JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

[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.

The text was added by you!

Please tell me how you determined the stick was pointing downward, instead of upward.

A stick is a stick is a stick. If held at an angle to the horizon, it points both upward and downward at the same time (unless, of course, it is held exactly horizontal).

So your entire claim about the stick having a different orientation than the rifle (which you claim is pointed upward) is just nonsense. Typical of most all of your posts.

The angle of the rifle and the angle of the stick is the same, as anyone can see.
The horizontal rifle shadow in the Oswald photo - which you claim is impossible to replicate - is replicated in the comparison photo.
Your original claim is exposed as false.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

You're just going to keep lying, aren't you?

That's one question, by the way, not that you will answer it, being a confirmed liar and all.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

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.

lol.

lol. You make no sense whatsoever.

You previously admitted Connally didn't see JFK, so he couldn't say he was hit by a separate shot (second quote above). Instead, you just substituted what your interpretation is, falsely claim 'we could all see it on the Z film'.

You claimed numerous times Connally insisted he was hit by a separate shoot, but when I attribute that claim to you, you say he never said that, as it would be a post-mortem quotation [!], then you turn around and insist on the same thing I've been saying you've been insisting on all along (first quote above)

You never once cited any such statement of Connally's that he was hit by a separate shot than the one that hit JFK. And in fact, I did quote Connally saying the exact opposite, that he didn't know which shot hit JFK, so it might have been the same one that struck him.

Mr. CONNALLY. ... 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 ... 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...
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

 

[HSienzant]

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.



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

"Right back" is the TSBD to Clint Hill. At no time did he say right front (e.g., the grassy knoll).

And you are relying on 49-year old eyewitness testimony again, instead of the best evidence - the hard evidence like the photos of the body, the autopsy report, the bullet fragments found in the car, traceable to a weapon found in the TSBD, etc. etc.

Clint Hill's opinion on the single bullet theory is meaningless. No one can see the path of a bullet, and Hill's opinion of the path the bullet travelled doesn't mean a thing to the ultimate resolution of the crime.

I remind you that Paul Hoch says the single-bullet theory is a very viable theory, and possibly the best solution to the crime; this was a guy YOU CITED.



Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The flinch was due to hearing a shot. Obviously.

Correction, that's your interpretation of the evidence. No 'Obviously' about it.

What also caused the lapel flap and Connally's arm holding the hat coming up all within a few frames of each other?

I submit a better interpretation of the evidence is the lapel flap is caused by bullet exiting Connally's right chest just below the nipple; the grimace and flinch was caused by being hit by a bullet; and the right hand holding the hat comes up because he was just shot through the wrist.

That convergence of events is hard to explain any other way.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.



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

1. There were only 3 shots.

I believe your theory has six or seven shots at a minimum. Is that correct, Robert?

In no particular order:
1. Shot that missed the limo
2. Shot that hit JFK in the throat
3. Shot that hit JFK in the back
4. Shot that hit Connally
5. Shot that hit Tague
6. Shot from behind that hit JFK in the head
7. Shot from the knoll that hit JFK in the head

Can you list the shots you believe occurred?

 

[JayUtah]

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

You have been asked to give a reference to where your critics here claimed the copies were as good as the originals, as you report they have said. You have ignored all requests. I therefore conclude that you are unable or unwilling to do so, but too dishonest to admit it.

And the HSCA and the FBI Jack White, John Costella, and Robert Prety have a record of dishonesty.

FTFY.

 

[HSienzant]

So McAdams doesn't have all the answers laid out for you???

Not sure I follow your point. I did point out that your 'do your own research' is a typical response by those conspiracy addicts who cannot back up their own claims.

At which point you interjected the above, which seems to fit my summary of your actions quite well. I remind you I said Conspiracy Theorists typically follow this pattern:

Your argument is standard CT Logic 101:

• If caught with no evidence, talk about something else.
• If caught in a lie, bluster, and accuse your opponent of lying.
• If you opponent cites the films or photos, call them faked. But don't hesitate to site the same evidence if you see something you can interpret to fit your conspiracy beliefs.
• And of course, if stuck for a response, say 'Baloney' or 'Fiddlesticks' or 'Do your own research'!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

But you're the only one citing the copies, and the opinions of those who looked at the copies, as significant of anything. I remind you that you're claiming the photos are faked. Others have said simply you haven't proven your case (despite your claims to the contrary).

And your claims of fakery are based on the opinions of those who never examined the originals.

