• 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.
HSienzant said:
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.


Hank
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The image may have been made for purposes of positioning for the final composite forgery.
 
Robert Prey said:
Because what cannot be explained must raise suspicion, except, of course, for the hopelessly brainwashed, authority worshipping Nutters.
Click to expand...

Personal attack noted. I am attempting to address your claims based on their merits. Specifically here I am asking you to account for evidence that disputes your hypothesis for the timing of two photographs. You refuse to reconcile that evidence with your hypothesis, and now you're reduced to hurling insults. Is this childishness characteristic of all JFK conspiracy theorists, or is it particular to you, White, Costella, and Fetzer?

I daresay I've won this debate, since you've abandoned all pretense of professionalism and are unable to address the facts.
 
JayUtah said:
That means the photo was not taken when you say it had to have been taken. Do you understand what refutation is?



I am aware of no evidence establishing its provenance or purpose. Hence I do not speculate, because that would be irresponsible.. You and your cronies, on the other hand, speculate wildly and ignore all the facts that contradict your speculation. How does your approach better serve the truth?
Click to expand...

But speculate is all you have done on this board. You speculate that a square chin could be the result of shadows. But that is not proof. A square looking chin could also be represent a chin that is actually square. Theories are not proof, Mr. Expert. Logic 101. You will have no cred with me unless you can prove out your speculations as fact. And that will be, I suppose, when pigs fly and hell freezes over.
 
JayUtah said:
Personal attack noted. I am attempting to address your claims based on their merits. Specifically here I am asking you to account for evidence that disputes your hypothesis for the timing of two photographs. You refuse to reconcile that evidence with your hypothesis, and now you're reduced to hurling insults. Is this childishness characteristic of all JFK conspiracy theorists, or is it particular to you, White, Costella, and Fetzer?

I daresay I've won this debate, since you've abandoned all pretense of professionalism and are unable to address the facts.
Click to expand...

Well, bully for you.
 
JayUtah said:
There is nothing closed-minded about the approach taken toward your claims. Your claims were listened to at face value, were not prejudicially dismissed, were considered on their merits, and upon their merits were disputed -- with the disputation clearly spelled out. You are simply unable to deal with the facts underlying that disputation, and are now simply lashing out personally at your critics for not accepting your claim blindly.

There is nothing arrogant about expertise legitimately acquired and practiced. If you lack that expertise, then you are at a disadvantage. But open-mindedness does not include accepting ignorance in place of knowledge. You have been shown why your claims lack merit. Many people have attempted to educate you in the sciences that pertain to your claims. Many people have attempted to demonstrate those scientific principles at work.

You simply want none of it. You were told what to believe by your non-experts, and because it matches some ideologcial predisposition, you do not question it. I'm sorry that you feel animosity toward legitimate expertise. But it will not go away, and your home-grown, untested methods do not trump it by any means.
Click to expand...

Proclaiming yourself as an "expert" superior to all others cited does not make it so, Mr.Expert.
 
JayUtah said:
Link to this proclamation or withdraw the claim. I have, in fact, stated exactly the opposite of what you seem to attribute to your critics.
Click to expand...


So are the copies of the photos in question accurate renditions of the originals or are they not?????
 
Robert Prey said:
You speculate that a square chin could be the result of shadows.
Click to expand...

That is one hypothesis. The prima facie validity of the hypothesis has been demonstrated countless times for you, but you ignore the demonstrations.

I also hypothesize separately that, in your convenience JPEG copies, the appearance of the chin is affected by DCT encoding artifacts. Prima facie validity of that hypothesis was also provided and ignored by you.

But that is not proof. A square looking chin could also be represent a chin that is actually square.
Click to expand...

Indeed it could be. The question then is which of all the hypotheses for which prima facie validity exists best explains the observations. You've asserted that yours -- the "chin really is square" hypothesis -- explains it the best. But you haven't shown why. I'm not asserting any of the competing hypotheses; I'm merely noting that you ignore them arbitrarily in favor of your pet theory.

Logic 101.
Click to expand...

If you're going to invoke logic, then the fallacy you're committing is that of affirming the consequent. Look it up and report back here.

You will have no cred with me unless you can prove out your speculations as fact.
Click to expand...

I don't need to have "cred" with you. I have credibility in the real world, thank you.

You don't yet seem to understand that under the line of reasoning you provided, I don't have to prove that any of the competing hypothesis is actually true. I just have to show that you didn't falsify them when offering your conclusion-by-default. You've made absolutely no affirmative case for your hypothesis. You've merely offered it as the "only" hypothesis and asserted it over and over. You don't get to do that, logically, while other hypotheses remain on the table.
 
Robert Prey said:
That's you proof???Un-named bloggers??? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

A somewhat ironic statement to make as some of your "evidence" is a nice story from a random guy who happens to claim he once chatted to a guy on a plane.

"Annonymous bloggers" can have sources varified . Heck, they have sources. "I spoke to him on a flight" in a forum? Oooh... far less pathetic clearly. Is there a double standard here Robert? How many unverified and unverifiable sources have you touted as fact? Why are only the ones you disagree with pathetic?


Hmm.
 
Robert Prey said:
That's you proof???Un-named bloggers??? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You accused me of lying. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the speaker knows to be true. I have given you my sources. You may impeach them, if you are able. But withdraw your accusation against me immediately. I have accurately reported what has been said by others publicly elsewhere.
 
Robert Prey said:
Proclaiming yourself as an "expert" superior to all others cited does not make it so, Mr.Expert.
Click to expand...

I do not represent myself to be an expert "superior to all others." Link to where I have made this claim, or withdraw the accusation.

I have demonstrated my photographic analysis expertise here and elsewhere, to the satisfaction of others. I am recognized by other parties as an expert in photographic analysis. My expertise is not mere braggadocio.
 
JayUtah said:
You accused me of lying. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the speaker knows to be true. I have given you my sources. You may impeach them, if you are able. But withdraw your accusation against me immediately. I have accurately reported what has been said by others publicly elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Citations confuse Robert. He keeps calling others self proclaimed experts. He has yet to cite them doing so. Or perhaps it is the difference between proclaiming expertise and stating credentials that bamboozled him. Or both.

I have little expectation of his claims being validated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom