JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

He explained nothing.

Can you replicate his methodology and duplicate his results?

Can anyone?

It's hocus-pocus, Robert. Flim-flam. A con game.

And you fell for it.

Hank

An apt description of the Lone Nutter dogma and the Warren fable -- a con game, and you fell for it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Sure there were. As noted in the below;

Other experts pointed out that the prints were "fresh" because they would not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard housing." (Gus Russo, Live by the Sword [Baltimore, Maryland: Bancroft Press, 1998] p. 462.)

But that is a decidedly secondary issue for now. You've been saying Oswald's fingerprints aren't on the rifle, but they were. On the trigger guard. As photographed there by J.C.Day of the Dallas Crime Lab on the afternoon of the assassination, and as identified on those photographs by Vincent Scalise.

Are you going to admit that Oswald's fingerprints were on the trigger guard or change the subject to something else?

The FBI's Latona said there were no readable prints. Deal with it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Do not shift the burden of proof. You presented Tom Wilson as an expert. You presented reasons why he should be considered an expert, however upon inspection those reasons amount to mere claims, with no verifiable substance. Your options at this point are to provide the required substantiation, to present additional reasons why he should be considered an expert along with appropriate substance, or withdraw the claim to expertise. Trying to make your critics cough up something is not a substitute for your inability to qualify your expert.

US steel affirms him as an expert as does the Dept.of Justice. Now, if you have other information....

But of course you don't.

 

[HSienzant]

You mean physical evidence as in persons seen or unseen like the persons unseen in the 6th Fl. TSBD?

Oh, but there may have indeed been a shooter or shooters from the TSBD. But none of them nor the Grassy Knoll shooters were seen.

We've gone over this in the past.

You are ignoring what was proven a month ago, Robert.

That is dishonesty. But I expect nothing less than that from conspiracy theorists, as they have nothing else to offer. As all the evidence points to Oswald.

Do you not remember the fact that multiple people saw the sixth floor Texas School shooter in the window, during or just before the shooting?

For example, both the below men saw a young slender white male fitting Oswald's description in the sniper's nest window just a half-minute or so before the shooting. They even discussed him. You are going to argue they saw no gun. But you are saying above no persons were seen in the sixth floor window, and your statement above is therefore absolutely FALSE.

Your earlier statement, that the shooter was not seen, is likewise untrue. He was seen by Fischer and Edwards, as I pointed out earlier, but not in the act of shooting. But others saw the gun, and I pointed that out too.

No shooters were seen in the TSBD?

That's just another falsehood by you.

I refer you to Mr. Ronald Fischer:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer.htm

His friend Robert Edwards saw the man in the window too:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm

They were lying, and Ed Hoffman is believable, right?

Note they both gave statements on 11/22/63:

Edwards: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edward1.htm
Fischer: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer1.htm

True, but both saw a man fitting Oswald's description in the TSBD's SE corner 6th floor window seconds before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza. Within no more than 30 seconds of that, the shooting took place, and numerous witnesses saw a rifle in the window.

If you want someone who actually saw the rifle just after the shooting, one such witness would be Bob Jackson.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm

Mr. JACKSON - ... And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn the corner.
Mr. SPECTER - Which corner were you beginning to turn?
Mr. JACKSON - Houston onto Elm.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. 348 and ask you if you can identify what that depicts?
Mr. JACKSON - This is the School Book Depository. This is the window the two colored men were looking out of. This is the window where the rifle was.

Jackson only saw the rifle from his angle, not the shooter. But clearly the rifle seen by Jackson was held by someone, and just as clearly the man that was seen by Fischer and Edwards in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor was the same man that was holding the rifle that was seen about 40 seconds later by Bob Jackson.

Surely you are not going to argue that an innocent man left that window and a guilty man took his place in the short time between the Fischer and Edwards sightings of the man in the window and the Jackson sighting of the rifle.

If not, and I trust not, then the man seen by Fischer and Edwards is the same man holding the rifle seen by Jackson. That man fit Oswald's description.

But the conclusion is inescapable -- the shooter in the TSBD SE corner window was seen. By Fischer and Edwards. And others.

Your statement is false, that the shooter in the TSBD was unseen. He was seen, and clearly described. On the other hand, there is absolutely no first-day evidence of a grassy knoll shooter.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

We've gone over this in the past.

You are ignoring what was proven a month ago, Robert.

That is dishonesty. But I expect nothing less than that from conspiracy theorists, as they have nothing else to offer. As all the evidence points to Oswald.

Do you not remember the fact that multiple people saw the sixth floor Texas School shooter in the window, during or just before the shooting?

For example, both the below men saw a young slender white male fitting Oswald's description in the sniper's nest window just a half-minute or so before the shooting. They even discussed him. You are going to argue they saw no gun. But you are saying above no persons were seen in the sixth floor window, and your statement above is therefore absolutely FALSE.

Your earlier statement, that the shooter was not seen, is likewise untrue. He was seen by Fischer and Edwards, as I pointed out earlier, but not in the act of shooting. But others saw the gun, and I pointed that out too.

Nobody identified in the 6th floor window. Figures, maybe, probably. Just like figures were indeed seen on the grassy knoll. But no ID's in either case.

 

[infocusinc]

us steel affirms him as an expert as does the dept.of justice. Now, if you have other information....

But of course you don't.

affirms him as an 'expert" at what?

 

[infocusinc]

An apt description of the Lone Nutter dogma and the Warren fable -- a con game, and you fell for it.

Actually no, I'm not in the least interested in who killed JFK. I don't care what any of you say in that regard. I'm simply interested in the photographic claims.

Which leaves us back at square one, with YOU being to dupe for crackpot claims that fit your warped worldview.

 

[JayUtah]

It is an claim that is made at the introduction to his book at Amazon.com and is also a claim that is made as an introduction by the Nigel Turner in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

In other words, hearsay. Your claim that Wilson is an expert rests entirely on claims made I him by himself and others, which you have failed to verify.

You claimed in part that he was an expert because he testified in some federal court case. When asked to substantiate that by citing the case, so that we may locate it and read the transcripts and verify or assess his level of expertise, you first failed to provide it. Then you provided a link to where the claim was made by others. Lately you simply provide more references to where the claim has been made.

You have revealed that you have absolutely no personal knowledge whatsoever whether Wilson was an expert witness in any court case. You're only able to reproduce Wilson's claims to that effect and claims made by others about him. You dishonestly report hearsay as if it was firsthand fact, and only when questioned with excruciating rigor do you reveal the weakness of your source. In fact you knew it was hearsay all along, but were reluctant to disclose that fact.

I discuss his allegations regarding U.S. Steel below.

Neither you nor any of the "experts" on this board have been able to refute those claims...

Pointing out that they are unsubstantiated hearsay is a refutation.

Nonsense. He admits that his work on subsurface backscatter and differential photometry and radiometry is something he got from NASA. Claims made about Wilson note he was at U.S. Steel doing this type of work. However, his own account states that he did this in retirement, after having left the company. Which is it?

Since the history of engineering is part of what I do (but is obviously open to anyone to research), I poked around a little bit. The system developed at U.S. Steel in the 1980s to automate the visual inspection of steel parts was actually built by Honeywell under contract to U.S. Steel, funded in part by U.S. Dept. of Energy. It is remarkably similar to the backscatter and diffraction based systems I supply to my customers today for surface inspection in manufacturing.

But it doesn't work the way Wilson says it does when he proposes to apply it to film photography, nor did U.S. Steel ever apply it to anything except steel. His claims regarding its usefulness in photography are entirely without a basis in the U.S. Steel hot-slab inspection system. His claims of a "catalogue" of materials are without basis the Honeywell design or in U.S. Steel's application.

Several names of notable engineers (e.g., Don Waters, Erik Tromborg) are listed in connection with this work. Wilson's name does not appear.

Further, Wilson says he carried out his analysis in his home office. There is a photograph in his book of a video camera connected to a small computer. However, the system built at U.S. Steel employs two video cameras on the production line connected to a trailer full of specialized computer equipment and parallel processors. This is the same setup we use today: a video camera on the line records the diffraction or surface scattering information, which is transmitted via cable or radio to 2-3 racks of supercomputing equipment (SIMD multiprocessors, ca. 400 64-biit cores). The "magic" in the process is in that trailer full of equipment, which required approximately $3 million to develop. How did Wilson supposedly get that for his house? Or if he didn't, what did he use?

We are compelled to identify some reason why Wilson was so tight-lipped regarding his process and apparatus, and why he never let anyone inspect it, even to the point of irritating and alienating other JFK conspiracy theorists.

I propose, based on what I've been able to uncover about the real process at U.S. Steel, that Wilson was only tangentially involved in it -- if at all -- and that his "retirement" project really consisted of trying to duplicate the U.S. Steel process amateurishly on his own, at home, for the sole purpose of misapplying it to the Kennedy assassination photos. And I further propose that he didn't let anyone examine his methods or apparatus because they would see that it had little if anything in common with the U.S. Steel system he claims it copied or was derived from. This is a hypothesis, but it is one that fits the available facts far more closely than your story.

I don't see anything in the record that allows Wilson to claim his U.S. Steel experience makes him an expert on the computer analysis of photographs.

 

[HSienzant]

The FBI's Latona said there were no readable prints. Deal with it.

Already have. Weren't you paying attention? It's been dealt with. A different expert, using photographs of the print taken before the prints were lifted, before the rifle was transported to Washington, and before Latona made his examination, determined from those earlier photographs that it's Oswald's prints on the rifle. According to J.c.Day, the lift of the trigger guard prints left only remnants behind, and that is why Latona was unable to identify those remnants as Oswald's. But the photographs, taken before the lift, show the prints, and Scalise ID'ed Oswald's prints from those photos.

And you never did document your claim that "Moreover, Scalise refused to make a sworn statement regarding his interpretation of the prints." Where is that documented, Robert?

Anywhere? No, as I said previously, you simply MADE THAT UP!

And how come the FBI is lying scum whenever I cite their conclusions, but God's gift to man whenever they say something you like. Don't you remember writing this:

... a real critical thinker would also keep in mind that the FBI itself is a prime suspect in the coverup.

If you believe that, do you exclude Latona from the coverup, or is he a part of it, Robert?

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

US steel affirms him as an expert...

No, this would require a source from U.S. Steel, which you do not provide. All you've provided are references to where others have claimed he did similar work for U.S. Steel. Do you understand the difference between hearsay and evidence?

...as does the Dept.of Justice.

Case number, or it didn't happen.

But of course you don't.

You have the burden to prove he's the expert you say he is. You have only claims to expertise, not any documentation of it.

 

[JayUtah]

An apt description of the Lone Nutter dogma...

Nonsense. It's an apt description of the scientific method.

You yourself not too long ago harped incessantly on the need for verification and reproducibility in this kind of examination. Therefore it's a very fair question to ask you what was done to verify or reproduce Wilson's findings.

In fact Wilson's findings were never verified because he was secretive about his method. And to my knowledge they were never reproduced, because they are irreproducible owing to the secrecy of his method. By criteria you yourself put forward and advocated as necessary, Wilson's work is unscientific. And even conspiracy theorists such as White and Fetzer bailed on him because he refused to submit to a scientific method.

 

[infocusinc]

It's a ridiculous question for two reasons: One, nobody really knows the exact date or time of day the pics were taken and 2. It is not necessary to know the exact day or time if one makes a reasonable approximation as to the shadow as it falls from the body of the fake Oswald and simply replicates it.

So how in the world would you know if you made a 'reasonable approximation" when simple changes in position of the body charges the cast shadow?

Its not the angle of the sun that changes the shadows here...

 

[HSienzant]

Nobody identified in the 6th floor window. Figures, maybe, probably. Just like figures were indeed seen on the grassy knoll.
But no ID's in either case.

Nope.

You are committing another logical fallacy. Moving the goalposts.

Your original claim was that NOBODY WAS SEEN in the TSBD window.

You mean physical evidence as in persons seen or unseen like the persons unseen in the 6th Fl. TSBD?

Now that's been established as false, you are changing the claim to NOBODY WAS IDENTIFIED. That's a different claim. We can discuss that if you wish, but please retract your original claim, that nobody was seen in the sixth floor window.

And you are trying to conflate the evidence for a shooter in the TSBD window (listed below) with the evidence for a shooter on the knoll (for which there is a paucity of evidence).

Evidence for a shooter in the TSBD sniper's nest.

1. Numerous people saw a rifle in the window.
2. Three men on the fifth floor heard the shots and heard the operation of the bolt above them.
3. A rifle was discovered on the sixth floor
4. Shells were discovered in the sixth floor sniper's nest corner.
5. Two fragments were discovered in the limo that were provably fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
6. An nearly whole bullet was discovered at parkland hospital that was provably fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
7. The wounds in the men, as determined in the autopsy evidence by the HSCA, align with the sixth floor window.

Evidence for a shooter on the knoll:
1. Supposed eyewitness accounts taken out of context that don't agree with each other in substance interpreted to suggest a shooter.

 

[HSienzant]

An apt description of the Lone Nutter dogma and the Warren fable -- a con game, and you fell for it.

You just changed the subject, Robert.

Another logical fallacy committed by you.

The subject was whether Wilson was an expert, do you recall this exchange?

Wilson explains his method in "The Men who Killed Kennedy."

He explained nothing. Can you replicate his methodology and duplicate his results? Can anyone?
It's hocus-pocus, Robert. Flim-flam. A con game. And you fell for it.

Without evidence to support your original claims of Wilson's expertise, you simply changed the subject. I pointed out a week ago that is exactly what to expect from Conspiracy theorists like yourself. Thank you for proving my point so well.

...Not really. 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'!

 

[HSienzant]

I recall you chiding me when I sent you a link to John McAdams site. I thought we had reached a tacit agreement that you wouldn't site conspiracy theorist articles and I wouldn't cite McAdams articles.

Do you remember this exchange:




You never did rebut any of those points, of course, although you brought up Stringer to begin with.

The article you cite is meaningless. I can see at least a couple of false and/or misleading claims easily enough:

1. "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."

I would think that is the right way to go - the HSCA autopsy experts were supposed to determine the validity of the autopsy materials from the materials themselves, and then draw conclusions from the materials. They weren't supposed to be basing their conclusions on what the witnesses recalled, as the witnesses recollections could color their assessment of the materials. So Aguilar's "criticism" of the HSCA methodology falls flat on its face here.

Let's attack it another way: Do you understand what a double-blind test is, and why those are utilized in tests of various kinds?​

2. "the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished..."

Vanished? The camera was utilized in 1963 for the autopsy photos. It was looked for by the AARB, in 1996 or thereabouts - more than 30 years after the fact. A third of a century. No doubt the camera was either no longer in working order and tossed in the trash, or replaced with a better model, including possibly (by that time) a camera that saved the images to a chip, rather than using film. This is the kind of 'evidence' that conspiracy addicts must resort to, to make a case for conspiracy. Do you still have your 33-year old camera? Does Aguilar? Of course not. And given the number of corpsman who passed through the Bethesda Naval Hospital over that 33-year period, I am not surprised that somewhere along the line, the camera was tossed out and replaced once it ceased working. But conspiracy theorists like Aguilar paint this as suspicious, and you post it here as if it is relevant. Absurd.​

Hank

No Rebuttal, Robert?

 

[HSienzant]

Try again Robert.

You clearly have no clue what I am talking about.

You are citing Neutron Activation Analysis testing which was done, but that wasn't done to establish the shots came from that rifle.

There is a entirely different test that was performed that did match the fragments and the nearly whole bullet with the rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world - exactly as I said.

Do you even know what it was?

Hint: It is covered extensively in the Warren Commission Report, and is a standard forensic test for matching bullets to weapons. Has been for about a century. You are suffering from a lack of balance as your diet consists almost entirely of conspiracy books. I prescribe some more general reading, including books on ballistics and fingerprinting. You know, regular crime-solving stuff.

Of course you don't know about the test I'm talking about since conspiracy books avoid it like the plague, as it pretty much demolishes their case that the weapon was inadequate and the accused was not capable. Since it's a standard test, easily understood by most people, they have no rebuttal. Rather than try to rebut, they simply don't mention it. Hence your lack of familiarity with it.

Hank

Robert, did you figure out yet what test I was talking about when I said that the bullet found in Parkland and the two fragments found in the limo were determined to have been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?

Let me give you another hint: It's covered extensively in a separate appendix in the Warren Report.

 

[HSienzant]

It is an claim that is made at the introduction to his book at Amazon.com and is also a claim that is made as an introduction by the Nigel Turner in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy.".

The operative word, you do understand, is 'claim'.
By your own admission, those are only claims.

I make a lot of claims here. So do you. Oftentimes, it turns out that your claims are almost exactly the opposite of mine. Since they are often opposed, do you understand that not all our claims on the same subject can both be correct?

The ones backed up by evidence are the correct ones. Those would be mine. The ones where the guy is blowing smoke or hot air and not backed up by evidence are yours. Those would be the incorrect ones.

A claim needs evidence to prove it is true. Thus far you have cited the claim, not the evidence.

Where is the evidence to substantiate the claims you cite above?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It's a ridiculous question for two reasons: One, nobody really knows the exact date or time of day the pics were taken and 2. It is not necessary to know the exact day or time if one makes a reasonable approximation as to the shadow as it falls from the body of the fake Oswald and simply replicates it.

The Warren Commission narrowed the weekend to one weekend in March of 1963, and then to one day on that weekend. Have you ever even read the Warren Report?

Your lack of familiarity with its contents, for one often so critical of its conclusions, continues to astound me.

"reasonable approximation" is conspiracy-theorist talk for "anything I can get away with", e.g., having the man in the 'replication' point the cane behind him rather than have the cane fall forward, as Oswald is clearly doing with the rifle in this picture.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Depends on how contrived is your diagram:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5809[/qimg]

I see nothing in your diagram that puts the TSBD to the left of the limo.

Your original claim is erroneous.

Remember that this came about because of Clint Hill's book. You claimed that Hill's contention that the shots came from behind and to the right was evidence of conspiracy, but that is precisely were the TSBD was during the entire time the limo was on Elm - behind and to the right of the limo.

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.

No. the 6th floor window is left back.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/index.html#contents

Loved this comment by Joe Durnavich...
http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/durnavich-phil.html

The historian and the scientist first understand, then conclude. The contributors to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, don't understand, yet conclude. Fetzer doesn't understand two Greer head turns in the film. Costella doesn't understand why the signs in a pair of Zapruder frames don't appear the same after he digitally processes them. White doesn't understand why Toni Foster appears 6'5" tall. Lifton doesn't understand why Roland Zavada's intersprocket images don't extend full flush left. Mantik doesn't understand "numerous irregularities and paradoxes" in the Zapruder and Muchmore films. One guy doesn't understand this, the other guy doesn't understand that. People who parade their lack of understanding, puzzlement, and bewilderment over the film, who are at a loss to explain what they see, and who repeatedly challenge others to explain it to them are not the kinds of people we should take advice from on the status of the Zapruder film.

The present volume offers nothing but doubt, suspicion, innuendo, speculation, and suggestive fantasies of sinister agents lurking in the shadows, fabricating films, altering bodies, and draining the batteries of electric shavers. The imaginative mind can spawn an uncountable number of scenarios from that, no doubt, all leading to a complete fabrication of the Zapruder film by a large government conspiracy in a remarkably short amount of time. For those of us interested in the history of the Kennedy assassination, however, being lead to such a field wide-open with possibilities, where any number of scenarios are possible, is not a good place to be.

It does sound like one of our more frequent posters on this board a lot.