JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Nope. The only one on this forum saying the copies were just fine has been you - and only you - all along.

You cited Malcomb Thompson's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Jack White's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Paul Hoch's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Mg. Pickard's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited Womack's conclusions. He never studied the originals.

You cited your own opinions, and you certainly never studied the originals.

On the other hand, I have consistently pointed you to two studies, both of which studied the original first generation photographic materials.

There was the FBI study of the photographic materials in 1964. The FBI concluded there was no evidence of tampering in any of the photos (they did not see the the third view - "133C").

There was the HSCA photographic panel study of the photographic materials in 1978. The HSCA experts concluded there was no evidence of tampering in any of the photos (they did see the third view - "133C").

You ignored those legitimate conclusions every time and cited the conclusions of those who never saw the first generation materials.

Hank

Nor have any of the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board studied the originals. And the HSCA and the FBI have a record of dishonesty.

 

[Robert Prey]

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defer?s=t

de·fer [dih-fur] verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
verb (used without object)
1. to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion (usually followed by to ): We all defer to him in these matters.
verb (used with object)
2. to submit for decision; refer: We defer questions of this kind to the president.

Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English deferren < Latin dēferre to carry from or down, report, accuse, equivalent to dē- de- + ferre to bear1

Synonyms
1. accede, submit, acquiesce, capitulate.​

Care to explain how Thompson could "yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" to the panel without also agreeing with them?

Of course, and for the same reason. He never saw the originals. How could he agree with anything if the originals were that important.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

.

And so you now double down, in affirming your own double standard.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Of the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

No. There has been no replication of the rifle shadow in 133B that has not resorted to the contrivances of a improper sun angle, an improper stick angle, a stance adverse to the one the fake Oswald posed, and the special "twist" needed to perform the illusion.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.
.

So that does or does not apply to the analysis of Malcomb Thompson???

 

[JohnG]

Gawd, is this insanity still going on! I've had this thread on ignore for weeks and decided to take a peek to see if this Frankenstein monster I innocently birthed is still twitching.

I would feel guilty for making the OP but who could have anticipated something like Robert Prey? (I do note that while some of the original participants have drifted away Robert has acquired a new set of enablers.)

Anywho, the diehards can continue to carry on with whatever they think they are accomplishing. As for me, it's a beautiful Spring day and I'm going outside to smell the daisies.

The "JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends" thread:

It Never Ends

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Those same HSCA "experts" concluded no shots from the front, despite testimony from the Parkland docs who stated the opposite. In other words, just like the WC, they lied.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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.

Also 2 *right back) and 4. See through the back of K's head.

 

[Southwind17]

The flinch was due to hearing a shot. Obviously.

And the grimace, Robert, how do you account for that?

Regardless, If what you suggest is the 'obvious' answer then why don't we see Mrs Kennedy flinch too? What's the 'obvious' answer to that, Robert - that she's deaf?!

 

[Southwind17]

One question at a time, please.

"Well, Robert, Rude?" IS only one question, Robert. Please answer it lest we all think it rude of you.

 

[Southwind17]

Connally never said he "insisted" anything till the "day he died." which would obviously be a post mortum quotation, and be eligible for Ranidi's million dollar prize. But he did insist till the day he died that he was hit by a separate shot.

Are you incapable of following simple logic, Robert? It is YOU who has insisted several times that Connolly insisted 'till the day he died that he and Kennedy were hit by separate shots. Seems you're now forgetting what you have and haven't claimed here!

BTW, it's post 'mortem', Robert, not 'mortum'. If you're also incapable of using Latin terms accurately may I suggest that you try more simple synonyms, or alternative, 'plain English' phrases.

 

[Southwind17]

Le'ts be very clear. We don't know what Thompson said. Only what the HSCA said he said. And the HSCA has gone on record as a serial liar.

That's both baloney AND fiddlesticks, Robert. Shame on you - you of all people should know better!

BTW - you do realise, don't you Robert, how much you're relying on what some people have said other people said and did, don't you?!

 

[Southwind17]

Nor have any of the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board studied the originals.

We've been over this, Robert. I thought we'd agreed to discount the b/y photos as irrelevant?

And the HSCA and the FBI have a record of dishonesty.

Citation please.

 

[Southwind17]

Of course, and for the same reason. He never saw the originals. How could he agree with anything if the originals were that important.

So we're also agreed that Thompson's commentary is irrelevant, now.

Progress at last.

 

[Southwind17]

Of the shoe fits, wear it.

I think you mean 'if', Robert. This constant lack of attention to detail is certainly not paying credence to the analytical skills and judgement upon which your claims and arguments rely, and hence which you purport to possess. Your constant stumbling will surely lead to you falling flat on your face, left only to eat dust and thereafter lick your self-inflicted wounds.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Those same HSCA "experts" concluded no shots from the front, despite testimony from the Parkland docs who stated the opposite. In other words, just like the WC, they lied.

Lets not use other words. Especially other words that are fantasy. The HSCA and WC concluded the shots came from behind, despite the witness testemony, because strongerevidence proved those witnesses wrong.

It is truly hypocritical to accuse the HSCA and WC of telling lies based only upon the idea. Other people can not lie or be wrong (except, you know, when they draw pictures of the massive exit wound and forget if it was on the left, the right or the middle...). So group A must be believed which means anybody else lies? Why? Why do we not treat groups A, B, andC as equally likely to be honest or dishonest and judge their statements against some. Physical evidence?

Hey look. We have some autopsy photos that are "with out doubt" JFK. They show the bullet wound does NOT match the Parkland testemony. As Robert has failed to identify any means by which these photos were faked. Or the photographic record that makes the chain, then I guess the HSCA and WC were telling the truth. Even if it were faked, they told the truth as far as they were aware, having used that "common sense" Robert described and backing the plausible autopsy staff and not the trauma surgeons who arent pathologists, and rightly differentiating between "i don't remember" and accusations of fakery the CT mind imposes on others.

Any way you cut it Robert accuses others of telling lies with a reckless abandon, but has never paused to ask if his own theory is based on such. Did you interview ALL 40 witnessesyourself Bobbykins? Or are you assuming somebody was telling the truth aboutwhhat they said? How did you Validate the information?

 

[Southwind17]

No. There has been no replication of the rifle shadow in 133B that has not resorted to the contrivances of a improper sun angle, an improper stick angle, a stance adverse to the one the fake Oswald posed, and the special "twist" needed to perform the illusion.

Robert:
Show that the sun angles are inconsistent;
Show that the broom/rifle angles are inconsistent;
Explain how the stance is at all relevant if the sun angle and broom/rifle angle are a given;
As for the 'twist' ... would you like to suggest a little 'shake', too?!

 

[Southwind17]

So that does or does not apply to the analysis of Malcomb Thompson???

Thompson, by his own admission, didn't 'analyse' anything, Robert. He merely looked at the photos, just like we all have.

 

[Southwind17]

Those same HSCA "experts" concluded no shots from the front, despite testimony from the Parkland docs who stated the opposite.

... and of whom how many, exactly, actually eye-witnessed the shooting, including the actual shooter, so can say for certain?!