JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Southwind17]

Interesting, isn't it, that having stated this:

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.

Griffith carries on with this:

With these things in mind, I thought some readers would be interested in reading the interview that Thompson gave on the backyard photos.

"I thought some readers would be interested ...". In other words: "Notwithstanding its irrelevance, I'm going to cite the interview anyhow, with the intention of colouring the reader's judgement."

Equally interesting that Thompson "remained especially troubled by the discrepancy between Oswald's chin and the backyard figure's chin". How can that be, when even lay people, like I, can easily understand and appreciate how simple shadowing can give the effect of a square chin, as amply demonstrated in this thread in the way of undisputable examples? Unless, of course, Thompson, himself, is really only a lay person when it comes to photo analysis, and/or also a 'believer'.

 

[Southwind17]

Because what cannot be explained must raise suspicion, except, of course, for the hopelessly brainwashed, authority worshipping Nutters.

Oh the irony! Why, Robert? Does everything in life that you cannot explain raise suspicion in your mind? And in relation to the JFK assassination, suspicion of what, Robert? Why do you default to conspiracy as the most likely explanation for something that you simply find 'suspicious' because you're incapable of explaining it otherwise? Have you ever admitted to simply not knowing the reason why something is what it is, without jumping to a conclusion, Robert?

 

[Southwind17]

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 we're agreed, then, are we, Robert, that the b/y photos are meaningless?

 

[Southwind17]

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?

Of course is does.

How so?

 

[Southwind17]

Robert - don't you think it's rude of you to completely ignore many of the questions that people are asking you here - questions which, if answered satisfactorily by you, would either support your claims or otherwise show them to be unfounded?

 

[Southwind17]

Hey Robert, how many deer do you see?!

 

[pakeha]

^^^
Nice!

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.

I don't quite understand your point, sorry! I meant that it seems pathetic to me anyone would would imagine the 'ghosted' photo to have any connection with anything to do with a conspiracy, except a 'conspiracy' to delude the gullible.

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

Who needs to explain it?
The plant growth clearly shows the 'ghosted' photo was taken long after the fact.
Perhaps I'm missing your point- could you explain why the 'ghosted' photo is relevant to your case?

 

[Tomtomkent]

^^^
Nice!



I don't quite understand your point, sorry! I meant that it seems pathetic to me anyone would would imagine the 'ghosted' photo to have any connection with anything to do with a conspiracy, except a 'conspiracy' to delude the gullible.



Who needs to explain it?
The plant growth clearly shows the 'ghosted' photo was taken long after the fact.
Perhaps I'm missing your point- could you explain why the 'ghosted' photo is relevant to your case?

Ah my misunderstanding then. Sorry

 

[threadworm]

C'mon Hank, they had pruning shears back in the 60s, maybe they pruned the bushes back to get Oswald in the photo.

And went round to the neighbour's place and glued on a load of leaves to their big tree

 

[Garrison]

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!

It's the problem with all the JFK conspiracy theories, they require the conspirators to go about things in the most convoluted, torturous way possible; adding myriad extra opportunities for everything to go wrong for no good reason.

The only way I see the 'ghost' photo making sense is as an effort to con gullible conspiracy theorists. After all in that case you want to avoid including anything that would make it easy for the creator of the photo to be identified, or that would make it too obvious that it was a later fake, alas they couldn't do anything about the foliage but then if Robert Prey is any measure they probably correctly thought the CTs will give that a pass.

 

[pgwenthold]

Thanks Hank.

Have to say (and I've thought this for a while), LHO seems to have been darned lucky: first shot completely misses; second shot (farther away) hits Kennedy in the back, say a good 250mm lower than his head; third shot (farthest away) kaboom - right on the nail!

But remember, conspiracy loons claim that it was the outcome of expert shooting, and no one could have pulled it off. No one could have missed the target twice before hitting it a third time?

 

[Robert Prey]

Jayutah wrote:

"Equally odd that these sites would fail to report that M. Thompson later changed his mind and agreed that the photos were genuine."

That was a lie then, it remains a lie. Thompson never agreed to any such thing. He deferred, to the HSCA. That is not agreeing. And the HSCA statement is not a quote but a mis-characterization, something the HSCA did a lot of.

"Thompson deferred to the panels' concluisions...Thomson did, however, reserve his opinoin that the chin in the backyard pictures was suspiciously different from the chin that he had observed int eh Dallas arrest photgraphs of OswaLD. He also remained skepitcal as to the ability of a computer to detect a photocopied composite photgraph."

And it was the chin that we were discussing. Hardly a ringing endorsement fo the un-seen originals.

If Thompson deferred to the panel for not having seen the originals, he could hardly "agree" that the photos were genuine without having seen the originals. And apology is due form you. Don't lie.

 

[Robert Prey]

Clint Hill

Clint Hill Makes the Rounds.

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill is making the rounds endorsing his new book Hill spend 7 years in his basement drinking Scotch and smoking cigarettes in attempting to recover from what he felt was a failure in his role to protect the President. He had some interesting things to say about the assassination, some of which seem to support the Warren Commission theory (fable) and some of which do not. He stated:
1. There were only 3 shots.
2. They came from the right back.
3 He has no use for the single bullet theory
4. After the head shot, Kennedy fell to the left in Jackie's lap and Hill could see through the back of Kennedy's head.

 

[Robert Prey]

It's the problem with all the JFK conspiracy theories, they require the conspirators to go about things in the most convoluted, torturous way possible; adding myriad extra opportunities for everything to go wrong for no good reason.

The only way I see the 'ghost' photo making sense is as an effort to con gullible conspiracy theorists. After all in that case you want to avoid including anything that would make it easy for the creator of the photo to be identified, or that would make it too obvious that it was a later fake, alas they couldn't do anything about the foliage but then if Robert Prey is any measure they probably correctly thought the CTs will give that a pass.

Your post betrays a lack of scholarship on the subject. The creator of the ghosted photo is on the record.

 

[Robert Prey]

How so?

The general principle that a theory may be valid, but the application of it showing too dramatic of an anomaly, makes the conclusion suspect.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, you accused me of lying. I require a retraction and an apology from you.

It was a lie, and I require a retraction from you.

 

[Robert Prey]

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)

Baloney. The HSCA statement is a false conclusion and not a quote from Thomson. Deferring is not agree-ing.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.
.

Oh, you mean the same non-originals that Malcom Thompson analyzed? So that mere copies are valid for you but no one else??????

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Stupid is as stupid does. Why do you compare the 133A photo with the ghosted photo with a structural background of 133C????

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Thomson says originals are better, in contrast to all the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board who think that copies are just fine, so long as their conclusions as to the copies are correct, and all other cited conclusions of other experts are not, for not having examined the "originals." Double-standard time for the poor Lone Nutters who have now painted themselves into a corner.