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

 

[JayUtah]

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

The report is that Thompson deferred to the panel's opinion that there was no evidence of fakery. I realize that you don't consider that worth your attention, but you have provided nothing better or more authoritative. I will stick with the evidence that exists, not the evidence you wish existed. Thompson likely reasoned that the originals were a much better source of data, and thus deferred to the conclusion of the panel that no signs of fakery were to be found, on the grounds that they had better data than he and could make a better study.

You will provide no evidence that I am wrong about Thompson, and you will not retract your accusation that I lied about him. What is to be done with you?

 

[JayUtah]

Of the shoe fits, wear it.

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

When non-answers such as these are the norm with you, why would I be amiss in considering you little more than an evasive blowhard?

I asked you substantiate your accusations. You will not. I asked you to be accountable for claims you have made. You refuse. What is to be done with you?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

No, first, it's not the same experts - that would be a different panel entirely.

The HSCA photographic expert panel concluded the backyard photos were genuine.

The HSCA forensic expert panel (including Cyril Wecht, by the way) concluded there was no evidence of a shot striking the president from the right front in the extant autopsy materials. They were not assigned the task of interviewing the Parkland doctors, but to determine whether the autopsy materials were genuine and to draw conclusions from those materials - like the autopsy photos and x-rays). They determined by a variety of tests that the autopsy materials were genuine and they drew appropriate conclusions from that evidence.

The HSCA members (the actual elected members of the House of Representatives Committee on Assassinations) concluded there was a shot from the front, based on some audio tape that was studied by two different groups (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, BB&N, and also Weiss and Aschkenasy, W&A).

So your claim above is wrong factually on a number of levels. The only one lying here - or just as bad, leveling false claims of lying without being sufficiently versed in the evidence to draw that conclusion - is you!

But don't let that stop you; it never has stopped you before.

Hank

 

[Garrison]

Well I did another render to strip out all the extraneous components from the other images and came up with this:

Rifle is vertical and angled forward, light angled sharply down from the right of the image and as the lines make clear the shadow is horizontal and to the left of the figure, very much like the backyard photos. So yet again it is shown that there is nothing impossible about the shadow, heck as long as the figure is side on to the light the shadow has to fall like that.

I doubt it will convince Robert but if he gets hit over the head with it often enough....ah who am I kidding!

 

[HSienzant]

Thomson says originals are better...

Great, Now tell us who studied the orignals and what their conclusions were.

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

I don't recall anyone but you citing a conclusion based on copies. Nor do I recall any self-proclaimed experts (other than yourself, again) who based a conclusion on copies.

...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."

Again, the only experts cited who have studied the originals have been the FBI and the HSCA photographic panel. The people you have cited either have no demonstrable photographic expertise, never studied the originals, or both [mostly both - folks like Jack White and Paul Hoch).

...Double-standard time for the poor Lone Nutters who have now painted themselves into a corner.

The only double-standard is by Robert Prey, who throws out the legitimate conclusions of the valid experts who studied the originals on various pretexts, while instead insisting the conclusions of non-experts who studied only copies are valid conclusions.

Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

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.



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

Olive Loaf. Right back is where the book depository was so that's consistent. And he could see into the back of Kennedy's head because he was shot in the back of the head. No contradiction once again. Obviously.

 

[infocusinc]

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

Can you read Robert?

I've no problem with Thompson using copies, just his conclusions.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What? People can look into an entry wound? Those things aren't invisible? Whoda thunk it...

 

[infocusinc]

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.

You are correct that there has been no replication of ANY of the backyard photos.

Why? Because you nor anyone else can even state the circumstances of the photos.

You complain about sun angle for example, in a competing test image, and you think your effort gets it correct?

To do so you Need to know the exact month, day and time the BY photos were taken.

You don't, so how can you say the sun angle is wrong? Sheesh, your logic is non existent.

As I said earlier the proof of concept demonstration proves your claim a shadow as seen in the BY is impossible...is wrong.

And no amount of shucking and jiving on your part can change this simple fact.

 

[HSienzant]

You are correct that there has been no replication of ANY of the backyard photos.

Why? Because you nor anyone else can even state the circumstances of the photos.

You complain about sun angle for example, in a competing test image, and you think your effort gets it correct?

To do so you Need to know the exact month, day and time the BY photos were taken.

You don't, so how can you say the sun angle is wrong? Sheesh, your logic is non existent.

As I said earlier the proof of concept demonstration proves your claim a shadow as seen in the BY is impossible...is wrong.

And no amount of shucking and jiving on your part can change this simple fact.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/40/oswald133ab.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9454/oswald133bfinaldate.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2889/oswald133b34angles.jpg

The images above are from the posting from Shutterbun on 12/7/2009 at 9:41pm in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/96b4d8cb2ab0eda3?tvc=2

He wrote:

Herb's right: they were not "Russian" newspapers. Marxist or
Communist newspapers would be more accurate. But yes, I thought I had
put a pretty decent nail in the "misaligned shadows" theory a while
ago.
I'd be happy to repost:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/40/oswald133ab.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9454/oswald133bfinaldate.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2889/oswald133b34angles.jpg

Slight discrepancies in modeling aside, this should prove once and for
all that any shadow anomalies are stricltly caused by the position of
the objects in 3-D space, and how they react with the terrain/
surrounding object. This is the same type of argument the Moon-
landing Hoax crowd have been claiming about the LEM shadows, and
disproven just as easily.

I found the next two posts in that thread very informative as well.

The next poster, a lone nutter, points out that the images above won't resolve anything, as conspiracy theorists will just wait 48 hours and start reposting the same disproven claims (something we've seen from Robert repeatedly here).

And the following post, from a conspiracy theorist, talks about something different all of a sudden - the casket at Bethesda.

From the data in the second image above, can you reconstruct an Oswald image from the camera's viewpoint using your software and post it here?

Thanks!
Hank

 

[infocusinc]

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/40/oswald133ab.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9454/oswald133bfinaldate.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2889/oswald133b34angles.jpg

The images above are from the posting from Shutterbun on 12/7/2009 at 9:41pm in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/96b4d8cb2ab0eda3?tvc=2

He wrote:

Herb's right: they were not "Russian" newspapers. Marxist or
Communist newspapers would be more accurate. But yes, I thought I had
put a pretty decent nail in the "misaligned shadows" theory a while
ago.
I'd be happy to repost:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/40/oswald133ab.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9454/oswald133bfinaldate.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2889/oswald133b34angles.jpg

Slight discrepancies in modeling aside, this should prove once and for
all that any shadow anomalies are stricltly caused by the position of
the objects in 3-D space, and how they react with the terrain/
surrounding object. This is the same type of argument the Moon-
landing Hoax crowd have been claiming about the LEM shadows, and
disproven just as easily.

I found the next two posts in that thread very informative as well.

The next poster, a lone nutter, points out that the images above won't resolve anything, as conspiracy theorists will just wait 48 hours and start reposting the same disproven claims (something we've seen from Robert repeatedly here).

And the following post, from a conspiracy theorist, talks about something different all of a sudden - the casket at Bethesda.

Hank

Hank, as nice as these proof of concept renderings are they still fall short of being a replication.

Replicating a photos is dang near impossible. I know, I've had to try many many time s in a professional setting. Even when attempting to redo an image I have created with very detailed notes, making a strict replication never happens. Its ALWAYS a case of crating brand new circumstances.

In the case of the backyard photos we fail at step one...the correct angle of the sun.

Why? because we don't know the exact time and date the photos were taken. If we can't determine the light, how can we for example be assured we get body position, camera angle and distance etc correct? We can't, we create new circumstances.

Now I'm not saying these kinds of experiments don't have value, they do.

Like Farid's testing, where he showed he could find a set of conditions that shows it is POSSIBLE for certain shadows as seen in the back yard photos to be cast. That is all he proved. He did not prove the Backyard photo genuine. He proved a certain set of shadows is possible.

The value of work like this is that it shows that CT claims like the shadows are IMPOSSIBLE ( aka Robert) to be false. And when Robert makes his silly claims about this or that not being correct he is simply blowing smoke...because he can't define WHAT CORRECT really is.

I can't PROVE the BY photos are genuine. I can show other possible and plausible explanations for the so called anomalies the CT claim prove the photos are fake.

As a general rule these CT claims are based on a faulty understanding of basic photographic principle. Simple proof of concept experiments can show how these alternatives work, just like I have done with the chin for example.

Again I'll restate my position..accurately replicating a photo is near impossible with very detailed notes. Replicating the BY photos with so much data simply unknowable is truly impossible.

Proof of concept work...totally doable and highly effective at destroying CT claims.

It also drives them completely crazy, and that is a bonus!