• 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.
So this expert found evidence in the shape of a pillar, but has yet to point out a photoartefact such as tampering with the emulsion matte of the original, or signs of the negative being cut?

And the "substantial differences" in the Oswald figure? So you are using something in the photograph asa yardstick despite earlier denials?


This is yet another fail I fear...
 
Southwind17 said:
What qualifications did DS Thompson have specifically regarding photography, Robert?
Click to expand...

Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
 
Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
Click to expand...
Evidence please?
 
Robert Prey said:
While the theory is valid, the differences in the size of Oswald figure makes that explanation doubtful.
Click to expand...
There's no 'theory', Robert, only physics. Please explain, in your own words, why you consider the explanation doubtful.

Robert Prey said:
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."
Click to expand...
Robert, this quotation has absolutely no relevance to my explanation as to how the characteristics of the two photos demonstrates a difference in camera distance. Why, exactly, have you posted this?
 
Robert Prey said:
Copies. The same copies that the two photo "experts" on this board have assumed to be genuine, even though, copies.
Click to expand...
So, Robert, what you're insinuating here is that we simply cannot rely on, and hence draw any meaningful conclusions from, the b/y photos, right? So the only sensible thing to do then, surely, is ignore them. Agreed?
 
Thats the direction I was taking him southwind17.
The only people who can make any judgement on the backyard photos are the people who have studied the originals.
Theres no point cutting and pasting photos from various websites and pointing out anomilies, its silly to think they havent been manipulated to suit an agenda.
 
Robert Prey said:
Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
Click to expand...
Impressive credentials (notwithstanding that you've lazily and blindly done a cut and paste from this CT paper, evidenced by the tell-tale typo ("an president"), rather than undertaking your own research and validation.

So, Robert, given DS Thompson's impeccable credentials and qualifications, please identify to us all the expert techniques that he applied in conducting his examination 'for a considerable time', other than simply looking at the photos (which, of course, we can all do, and have done). Thank you in advance, Robert.
 
Robert Prey said:
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?
Click to expand...


When and where did he insist on that, Robert, as you've previously alleged and never cited. Can you cite it now?

You've now got your witness mis-remembering how many shots there were.

You've got the one that missed the limo
Then the shot that hits JFK
Then the shot that hits Connally, but Connally said he was hit by the second shot
Then the shot that strikes JFK
And a shot in there somewhere that strikes Tague

Minimum of five, but Nellie AND JOHN both only heard three. And John says he was hit by the second of those three.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Body Twist?

What Body Twist?

compare3.jpg


The only body twist is by your guy, getting his stick to point behind him.
 
Robert Prey said:
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?
Click to expand...


lol.

The seasonal differences along with the known facts that the Oswald A and B photos show the same seasonal differences as Oswald C establish all three were made months *before* the ghosted image, which you admit was made short after the assassination - whether a day after or a week after, we are agreed, that is irrelevant.

The important thing is the Oswald A, B, and C existed months BEFORE the ghosted image.

And that establishes the ghosted image didn't have any part in the generation of the backyard photos, A, B, or C, as you previously falsely alleged.

Ignore the clear facts before you once more.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Body Twist?

What Body Twist?

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

The only body twist is by your guy, getting his stick to point behind him.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the pee-stained doofus who Robert got to dishonestly pose and hold his broom handle in a deliberately different manner from Oswald?


You're right. Pleather jacket janitor guy is twisting as much as Robert does in the face of evidence.
 
HSienzant said:
Body Twist?

What Body Twist?

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

The only body twist is by your guy, getting his stick to point behind him.
Click to expand...

Robert appears to be muddling statements I made about the way his model leant for ones critiquing the direction of the rifle analogue. I note he didnt actually link to a quote. Of course if i am wrong I just made a "simple" mistake and was "exact enough", but Robert doesseem to have difficulty with things pointing towards/away from lens.

The difference being I am open to correction for error.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yet approximately 90% of the witnesses heard three or TWO shots. Only a very small minority heard more than three, and most who heard more than three said four. Less than five witnesses of those in Dealey Plaza who named a number said they heard five or more.

So almost all the witnesses are unreliable, you are telling us.

And what happened to the TWO bullets that struck JFK before the head shot ("one shot that hit K in the throat, one in the back...")? No bullets were found in the body when it was x-rayed.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
Click to expand...

None of those is a qualification in photographic analysis, especially photogrammetry.

"Evidence photographers" are those guys who roam crime scenes photographing evidence. Analysts later work on what they produce.

Photography training is not the same as photographic analysis training -- they are two different fields. Fellowship in RPS, IIP and others does not grant that expertise. Professional investigation, which is what I often do in an engineering context, may incorporate photographic analysis, but not necessarily so.

You keep citing experts who aren't. Photographic analysis, specifically photogrammetry -- the science of extracting real affinity from photo records -- is a specific field with specific qualifications. People whose experience and training merely sound close don't cut it, especially when they get a completely different answer from the one arrived at by properly qualified ones.
 
Robert Prey said:
Pathetic that all you and your Amen Chorus of critics can do is pooh-pooh a ghosted photo which you, yourselves cannot explain.
Click to expand...

Again with the burden of proof. If you're claiming it was used as an intermediate step toward making a composite, you have to prove that. We're showing you good reasons why that can't be the explanation for why it exists. We don't have to speculate on our own in order to point out how wrong your speculation is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom