• 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.
HSienzant said:
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.


[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare3.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/267444f12f8cf6fa92.jpg[/qimg]


Hank
Click to expand...


The problem here is that this date and time is a guess. Still leaves any attempt to 'replicate' missing data that is crucial to the replication.

Without the data there can be no replication.
 
HSienzant said:
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.


[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/compare3.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/267444f12f8cf6fa92.jpg[/qimg]


Hank
Click to expand...

Really.And it was TomTom who claimed that the replication was off because the man in the V mask pointed the stick downward. Make up your minds, oh ye poor deluded Lone Nutters.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

When you have several separate sources post the bio of their subject, one presumes it to be true. For you and your Amen Chorus of Pooh-Poohers to demand evidence for his credits and bio is silly. Surely, by now the fraud would have been exposed if it existed. I can see you guys are terrified of this guy and what he has discovered.
 
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why of course. It's that rifling ballasitics business. Do you really think that it proves the bullets were fired from the rifle in question to the exclusions of all other weapons in the world??? Is rifling forensics a science or a junk science?? Popular Mechanics says such alleged forensics are not science at all.

CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics
Forensic science was not developed by scientists. It was mostly created by cops, who were guided by little more than common sense. And as hundreds of criminal cases begin to unravel, many established forensic practices are coming under fire. PM takes an in-depth look at the shaky science that has put innocent people behind bars.

Ballistics has similar flaws. A subsection of tool-mark analysis, ballistics matching is predicated on the theory that when a bullet is fired, unique marks are left on the slug by the barrel of the gun. Consequently, two bullets fired from the same gun should bear the identical marks. Yet there are no accepted standards for what constitutes a match between bullets. Juries are left to trust expert witnesses. "`I know it when I see it' is often an acceptable response," says Adina Schwartz, a law professor and ballistics expert with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325774
 
Robert Prey said:
When you have several separate sources post the bio of their subject, one presumes it to be true. For you and your Amen Chorus of Pooh-Poohers to demand evidence for his credits and bio is silly. Surely, by now the fraud would have been exposed if it existed. I can see you guys are terrified of this guy and what he has discovered.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!

What exactly has he 'discovered' Robert? Oh wait I remember, the iris of 'badgeman' that is impossible to be resolved in the Moorman photo....

Great work picking crackpots Robert. You have a real knack for it.
 
Robert Prey said:
When you have several separate sources post the bio of their subject, one presumes it to be true.
Click to expand...

Translation: The more a rumor is repeated, the more true it becomes.

For you and your Amen Chorus of Pooh-Poohers to demand evidence for his credits and bio is silly.
Click to expand...

Translation: I have a double standard for substantiating expertise.

Surely, by now the fraud would have been exposed if it existed.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm going to ignore everything you've said that undermines my faith in Tom Wilson.

I can see you guys are terrified of this guy and what he has discovered.
Click to expand...

Translation: I don't know what any of you guys are talking about, so I'm going to bluster.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why of course. It's that rifling ballasitics business. Do you really think that it proves the bullets were fired from the rifle in question to the exclusions of all other weapons in the world??? Is rifling forensics a science or a junk science?? Popular Mechanics says such alleged forensics are not science at all.

CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics
Forensic science was not developed by scientists. It was mostly created by cops, who were guided by little more than common sense. And as hundreds of criminal cases begin to unravel, many established forensic practices are coming under fire. PM takes an in-depth look at the shaky science that has put innocent people behind bars.

Ballistics has similar flaws. A subsection of tool-mark analysis, ballistics matching is predicated on the theory that when a bullet is fired, unique marks are left on the slug by the barrel of the gun. Consequently, two bullets fired from the same gun should bear the identical marks. Yet there are no accepted standards for what constitutes a match between bullets. Juries are left to trust expert witnesses. "`I know it when I see it' is often an acceptable response," says Adina Schwartz, a law professor and ballistics expert with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325774
Click to expand...


So now ballistics is not science.......:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi
 
infocusinc said:
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...

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/shadows-1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Then, of course you would try to explain this shadow anomaly comparing 133A and 133B supposedly taken at the same time, as a different stance. But the stance is the same in both pics, or very close to it.


picture.php


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

In relation to the autopsy photos, his method was explained and clear.
 
JayUtah said:
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?



Case number, or it didn't happen.



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.
Click to expand...

When a book, or a video, or a book seller or other publisher makes a statment about the author's background it stands unless refuted. You have not been able to refute it, nor has anyone else. Your challenge is infantile.
 
Robert Prey said:
Why of course. It's that rifling ballasitics business. Do you really think that it proves the bullets were fired from the rifle in question to the exclusions of all other weapons in the world??? Is rifling forensics a science or a junk science?? Popular Mechanics says such alleged forensics are not science at all.

CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics
Forensic science was not developed by scientists. It was mostly created by cops, who were guided by little more than common sense. And as hundreds of criminal cases begin to unravel, many established forensic practices are coming under fire. PM takes an in-depth look at the shaky science that has put innocent people behind bars.

Ballistics has similar flaws. A subsection of tool-mark analysis, ballistics matching is predicated on the theory that when a bullet is fired, unique marks are left on the slug by the barrel of the gun. Consequently, two bullets fired from the same gun should bear the identical marks. Yet there are no accepted standards for what constitutes a match between bullets. Juries are left to trust expert witnesses. "`I know it when I see it' is often an acceptable response," says Adina Schwartz, a law professor and ballistics expert with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325774
Click to expand...


Popular Mechanics? Who was the centerfold in that issue? Do you have a reference to an article in a peer-reviewed publication?

No matter. I see nothing in your quote that calls into question the identification of the bullet being found in Parkland and the two fragments found in the limo as being fired from the rifle in question.

Yet there are no accepted standards for what constitutes a match between bullets.
Okay, and? Does that mean no matches are possible, or it requires an expert to make that call? Sounds like it requires an expert. And that's what we got.​

Juries are left to trust expert witnesses.
Okay, sound like the system we've got is the best one possible at the moment. Unless you want the jury to just flip a coin. Or not convict anyone.​

"I know it when I see it' is often an acceptable response,"
And every expert who's reviewed the ballistic evidence has made the same call. They all saw it the same way, that bullet and those fragments were fired from that gun.​


Quite simply, you are trying to call into question the evidence that links Oswald's rifle to the assassination.

Because you have nothing else.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Then, of course you would try to explain this shadow anomaly comparing 133A and 133B supposedly taken at the same time, as a different stance. But the stance is the same in both pics, or very close to it.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5819[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5818[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Well, clearly they weren't taken at the same time. As they are separate exposures with the same camera.

And there is no anomaly, as the HSCA vanishing point analysis proves. The shadows are right where they are supposed to be.

They may look wrong to you, but that's only because you don't know what you're looking at.

You are stuck at logical fallacy 101:

Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true.

Has any photo expert who's done a proper study of the first generation evidence found a problem with the shadows?


Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
In relation to the autopsy photos, his method was explained and clear.
Click to expand...


Explain it here then:

Use as much space as you need.

Quote him if you wish. Paraphrase him if you need to.

But if he explained it, you should be able to understand it and explain it as well.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
When a book, or a video, or a book seller or other publisher makes a statment about the author's background it stands unless refuted.
Click to expand...

Nonsense -- appeal to authority.

You have not been able to refute it, nor has anyone else. Your challenge is infantile.
Click to expand...

No one has been able to supply a case number for Tom Wilson's alleged expert testimony in federal court. Or even a case citation. Or even a district and year. All there is on this point is an unsubstantiated claim that's been passed around among conspiracy theorists.

I discussed his U.S. Steel claim at length. You ignored it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom