• 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.
Robert Prey said:
That the shadows create the square jay is theory, not a fact.
Click to expand...
:boggled:



That's an actual photo, Robert, i.e. not theory, but fact.

Robert Prey said:
But the jaw in 133C has very much less shadow, but still the same square chin.
Click to expand...
Robert, it's been pointed out to you before that one cannot remove a shadow from a photo print to reveal whatever it's shadowing. Photos are not some sort of magical, dynamic medium with hidden content that can be revealed by stripping away overlays. Whilst a shadow in reality can be thought of as 'overlaying' the object upon which it is cast, and can be removed by either reorientating the object and/or applying an additional light source from the necessary direction, this cannot be achieved with a photo print. If one removes the shadow then the entire image is removed. If one somehow 'lightens' the shadow through reproduction the profile of the original object as determined by the shadow will remain.

Robert, how do you account for LHO's apparent 'sunken' cheeks? Is his jawbone really the shape portrayed in the photo do you think? On what basis do you discount the shadow effect causing his apparently unusual shaped jawbone as not even possibly causing his apparently unusually-shaped chin?!

 
Southwind17 said:
Robert, how do you account for LHO's apparent 'sunken' cheeks? Is his jawbone really the shape portrayed in the photo do you think? On what basis do you discount the shadow effect causing his apparently unusual shaped jawbone as not even possibly causing his apparently unusually-shaped chin?!

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

Was Robert ever able to figure out why Oswald is sporting a Hitler mustache in that photo or does it still totally befuddle him?
 
Southwind17 said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_195334f7ccfe56a486.jpg[/qimg]
133C

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_195334f7ccff999820.jpg[/qimg]
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:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_195334f7cd4891cd67.jpg[/qimg]

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

Both are crops from a square negative. And Robert has no clue how far the camera might have moved.
 
infocusinc said:
Both are crops from a square negative. And Robert has no clue how far the camera might have moved.
Click to expand...

I had a college professor who was a big proponent of the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) philosophy. I've taken the liberty of editing out the unnecessary words from your post.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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?
Click to expand...

After actually seeing the different growths in the two photos, I end up asking myself- who's trying to pull a fast one here?

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

Rather pathetic, actually.
 
infocusinc said:
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.
Click to expand...
Aren't the 'seasonal differences' deliberately included as part of the grand conspiracy masterplan - you know, to give the CTists even more material to cobble up some stories about, thereby throwing them off the trail even more?! :rolleyes:
 
pakeha said:
After actually seeing the different growths in the two photos, I end up asking myself- who's trying to pull a fast one here?



Rather pathetic, actually.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how pathetic they seem to you, they are differences between the images with no further signs of tampering. The only viable conclusion is that they are different backgrounds. There remains no reason a different background would form any interim stage of composition, and no reason to assume this proves fakery. Robert offered it as evidence, it does not support his assertion. It requires a whole new assertion about what the "ghost" is and was used for.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Regardless of how pathetic they seem to you, they are differences between the images with no further signs of tampering. The only viable conclusion is that they are different backgrounds. There remains no reason a different background would form any interim stage of composition, and no reason to assume this proves fakery. Robert offered it as evidence, it does not support his assertion. It requires a whole new assertion about what the "ghost" is and was used for.
Click to expand...

That there are seasonal differences is obvious. But there is little or no difference in the pose nor the structures upon which that ghosted pose is placed against. Perhaps you or one of your "expert" cohorts on this board can suggest just why a ghosted photo was made or was necessary to prove something in the first place???
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
After actually seeing the different growths in the two photos, I end up asking myself- who's trying to pull a fast one here?

Rather pathetic, actually.
Click to expand...

Pathetic that all you and your Amen Chorus of critics can do is pooh-pooh a ghosted photo which you, yourselves cannot explain.
 
Southwind17 said:
:boggled:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334f7166759ebef.jpg[/qimg]

That's an actual photo, Robert, i.e. not theory, but fact.


Robert, it's been pointed out to you before that one cannot remove a shadow from a photo print to reveal whatever it's shadowing. Photos are not some sort of magical, dynamic medium with hidden content that can be revealed by stripping away overlays. Whilst a shadow in reality can be thought of as 'overlaying' the object upon which it is cast, and can be removed by either reorientating the object and/or applying an additional light source from the necessary direction, this cannot be achieved with a photo print. If one removes the shadow then the entire image is removed. If one somehow 'lightens' the shadow through reproduction the profile of the original object as determined by the shadow will remain.

Robert, how do you account for LHO's apparent 'sunken' cheeks? Is his jawbone really the shape portrayed in the photo do you think? On what basis do you discount the shadow effect causing his apparently unusual shaped jawbone as not even possibly causing his apparently unusually-shaped chin?!

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

I refer you to 133C which has very light shadow, but nonetheless, a squared chin.
 
Southwind17 said:
That's true. What evidence do you have of a prior shot?


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?
Click to expand...

All agreed? Not the Parkland docs who all described the wound to the neck as wound of entrance. The point is Connally was hit by a separate shot. Get it?
 
infocusinc said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no "false" expert that invented the ghosted photo. That photo is a fact, a fact which you cannot explain.
 
Robert Prey said:
That there are seasonal differences is obvious. But there is little or no difference in the pose nor the structures upon which that ghosted pose is placed against. Perhaps you or one of your "expert" cohorts on this board can suggest just why a ghosted photo was made or was necessary to prove something in the first place???
Click to expand...
There is an unlimited number of possible suggestions, Robert. Regardless, don't you agree that it's your duty, as claimant, to demonstrate (not suggest) what you're asking of others?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom