JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[RoboTimbo]

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

You are very consistent in your cowardly dodging.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Lots of possible explanations for Connally not hearing the second shot -- why is that an issue now?

Your original claim was that Connally INSISTED UNTIL THE DAY HE DIED that JFK was struck by a separate shot than that which struck him (Connally).

Asked to quote that, you punted. Repeatedly.

Now you want to take a knee.

Robert, why not just document YOUR CLAIM or admit you cannot?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is science and then there is also Junk Science.

And what makes you, who has claimed a professional medical opinion can be held by anybody, not just medical professionals, and demanded to know where one might find the laws of basic inertia, better qualified to tell between science and junk science, than the other posters here? Many of whom are professionals in varying technical, scientific or engineering fields?

Especially when you are dismissing a subject as junk with out any valid research?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

That sounds suspiciously like my theory. But that does not mean Connally and Kennedy were struck by separate bullets as you keep insisting.

Oswald fires the first shot at about Z160.

This shot does not hit the limo or any of it's occupants. Connally hears this shot and turns to the right. He believes the first shot was fired from over his right shoulder, at an elevation. Connally scans the crowd, sees nothing suspicious, and starts to turn to the left.

Oswald fires a second shot at about Z224. That's 3.5 seconds after the first shot.

The second shot hits JFK in the back, penetrates his neck, and exits at the throat. It travels on a straight line to hit Connally. Connally doesn't hear this bullet because the bullet travels faster than the sound, and by the time the sound arrives, Connally has already been struck, and is going into shock.

Oswald fires the third and final shot at about Z313. That's 4.86 seconds after the second shot. The third shot strikes Kennedy in the back of the skull, and exits the right top side of the skull. One fragment of the bullet strikes the chrome, another fragment strikes the windshield. The lead core or a portion thereof strikes James Tague by the underpass.

How does your theory differ from the above?


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Nice theories, but no proof.

Robert, you've just summed up every post you've made in this thread.

 

[HSienzant]

Again. Check out the shadow refraction of Oswald as compared to the colored model. Very different sunlight angle, would you not agree????

No, it's not significantly different. Moving the camera just slightly to the right of the subject [Caeruleo] in the image on the left below would put the shadow behind Caeruleo to the same extent it's behind Oswald.

We're not fooled by this, you know. You're just moving the goalposts, again.

Your original claim was that, with the rifle held at 11 o'clock, it is impossible to get the rifle shadow to fall horizontally.

That challenge has been met. Rather than admit that, you move the goalposts.

You also previously argued the position of the man holding the stick was important, and affected the shadow as well. I repeatedly told you that your claim was nonsense. I see you are no longer repeating that claim. It is exposed as just another attempt to move the goalposts since I changed the image to show Caeruleo facing forward, rather than looking over his right shoulder at the shadow.

PS: You keep using the word refraction in reference to the shadow in the image. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

The backyard photos must have been taken months before 11/22/63 because there are clear seasonal differences between the photo taken in November (the ghosted image) and the Oswald back yard images. They could not have been taken in March of 1964 because they were already found by November 23rd of 1963. This means they were taken in March of 1963.

Do you disagree with the above?

Here's the ghosted photo. Note the height of the growth on either side of Oswald.

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.

No, that is simply just your supposition (the 'probably' gives it away), and ignores entirely the fact that there are clear seasonal differences between the two photos, with the ghosted image coming last.

Here's backyard photo A; note the height of the growth on either side of Oswald:

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????

Glad you asked that, because this is typical conspiracy-think you've got above. You ignore the hard evidence and focus on the soft, and attempt to reason it through without ever considering whether there is a simple non-conspiratorial answer that makes sense.

There is.

You're missing the point of the seasonal differences. The Secret Service [ghosted] photo was taken on 11/29/63 [You argue it must have been taken on the evening of 11/22/63, but that is still close enough to establish the photo was taken in the fall, (autumn) of 1963]. The backyard photos with Oswald in them were taken in a different season entirely - which must have been MONTHS EARLIER than the Fall of 1963. Which means the backyard photos with Oswald were taken well before the ghosted image that you claim came first.

Your argument - based as it is on the eyewitness recollections made 20, 30, or 40 years after the fact, and ignoring what the photos themselves tell us - falls flat on its face for lack of evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hate to break it to you Robert, but having a DIFFERENT BACKGROUND to any known photo suggests this "ghost" was made after the fact and was NOT an interim stage in a composite.

Why would they not just use the background they were using? In what way does it make any sense to believe they would use a DIFFERENT BACKGROUND IMAGE at ANY stage?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

You have not. This a lie you repeat again and again. It is a lie. You are lying. With a lie.

I trust this is clear.

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????

Once again (for the umpteenth time), it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. You make the claim the pics are fake, so it is up to you to provide proof. Not it-seems-fake-to-me-so-it-therefore-must-be statements. Proof. Evidence.

I trust this also is clear.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

There is science and then there is also Junk Science.

Is your ego so very large, or so very delicate? I can't decide which.

 

[HSienzant]

Hate to break it to you Robert, but having a DIFFERENT BACKGROUND to any known photo suggests this "ghost" was made after the fact and was NOT an interim stage in a composite.

Why would they not just use the background they were using? In what way does it make any sense to believe they would use a DIFFERENT BACKGROUND IMAGE at ANY stage?

It doesn't, but I don't expect Robert to admit that.

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would shoot JFK from multiple positions, but plan to frame a lone gunman for the assassination [Robert claims there were multiple shooters, and Oswald was being framed as the lone gunman].

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would plant a cheap, war-surplus rifle at the murder scene instead of a modern (1963) weapon [critics claim the weapon Oswald used wasn't up to the task].

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would plan to alter photos or films, or alter the body, either, when they could accomplish everything with legitimate films and photos, and no alteration of the body, by just shooting JFK from behind with Oswald's rifle [Robert has alleged the Z-film and other films are altered, the Moorman photo was altered, the body was altered, and multiple shooters shot at JFK].

Without these meaningless and ultimately idiotic claims of conspiracy, Robert would not have any claims of conspiracy.

Hank

 

[Garrison]

It doesn't, but I don't expect Robert to admit that.

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would shoot JFK from multiple positions, but plan to frame a lone gunman for the assassination [Robert claims there were multiple shooters, and Oswald was being framed as the lone gunman].

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would plant a cheap, war-surplus rifle at the murder scene instead of a modern (1963) weapon [critics claim the weapon Oswald used wasn't up to the task].

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would plan to alter photos or films, or alter the body, either, when they could accomplish everything with legitimate films and photos, and no alteration of the body, by just shooting JFK from behind with Oswald's rifle [Robert has alleged the Z-film and other films are altered, the Moorman photo was altered, the body was altered, and multiple shooters shot at JFK].

Without these meaningless and ultimately idiotic claims of conspiracy, Robert would not have any claims of conspiracy.

Hank

This is why all the JFK conspiracies break down; the endless needless elaboration. Why not for that matter at the beginning pick yourself a patsy who will revel in the notoriety of being the assassin of JFK? Or someone whose willing to be a martyr to the cause, whatever the cause might be?

 

[HSienzant]

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

This post proves your claims are false.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8169235&postcount=5280

Your 'true shadow' is another falsehood by you, as the broomstick/cane has been established to be pointing away from the camera, while the rifle in the backyard photo is pointing toward the camera.

Why repeatedly lie, Robert?

Why are you so wed to the conspiracy theories that you cannot admit you were simply wrong?

Hank

 

[bynmdsue]

Y'know, if "What The BLEEP Do We know?" w/ Marlee Matlin teaches us anything, it's that there is an infinite amount of parallel universes. In one of those universes the DPD found the backyard photos during the first search of the Paine's garage and then 48 yrs later the alternate Robert Prey complained that it was "suspicious" that the police were able to find these incriminating photos on their first cursory search of the garage. Robert Prey, "WINNING" 'cross time and space.

 

[infocusinc]

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????

There is more than seasonal differences Robert. The bush on the right has grown substantially larger. So unless you can show us this so called "interim" image was made PRIOR to what we see in the Backyard photos, you fantasy remains just that...a fantasy.

Where did you going wrong? Simple. You got lost in CT land and took the word of false "experts" as fact without checking their work.

There is a lot of solid ...and factual work in this thread that simply destroys the claims of the CT's you so covet. If you were not so vested in your beliefs and were intellectually honest you might be able to see the folly of your position.

 

[infocusinc]

Fiddlesticks.

My work is posted in this thread. If its "fiddlesticks" you should be able to offer well documented rebuttals. To date you have failed in that regard.

Looks like the "fiddlestick" is Robert.

 

[infocusinc]

It doesn't, but I don't expect Robert to admit that.

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would shoot JFK from multiple positions, but plan to frame a lone gunman for the assassination [Robert claims there were multiple shooters, and Oswald was being framed as the lone gunman].

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would plant a cheap, war-surplus rifle at the murder scene instead of a modern (1963) weapon [critics claim the weapon Oswald used wasn't up to the task].

It likewise doesn't make any sense that they would plan to alter photos or films, or alter the body, either, when they could accomplish everything with legitimate films and photos, and no alteration of the body, by just shooting JFK from behind with Oswald's rifle [Robert has alleged the Z-film and other films are altered, the Moorman photo was altered, the body was altered, and multiple shooters shot at JFK].

Without these meaningless and ultimately idiotic claims of conspiracy, Robert would not have any claims of conspiracy.

Hank

Oh please Robert thinks the Moorman was altered? When in the world could that have happened?

BTW I worked with Josiah Tompson, Gary Mack, Joe Durnavich and others on yet another very silly JACK WHITE CT theory...Moorman in the street.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/index.html#contents


As part of the process we had Thompson take a 4x5 b/w copy negative he had made of the Moorman original and have it drum scanned. It is the highest resolution digital Moorman in existence and only 1 generation from the original print. This 8bit file is 137 mb. I have it. In fact a lower res, dodged and burned copy made from this original scan is here. Jack White called it the best Moorman he has ever seen. Take that for what its worth.

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=3144&fullsize=1

I challenge Robert to show us the retouching, and of course the timeline for this retouching....

 

[HSienzant]

Oh please Robert thinks the Moorman was altered? When in the world could that have happened?

BTW I worked with Josiah Tompson, Gary Mack, Joe Durnavich and others on yet another very silly JACK WHITE CT theory...Moorman in the street.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/index.html#contents


As part of the process we had Thompson take a 4x5 b/w copy negative he had made of the Moorman original and have it drum scanned. It is the highest resolution digital Moorman in existence and only 1 generation from the original print. This 8bit file is 137 mb. I have it. In fact a lower res, dodged and burned copy made from this original scan is here. Jack White called it the best Moorman he has ever seen. Take that for what its worth.

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=3144&fullsize=1

I challenge Robert to show us the retouching, and of course the timeline for this retouching....

Yeah, I did too. Robert hemmed and hawed (as you've seen here), tried to support it with a book cite and a quote or two out of context, baloneyed a few times, then retreated into "it may be altered, but maybe not" and left it at that.

In other words, Standard Conspiracy Argumentation.

... So could the Moorman photo have been altered? Is the Pope Catholic?

It is you who post nonsense: The complete guide to altered imagery: for collage, altered books, ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1592531776...

According to Moorman herself, her picture was indeed altered...

Everything you have stated in this post is upside down, backwards double-talk and baloney. And also untrue.

...The pic could have been altered, but if the pic was taken before the fatal shot, then alteration is not necessary.

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

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

133C


133A

Very simply, Robert, unless 133A is a crop and blow up of the negative then quite clearly the relative field of view in 133A is much reduced from 133C. Ignoring the obvious difference in LHO's apparent body size (of course!), this is most noticeable in:

• the distance from the top left corner of the photos to the bottom edge of the string of the wooden staircase (the 'string', in case you don't know, Robert, is the long piece of sloping wood that each of the steps (treads) is fixed to at the end).
• the distance from the top edge of the photos to the top rail of the palisade fance behind LHO
• the far right tall post forming the fence behind LHO: in 133A it sits almost along the edge of the photo whereas in 133C it's inset significantly, revealing more of the actual scene, such as the bush and the additional fence features to the top right of the said post.

Unless the camera had a zoom lens(!) the only explanation for different relative fields of view is that the camera must have been closer to the subject for 133A compared to 133C. The other effects of varying camera distance, of course, are that the apparent size of LHO will be larger in 133A, and his head will appear higher relative to reference points behind him, the obvious one being the top of the palisade fence. This is exactly what we see, and has been amply explained and demonstrated to you previously by Hank thus:



Now, Robert, what part(s) of the foregoing don't you understand and/or accept, and why?

 

[Southwind17]

The first shot to the Limo is not necessarily the first shot.

That's true. What evidence do you have of a prior 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.

I assume you mean the shot to his back that exited through his neck (as opposed to the other shot that hit him, of course!). In which case on this we are all agreed. What's your point?