• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Southwind17 said:
Robert, on what basis do you claim to know that the first shot hit JFK? Very simple question, I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...

The first shot to the Limo is not necessarily the first shot. But the first shot to the Limo that hit anybody was the shot that hit JFK. We know that because of his reaction to it.
 
Robert Prey said:
In terms of camera distance, what is the difference between 133C and 133A???
Click to expand...

Give me the originals, or faithful copies of them, and I'll tell you.

Also, what makes you think distance to or from the subject is the only factor that applies to the proposal to measure an object in the scene based on superimposition in image space?
 
infocusinc said:
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.
Click to expand...

The backyard in 133C is seasonally different than the ghosted photo. Obviously. But it is the same background and the same pose of the ghosted image. 133C and the ghosted photo both have the same pose and positions. To say that the background is seasonally different is both obvious and missing the point that the ghosted image was probably made as an interim step to the creation of the composite forgery using the other background. The fact that we even have a ghosted photo, plus the fact that no pics were "found" on the afternoon of Nov. 22nd in the Paine garage, plus the statements of 2 witnesses that a background without an image was seen at the photo processing lab the night of Nov. 22nd, plus the fact that the backyard photos were then "discovered" after a second search in the Paine garage on Nov. 23rd, would seem to raise suspicions to an open minded, rational person as to just what the heck was going on here. Would you not agree that these facts are somewhat unusual. To me, they offer more evidence of suspicion of photographic chicanery. Where am I going wrong????
 
bynmdsue said:
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.
Click to expand...


Nice theories, but no proof.
 
JayUtah said:
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!"
Click to expand...

The "replication" of the colored image is no where near pose of both the rifle and the man in the actual photo.
 
HSienzant said:
Nope, Oswald has the rifle resting on his hip in this image (right side).

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare3.jpg[/qimg]

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.

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

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
Click to expand...

Again. Check out the shadow refraction of Oswald as compared to the colored model. Very different sunlight angle, would you not agree????
 
HSienzant said:
Here is what you wrote in those two statements:






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
Click to expand...

First shot fired as versus first shot to the Limo -- nothing inconsistent here.
 
infocusinc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fiddlesticks.
 
infocusinc said:
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.
Click to expand...

And all you can do is offer theories, but no proof.
 
Robert Prey said:
That the shadows create the square jay is theory, not a fact.
Click to expand...

Why did you call Southwind17 by my name? Obsess much?

The proposition that illumination determines the perception of contour and boundary is not a theory but proven fact, amply demonstrated by you in this very thread. If you wish to argue that the appearance of the chin in the backyard photographs must be due solely to a differently shaped chin itself, then you must account for all the other competing factors. Noting that they exist and then dismissing them does not constitute an accounting.

But the jaw in 133C has very much less shadow...
Click to expand...

Do you mean shadow or shade?

What have you done to normalize or correct for density factors in the reproduction? Keep in mind that in this thread already you have naively adjusted the density curve in your convenience JPEG and tried to pass that off as a legitimate remedy for density and quantization factors.

...but still the same square chin.
Click to expand...

It has a similar appearance to the other backyard photos. However the illumination on the face does not markedly change among them.
 
Robert Prey said:
bynmdsue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice theories, but no proof.
Click to expand...
Oh, Robert, don't pout. We should thank you also for being the unwitting pawn of the CT Loon sites. You swallow everything they feed you and come here to regurgitate it and take the spanking of your life for it. The humiliation you're experiencing here is a cautionary lesson for all of us.

You've played your part almost like someone who believes the unevidenced twaddle you were spewing. Well done!
 
JayUtah said:
Refuted.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

There is science and then there is also Junk Science.
 
Robert Prey said:
There is science and then there is also Junk Science.
Click to expand...

Indeed. You, White, and the others practice junk science, as I have amply demonstrated. You and the others continue to demonstrate a profound ignorance of the science of photogrammetry as it is actually practiced among professionals. All you're doing now is calling your critics names. Are you really that desperate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom