JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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"?

Does that apply to just my replication or to all others cited on this board?????

 

[Robert Prey]

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:





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

NO. He couldn't turn a full 180 degrress to see K with his arms up but we all could see it on the Z film.

 

[Garrison]

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

Excellent, then they can provide an explanation for what possible purpose the thing served other than deluding gullible CTs? I mean its painfully obvious that it would be useless for faking a version of the backyard photos so what purpose did it have?

And just to be clear again Robert while without access to the originals no one here can personally swear to their authenticity the copies you have presented here contain more than adequate information to dismiss your claims about them. And since there are plenty of experts who have examined the originals and judged them to unaltered the default assumption must be that they are authentic until viable evidence to the contrary is presented. And to avoid the obvious retorts; no Robert it is not baloney and you have not presented such evidence.

 

[jargon buster]

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

Not as big a slice of Baloney as the alleged "interrogators interview" copied from a conspiracy theorists essay.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver
When was the "ghosted" photo made?
And by whom?
__________________

And by whom?

Do your own homework. By the way, did you attend a government school where the teacher gave you all the answers????

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

The only thing in the list that contradicts the Warren Report is #3. Of course his ultimate conclusion is that all of the shots came from the book depository and there was no conspiracy. You'll ignore that though.


Opie and Anthony interviewed Clint Hill today on their Sirius/XM radio show and it was absolutely fascinating. I'm sure somebody will put it up on YouTube soon.

 

[infocusinc]

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

I've no problem with people using copies, that would be you.

But in the usual Robert Prey fantasy fashion , you miss the point entirely.

You don't need the original backyard photos to test the basic underlining photography principles at play in the so call BY photo anomalies.

Your constant braying about 'originals" is simply a silly strawman.

You do it because you and your silly arguments have been destroys and its all you have left.

Typical CT.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

The word is "Hearsay."

 

[Garrison]

The word is "Hearsay."

Only if, as with so many others, you completely misunderstand the term Robert.

 

[Robert Prey]

You didn't address a single point of my post. What you call "replication" is not what science means by the reproducibility of its results.

Further, it is not hubristic to bring one's legitimate expertise to bear. I have explained the underlying science, which you expressly ignored previously. I have shown how your alleged "replication" fails to account for the properties of the science underlying photographic analysis, and you continue to ignore it.

Be that way, if you wish. But you cannot then subsequently argue that disagreement with your claims is motivated by some ideological bias. You're simply ignorant of the science you profess to dabble in, and you aren't interested in correcting that ignorance. And everyone can see this.

Baloney.

 

[Garrison]

I've no problem with people using copies, that would be you.

But in the usual Robert Prey fantasy fashion , you miss the point entirely.

You don't need the original backyard photos to test the basic underlining photography principles at play in the so call BY photo anomalies.

Your constant braying about 'originals" is simply a silly strawman.

You do it because you and your silly arguments have been destroys and its all you have left.

Typical CT.

He certainly didn't seem to care about originals until his claims were demolished using the copies.

 

[Garrison]

Baloney.

Another of the cogent well argued responses that have converted so many to your view.

 

[infocusinc]

Does that apply to just my replication or to all others cited on this board?????

Of course it applies to every attempt at replication Robert.

It does not however apply to proof of concept demonstrations.

For example if YOU say a shadow is impossible and then a shadow is produced that shows it is indeed a POSSIBILITY, that test stands.

Why? Because it is proof of concept, not a replication. The test proves that the shadow you say is impossible is indeed possible, which simply destroys your claim.

And your test does nothing to invalidate this result, it just shows a different possibility.

Which is WHY it is proof of nothing other that it shows the result of the circumstances YOU used in your test.

Does the proof of concept demonstration prove the BY photo is real? Of course not. We don't know it it replicated the circumstances found in the original photo.

WHY? Because we don't KNOW the circumstances found in the original photo.

What it does prove, is that your claim is indeed false. It IS possible for a shadow like the one seen in the BY photo in question to be formed.

Poof...that's the sound of yet another of your claims exploding...

Now answer the question..What date and time were the BY photos taken?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Jay didn't lie. And the apology is due from you. Let's see if you can work out the logical step here. If he deferred to those who had the originals to test, and the relevant skill set to test with, and retracted his claims what specific statement is it you think Jay got wrong?

Are you suggesting that Thompson deferred to the judgement of others because he did NOT agree with their conclusions being more accurate than his own?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The word is "Hearsay."

And this makes it a "lie" because...? You are reporting the conclusions of hearsay as fact. Jay reported them as his opinion. Are you suggesting Jay was misrepresenting his opinion?

 

[JayUtah]

Baloney.

In other words, you have no answer. I win.

 

[JayUtah]

[a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and equivocation snipped]

And apology is due form you. Don't lie.

I did not lie and I will not under any circumstances apologize to you for reporting on Thompson's statements. You have attempted to sneak in a "originals versus copy" equivocation which was not at all part of my argument. You are highly dishonest.

You accused me of lying. I cited my sources, which others have agreed I quoted fairly. I demand an apology from you and I demand it right now. I am fed up with your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[JayUtah]

...in contrast to all the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board who think that copies are just fine...

You were asked to substantiate that this is a claim your critics have made. Please provide a link to where that claim was made, or withdraw the claim. Put up or shut up.

 

[JayUtah]

Baloney. The HSCA statement is a false conclusion and not a quote from Thompson. Deferring is not agreeing.

Provide a quote from Thompson.

 

[JayUtah]

Does that apply to just my replication or to all others cited on this board?????

Shifting the burden of proof. You have claimed to faithfully reproduce the circumstances of the backyard photograph. You are therefore responsible to answer any and all questions regarding the fidelity of your demonstration, regardless of how faithful some other replication may or may not be.

You are clearly unwilling to be questioned on the merits of your demonstration, therefore I don't see why it should be accepted as proof. I have serious issues with the replication and I propose to challenge its validity based on those issues. If you will not rise to the challenge, then I reject your demonstration.