JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

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

He just gave his opinion on that.

And as usual you are assuming there is a single issue. Either you can look at a copy or you have to see the original. What you are spectacularly failing to grasp is there are more thanone method of analysis, and the question should be "does this or does this not apply to the specific measurements and observations Thompson made?" To which you may also wish to consider issues of quality of copies. Whas Thompson looking at a first generation copy? A fifth generation copy? A photocopy? A photocopy of a photocopy of a soxth gen copy?

What methods did he use? His qualifications are truly excellent for taking crime scene photographs and performing SOCO duties. But there was none to suggest a knowledge of photogeometry. So we can not automatically assume expertise based on the qualifications andlook at his working methods. Are the resultssuggestive of fakery or proof? You seem to consider them proof, but they may well amount to suggestions that fakery was possible, based on the copy to hand, with room for these suggestions to be over ruled if no evidence of composited,cut ot painted fakery being found on the originals or negatives. In short are we dealing with a case of "could be fake", "might be fake" or "was fake"?

 

[Southwind17]

In short are we dealing with a case of "are genuine", "could be genuine", "could be fake", "might be fake" or "was fake"?

Fixed that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Well, there was one poster here....

 

[Garrison]

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.

When testimony contradicts physical evidence you have to dismiss the testimony. Also given your lack of credibility, owing to making easily debunked claims, your stance on this issue carries no weight.

 

[Robert Prey]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_195334f8131e25d493.jpg[/qimg]

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?!

The text reads: Arm stretched forward (horizontal) pointing stick downward.

Arm is vertical with rifle pointed upward.

 

[Robert Prey]

When testimony contradicts physical evidence you have to dismiss the testimony. Also given your lack of credibility, owing to making easily debunked claims, your stance on this issue carries no weight.

The testimony was about the physical evidence, the actual evidence being dead and buried. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

You have pre-autopsy photos covered with paint and mortician's wax. Fake autopsy photos as asserted by the principles who took them.

 

[Garrison]

The testimony was about the physical evidence, the actual evidence being dead and buried. Obviously.

Somebody buried the photographs and film? Was it you Robert? It won't help your case you know...

 

[Rich_C]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5803[/qimg]


The text reads: Arm stretched forward (horizontal) pointing stick downward.

Arm is vertical with rifle pointed upward.

What difference does it make whether the arm is stretched forward or vertical? No one has mentioned the shadow of the arm.

The rifle and stick are that same angle. To say anything else is either a lie or hopeless self-delusion.

 

[pakeha]

You have pre-autopsy photos covered with paint and mortician's wax. Fake autopsy photos as asserted by the principles who took them.

I've been googling this and not having much luck.
Could you point me to a specific link, please?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The text reads: Arm stretched forward (horizontal) pointing stick downward.

Arm is vertical with rifle pointed upward.

Can you do the same thing with the picture of a pee stained doofus?



LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The flinch was due to hearing a shot. Obviously.

Ah, then you're calling Connolly a liar when he said that the bullet traveled faster than the sound.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You have pre-autopsy photos covered with paint and mortician's wax. Fake autopsy photos as asserted by the principles who took them.

The quotes you posted in this thread had the principle state they did not remember taking the photographs. It included no assertion of faked photographs, paint or wax.

As you have no evidence the photograph was faked, you rely on invalidating physical evidence with witness testemony. By that is back to front. Unreliable human memories arevalidated by physical evidence. The reliability of any witness is compromised when you try claim they have made specific assertions that appear nowhere in your citations.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

As you say:

Stupid is as stupid does.

We can all agree on that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Can you do the same thing with the picture of a pee stained doofus?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_267444f7f87d2a622e.jpg[/qimg]

LOL.

But despite his arm AND rifle-analogue being held in a completely different manner that is "exact enough". Apparently.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The testimony was about the physical evidence, the actual evidence being dead and buried. Obviously.

The testemony was about the buried body? So what. Other actual evidence was on hand toinvalidate the testemony. Equally obviously.

 

[Garrison]

But despite his arm AND rifle-analogue being held in a completely different manner that is "exact enough". Apparently.

It's been shown that its possible for a vertical object to generate a horizontal shadow, odd how that isn't 'exact enough' for Robert to abandon his claim.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's been shown that its possible for a vertical object to generate a horizontal shadow, odd how that isn't 'exact enough' for Robert to abandon his claim.

It would be if he were actually looking at the topic with out preformed opinions he wishes to confirm.

 

[matt.tansy]

Yes. Everybody knows all those lines on sundials are just for show. The Earth can't actually rotate far enough to cast shadows to make a perpendicular shadow. As soon as the Sun sees a sundial about to make a perpendicular shadow it tells the Earth to stop rotating. This is why we shift back and forth between daylight saving time and standard time; so all the sundials can be reset.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

lol. You make no sense whatsoever.

Yet you claimed all he allowed was that copies may not be as clear as originals, and Thompson didn't admit - and couldn't admit - to being wrong without seeing those originals.

Nobody admitted anything like what you claim. Deferring does not equate with admitting. It merely allows that copies may not be as clear as originals. But Thompson could not possibly say he was wrong without seeing those originals. Logic 101.

We then had this exchange:

And you cannot say Thompson was right, either, since he didn't examine the originals. You just discredited your own witness. The one you brought to the discussion as evidence of forgery.

What else you got?

Of course I can say Thompson was right. I've personally proved him to be right.

Now you backtrack and claim nobody knows precisely what Thompson said. But of course, whatever it was, he was right and you proved it.

You do understand that you don't win many converts to your cause with nonsense like that, I trust.

Oh, and the HSCA concluded there was evidence of a shot from the knoll. You are claiming now they (all of them? - the entire House Select Committee on Assassinations) - were serial liars? If your claim is true, we should not believe that shot from the knoll conclusion. Should we?

Hank