanswered questions continues to grow. When do you plan on clearing them? Just mine:

Please explain what 'evidence', exactly, you are alluding to that does not simply constitute a view or opinion of Jack White. Please identify to us exactly what anomalies you consider Jack White has demonstrated that you believe are irrefutable, and why.

What's YOUR definition of an 'expert', Robert?

How big, exactly, should LHO's head be in relation to his body and his body in relaltion to his head, would you say, Robert?

Robert, do you accept the phenomenon of a lunar eclipse, or do you need to see the theory replicated before you'll believe it?

What shape do you see, Robert:



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

Robert, on what basis do you claim to know that the first shot hit JFK? Very simple question, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, the backlog of unanswered questions continues to grow. When do you plan on clearing them? Just mine:

Happy to answer all questions that are on point -- one at a time, please.

 

[EventHorizon]

Happy to answer all questions that are on point -- one at a time, please.

They're all on point so pick one. Your choice.

 

[Robert Prey]

Sure there are. You yourself attempted to use one not too long ago, posting that Oswald's apparent height changed between two of the photos when compared to the post behind him. You also used Oswald head size as a yardstick to attempt to determine his overall height, as well.


[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/angle.jpg[/qimg]

!33C

133A

In terms of camera distance, what is the difference between 133C and 133A???

 

[JayUtah]

Happy to answer all questions that are on point -- one at a time, please.

They're all on point and you've had lots of time to answer them.

 

[JayUtah]

[Backyard photos]

You posted the photos but made no argument.

 

[Robert Prey]

Connally has consistently stated he never heard the shot that hit him - probably because, as he noted, the impact of the bullet might have put him in shock.

Mr. SPECTER. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not...​

Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?

Governor CONNALLY. The second one.​

Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.​

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.​

Sirens sounding, shots echoing, silencers muffling -- lots of possible explanations.

 

[Robert Prey]

I wonder whether Robert believes that the dark areas to both sides of LHO's lower jaw bone are shadow, or evidence of the actual shape of LHO's jaw bone (in which case what, exactly, are those black 'objects' set against a grey background?!):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_195334f7b8f1fe3920.jpg[/qimg]

If Robert were to conclude that it's shadowing, then, notwithstanding that removal of that shadowing alone would result in a much more rounded lower face, he should also conclude that the cause of such shadowing inevitably manifests itself in a similar shadowing of the bottom of the chin. Why is this so obvious to everybody here except Robert?!

That the shadows create the square jay is theory, not a fact. But the jaw in 133C has very much less shadow, but still the same square chin.