• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
infocusinc said:
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!
Click to expand...

The challenge was made on another JFK board and some guy claims he actually went to the Neely back yard, at the proper time of day and year and said he was just about to get the proper shadow refraction when the owner kicked him out. Oh, don't you just hate it when that happens.
 
EventHorizon said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. the 6th floor window is left back.
 
Hank wrote:

"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 .."

Would that include the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board who have also never seen the originals???
 
Garrison said:
Well I did another render to strip out all the extraneous components from the other images and came up with this:

[qimg]http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/6060/riflem.jpg[/qimg]

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!
Click to expand...

Nothing impossible about the shadow so long as you contrive a different sun angle. Pic 133b shows the shadow of the fake Oswald at nearly 12 o'colck. This model's shadow is more like 9:30 to 10 o'clock. Obviously.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. the 6th floor window is left back.
Click to expand...
Say WHAT?:confused: Ridiculous!
picture.php

I don't see how you could ever claim the sniper's nest was back left.
 
Robert Prey said:
If you can see "through" the back of the head, sounds more like the large blow-out reported by all of the Parkland docs.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. But then I can see through key holes. Or the gaps in floorboards. In point of fact, looking from a small hole through to a larger one and seeing the light beyond is often easier than the oposite. You do seem to read what you want into such quotes inspite of the limited information they actually contain.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham
May 2003

In the case of the House Select Committee, what is most striking is the conflicted nature of the conclusions: while the committee reached the stunning conclusion that there had indeed been a conspiracy to kill JFK, the HSCA’s forensic subpanel concluded there was no evidence for one in Kennedy’s medical and autopsy evidence ...

Besides the President’s brain and tissue slides, the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished, as have the HSCA tests that revealed that the camera failed a test to match them with the official photographs. The skull fragments that ostensibly proved the bullet’s direction by their supposed beveling characteristics have disappeared. Original autopsy notes were vaporized by JFK’s chief pathologist, who followed that up by signing false affidavits about them, and then by giving the Warren Commission misleading testimony. Also, multiple lines of evidence suggest that crucial – what might fairly be described as “diagnostic” – autopsy photographs are also missing, if not falsified...

Declassified files prove that, by both word and diagram, autopsy witnesses had refuted the pictures, not endorsed them. What did the HSCA do? In addition to misreporting on them, it suppressed the witness interviews and the explicit autopsy diagrams they’d prepared. [As with its treatment of Dr. Burkley, not even the HSCA’s own autopsy experts were allowed to see the HSCA’s interviews with the autopsy witnesses.] Thus, witnesses who had actually challenged Oswald’s guilt were cited as corroborating it.
--

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

In other words, the HSCA lied.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Nothing impossible about the shadow so long as you contrive a different sun angle. Pic 133b shows the shadow of the fake Oswald at nearly 12 o'colck. This model's shadow is more like 9:30 to 10 o'clock. Obviously.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if the modelling seeks to replicate the shadowing it doesn't seem to do that very well at all, unless I'm misinterpreting what it's intended to show.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

"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 .."

Would that include the self-proclaimed "experts" on this board who have also never seen the originals???
Click to expand...

Which group do you think includes other posters here?
The FBI? HSCA? Or people you cited?

Oh, and please supply a citation where anybody proclaimed their own expertise, as opposed to offering evidence of the expertise others consider them to have, based on academic and professional experience and/or qualifications. Come to think of it, cite a post where anybody claimed they were an expert full stop.
 
BazBear said:
Say WHAT?:confused: Ridiculous!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=810&pictureid=5808[/qimg]
I don't see how you could ever claim the sniper's nest was back left.
Click to expand...
I suspect Robert is mistaking the County Records Building for the TSBD. Pretty basic, uninformed error, if you ask me.
 
BazBear said:
Say WHAT?:confused: Ridiculous!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=810&pictureid=5808[/qimg]
I don't see how you could ever claim the sniper's nest was back left.
Click to expand...

Depends on how contrived is your diagram:

picture.php
 
JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...

And you have no evidence that Thompson refuted his own conclusions based on the Originals which he had not seen.
 
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Citing a bunch of serial liars does not help your case.
 
HSienzant said:
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?
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 4 to 7 shots.
 
matt.tansy said:
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.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/otxbP.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Perpendicular shadows, yes. Two shadows of the same nature, one perpendicular, one horizontal adds up to fraud. Obviously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom