• 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:
I understand close minded arrogance when I see it.
Click to expand...
But not, apparently, the concept of "burden of proof."

See, all you have to do to convince people of your position(s) is provide evidence. Not speculation, or imaginary beliefs, or posts empty of content. Proof. Evidence.

Proof.

Evidence.
 
Robert Prey said:
By my count, I've cited it about ten times from several sources. That's enough. A little more honesty would be appreciated.
Click to expand...


Bravo, Robert, you only cited the wrong quote ten times before insisting you already provided that.
I've debate the assassination with other conspiracy addicts and sometimes they've told me they've already provided it, without citing anything once.
So I commend your earnestness, if not your ability to comprehend.

Once again, what you've cited about ten times is that Connally insisted he was hit by the SECOND shot.

We all agree on that, except for you, when you are claiming Connally was hit by the third or fourth shot (as you did recently when you claimed one shot missed the limo and the second shot hit JFK in the neck).

But NOT ONCE have you ever cited any statement from John Connally where he insisted he was hit by a shot separate from that which hit JFK.

But that is what you keep insisting Connally insisted on. But nowhere have you cited that. Or quoted Connally saying it. For example, you claimed this:

Robert Prey said:
As previously stated, and proved, Connally insisted till the day he died he was hit by a separate bullet. That fact alone, if true, proves conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
One such "wackjob" would be Gov.Connelly who insisted till the day he died, he was hit by a separate bullet.That would be proof of conspiracy by itself.
Click to expand...

You keep mixing the two up.

Since I've explained it several times, I must assume at this point you either don't understand the difference between 'separate' and 'second' or are simply unable to back up your claims with any evidence.

A little more honesty would be appreciated, Robert. But it appears you don't intend to be honest about your failing.

For example, you quoted Connally saying he was hit by the second shot here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8167940&postcount=5228
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8162696&postcount=5126

But nowhere did you quote Connally saying he was hit by a separate shot.

Do you not understand the difference between "SECOND" and "SEPARATE"?


Connally, in fact, claimed he didn't know when JFK was hit when he testified to the HSCA. In short, he said the precise opposite of what you are claiming he is insisting on:

Mr. CONNALLY. ... I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit.
...
Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate?
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
No it doesn't. The image may have been made for purposes of positioning for the final composite forgery.
Click to expand...


What part of "the ghosted image was made months AFTER the Oswald backyard photos" didn't you understand?

What you call 'the final composite forgery" are the backyard photos of Oswald.
What you call 'the image' is the ghosted image taken in November, after the assassination, with the image of the man cut out.

That ghosted image shows the growth of the plants near the agent is much greater than in the Oswald photos.

Ergo, the Oswald photos were taken in a different season, earlier than the ghosted image. Ergo, the Oswald photos pre-dated the very existence of the ghosted image, and the ghosted image had NOTHING to do with the creation of the Oswald backyard photos.

Hank

Ghost.jpg

backyarda.jpg
 
Last edited:
What part of "the ghosted image was made months AFTER the Oswald backyard photos" didn't you understand?
Click to expand...
C'mon Hank, they had pruning shears back in the 60s, maybe they pruned the bushes back to get Oswald in the photo. :)
 
Nonsense. The self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have proclaimed that the copies of these photos are accurate renditions of the originals. If they are not, then their opinions have no merit.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the originals Robert?
Nope, and neither has anyone else on this board, they have only seen reproductions of the originals.
So until you or anyone else have seen the original photos and examined them they are irrelevant, so can we leave them out of any further discussion please.
 
Robert Prey said:
Nothing replaces replication except for self-proclaimed "experts" who substitute theory and hubris.
Click to expand...

But you did NOT replicate anything Robert, you created a completely new set of circumstances.

Lets start with the most basic of circumstances you had to "replicate"...the exact position of the sun as it was seen in the Backyard photos. Failing to get just this ONE item correct invalidates you claim of "replication".

What was the exact day, month, time and year when the backyard photos were taken Robert?

Now this is as simple of a question as you will ever possibly find. Please don't evade it, and just answer to the best of your ability.

Because if you DON'T know this exact time stamp, how in the world can you be assured you got the lightning correct in your so called "replication"?
 
Robert Prey said:
Nonsense. The self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have proclaimed that the copies of these photos are accurate renditions of the originals. If they are not, then their opinions have no merit.
Click to expand...


But the FBI in 1964 and the HSCA experts on the photographic panel did see the originals. And they concluded there is no evidence of photo fakery.

By your own admission then, their opinions trump ours, yours and anyone you care to cite, since all we've all seen is COPIES.

And you've quoted Malcolm Thompson a few times, but when I've asked for his opinion on whether originals or copies were better for drawing conclusions, you failed to respond.

Tell us what Malcolm Thompson said on this subject. Your expert.

Do you really want to pursue this line of argument, Robert?

You just shot yourself in the thigh, you know.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Ghost.jpg

backyarda.jpg
Click to expand...

Looking at those two photos side by side like that is a lot like playing "Spot the differences"... and an apt illustration of just how stupid Robert is being suggesting that the ghosted image was used in the making of the backyard photo.
 
jargon buster said:
Have you seen the originals Robert?
Nope, and neither has anyone else on this board, they have only seen reproductions of the originals.
So until you or anyone else have seen the original photos and examined them they are irrelevant, so can we leave them out of any further discussion please.
Click to expand...

Of course we know the "originals" braying is just a strawman created by Robert.

You don't need to see originals to test and establish that the principle of perspective can case a pointed chin to appear square for example. And you don't need originals to test the principle of perspective again to show that resizing a photo taken from a different camera to subject distance to use as a "yardstick" is faulty methodology.

And you don't need originals to test a shadow angles to see if it is POSSIBLE for them to exist in the configuration seen in the Backyard photos.

Robert is simply in way over his head and sees no way out.

Intellectual honestly be danged.
 
Robert sez:

"Nonsense. The self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have proclaimed that the copies of these photos are accurate renditions of the originals. If they are not, then their opinions have no merit."

So exact who are these self proclaimed experts and exact where can I find their statements that the photos are accurate renditions of the originals?
 
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...

Can you show us where these people have made the claim that they assume the photos are genuine, or are you just having yet another ct fantasy moment?
 
Robert Prey said:
That is false. Do not lie.
Click to expand...


http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0092a.htm

From the HSCA Photographic Panel:

... Malcolm Thomson, the British forensic
photography expert who publicly questioned the authenticity of
the backyard picture, was shown a preliminary summary of the
panel's report and asked to comment. He was also offered an
opportunity to appear before the committee to express his views.
After studying the reports, Thomson deferred to the panel's
conclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of fakery.
He noted the thoroughness of the panel's investigation and
emphasized that his earlier comments were based upon examination
of copies of the photographs rather than the original material.

Thomson did, however, reserve his opinion that the chin in the
backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that
he had observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He
also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect
a photocopied composite photograph.

The photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of
Defense who had stated that there was evidence of fakery in these
photographs was also contacted by the committee. He indicated
that he had performed no scientific tests on the photographs and
had spent less than an hour examining the "very poor copies" that
were submitted to him. (194)
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Equally odd that these sites would fail to report that M. Thompson later changed his mind and agreed that the photos were genuine.
Click to expand...
From this CT paper:
Before moving on to another subject, I'd like to present what British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson said about the backyard rifle photos in a 1978 interview. As mentioned, Thompson deferred to the HSCA's photographic evidence panel on most issues, but not all. Thompson remained especially troubled by the discrepancy between Oswald's chin and the backyard figure's chin.​
Click to expand...
​
 
Garrison said:
I really do not see how this 'ghost' image is of any use in creating a fake version of the backyard photo. It features a large white cut out in place of a figure, why? If you were going to fake up a photo by adding Oswald's head to someone else's body, as Robert Prey has suggested, why not have the someone else stand in the backyard and photograph them there? That way the shadows work and you minimize the edits and alterations needed. The ghost photograph would be a ludicrous way to go about creating a fake, and that's without bringing up the foliage issue and the fact that Oswald's wife stated she took the backyard photos exactly as seen, and the lack of evidence for any alterations in the photos.
Click to expand...


Yes. But you are looking at this through the prism of logic and common sense. Robert doesn't see things this way. Common sense says that if the forgers photographed a man and then put Oswald's head in place (causing the square chin), then proof would be the original photo of the unnamed man standing in the back yard.

Yet Robert claims that the ghost photo (taken sometime after the assasination for some reason) proves that an entire body was placed in a photo of an empty back yard. And then they put Oswald's head on that body. So the faked backyard photos are made of at least three elements: the empty back yard, the unknown man, and Oswald's head! All this to recreate a photo that Marina said she already took. (Fortunately, they have carefully hidden Marina's photos from the public. I suspect they are in a vault in Area 51.)

The body shows no photo manipulation; a real expert job. But then they screwed up with the chin when placing Oswald's head in the photo. They almost got away with it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom