JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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

Pointing away from the camera? But originally Tomtom said the angle was not correct because it was pointing toward the camera. Fact is, your colored model points the stick toward the camera, and along with the body twist, and the different angle of the sun, almost produced a 9 o'clock shadow, but not really.

 

[Southwind17]

I refer you to 133C which has very light shadow, but nonetheless, a squared chin.

Please answer the question regarding the 'sunken' cheeks.

 

[jargon buster]

I sense another 'horse switch' on the horizon from Mr Prey.

Why does he keep going back to previously de-bunked theories like they are the first time hes bringing them up?
Robert, can you not remember or are you deliberatly ignoring the evidence?

He reminds me of the guy in 'Memento'

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

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




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:

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




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.

Whether the ghosted photo was made on Nov. 22nd, or 29th is irrelevant since 133C did not surface until Geneva White presented the pic to the HSCA in the mid-seventies. Your repeated claims that there are seasonal differences in the two photos is a waste of time and space. Of course there are seasonal differences. So why was the ghosted photo created in the first place?

 

[Southwind17]

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?

The point currently in question, Robert, concerns the number of shots, not the nature of them. Now, are we not agreed that the first shot to hit somebody was the shot that hit Kennedy, but not the head shot?

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Oh, Oswald did this, Oswald did that. You don't even have a scintilla of proof that Oswald even fired a single rifle shot, nor that he was even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.

 

[Robert Prey]

You have asserted that the backyard photographs are fake. You have the burden of proof. You have offered your proof and I have shown why it doesn't hold. You lose.

NO. You have offered nothing but theories. On the other hand, I have offered proof via replication, a very scientific word your "expertise" is apparently too "expert" to recognize or implement.

 

[Southwind17]

There is no "false" expert that invented the ghosted photo. That photo is a fact, a fact which you cannot explain.

I think you mean the existence of that photo is a fact, which I don't think anybody is denying. The important point here is that you, the claimant, cannot explain it. As such, it has no more relevance than this:



... which you also seem incapable of explaining.

 

[Robert Prey]

You added the argument after I posted my reply. Don't lie.

I do not lie. The photos were first placed, then edited after seeing they came up successfully. Don't lie.

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, Oswald did this, Oswald did that. You don't even have a scintilla of proof that Oswald even fired a single rifle shot, nor that he was even on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.

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

OswaldThe shooter 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.

OswaldThe shooter 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.

OswaldThe shooter 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

Fixed that for you, Robert. Care to have another go now?!

 

[Southwind17]

NO. You have offered nothing but theories. On the other hand, I have offered proof via replication, a very scientific word your "expertise" is apparently too "expert" to recognize or implement.

What 'replication', exactly, are you alluding to now, Robert, that you believe affords proof that the b/y photos are faked?

 

[Robert Prey]

The point currently in question, Robert, concerns the number of shots, not the nature of them. Now, are we not agreed that the first shot to hit somebody was the shot that hit Kennedy, but not the head shot?

I do not know the number of shots and neither do you. The theory that there were only three shots does not line up with the facts. There may have been many more. For example, one shot that missed, one shot that hit K in the throat, one in the back, one for Connally, two shots to the head, one shot to the front of the wind shield -a total of 7 possible shots and who knows, maybe more.

 

[Border Reiver]

There is no "false" expert that invented the ghosted photo. That photo is a fact, a fact which you cannot explain.

How does the existence of the "ghosted" photo invalidate the accepted version?

 

[Southwind17]

I do not know the number of shots and neither do you. The theory that there were only three shots does not line up with the facts.

Please summarise the 'facts' that you consider are relevant to evaluating the number of shots fired. If necessary we can then compare the theory espoused by everybody here (three shots), except you, against those facts to review how that theory stacks up. Thank you in advance, Robert.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

There are plenty of photo experts out there, but any that disagree with your theories, you label as a "CT" as if then, that expert has no credibility. But those attacks merely reveal that your only evidence is your self-proclaimed "expertise." But here is one disinterested expert had to say about those b/y photos which you have apparently accepted as genuine:

Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years.

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.


INTERROGATOR. So does it strike you as strange that in their search, after all connected with the assassination of a president that they should find such damning evidence the next day?

Mr. THOMPSON. It does, it does seem unusual. One would think that the officers involved would be highly experienced officers, would know and have been trained to carry out the search of premises.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

INTERROGATOR. Thank you very much.

And regarding the chin issue:

“One can only conclude that Oswald’s head has been stuck on to a chin which is not Oswald’s chin. . . . My opinion is that those photographs are faked. . . . I consider the pictures to be the result of a montage.”

 

[Southwind17]

There are plenty of photo experts out there ...

What's your definition of a 'photo expert', Robert?

 

[Southwind17]

Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years.

What qualifications did DS Thompson have specifically regarding photography, Robert?

 

[Southwind17]

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.
Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them

Robert, do you see the problem with this, insofar as it relates to what you think DS Thompson's testimony proves?

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, did Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson examine the original photos or copies of the photos?

 

[Robert Prey]

[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?

While the theory is valid, the differences in the size of Oswald figure makes that explanation doubtful. Comparing 133A with 133B British Photo expert Malcomb Thompson asserted:

"Then to cover up the montage, retouching has been done both to the right, that is Oswald's right and Oswald's left and when we consider this area of retouching here--compare it with what we see in photograph A we have a shadow cast by this wooden pillar. I have measured those and even allowing for the difference and degree of enlargement between photograph A and photograph B the area we see in shadow here is far in excess of what it should be and of course that is the area to which I referred earlier on where the pillar coming down does not continue in a straight line but has this bulge in it."