JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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

Nonsense. Even if the bullets were fired from the alleged rifle, that does not prove that Oswald did the shooting, nor does it negate the fact that the fatal shot to the President's head came not from the back, but from the right front. And that Pop Mech. article in summation alleges that rifling forensics is just so much 20th century witchcraft.

 

[infocusinc]

Proves absolutely nothing. The stance (leaning on right foot) is the same. The position is slightly different. Brilliant deduction. But the shadows -- they are still an anomaly if taken at the same time of day.

Are you really serious Robert? Do you understand that position of the body IN RELATION TO THE SUN changes the shadow angle?

You just bumped Tom Wilson out of the running for crackpot of the year...

Your lack of intelligence or at least intellectual honesty is simply stunning.

 

[infocusinc]

And in ten years time, no one has been able to refute anything regarding his bio or credits, including you. Asking for a case number is your way of avoiding his evidence, and I can see why Tom Wilson scares the holy b'jesus out of Lone Nutter's dogma.

We don't need his bio or credits to see that ole Tom is a crackpot of the highest order. We have his work.

Badgeman's eyeballs tell the entire story...

And I can see why a carefully dissection of his crazy claims scare you silly...

 

[infocusinc]

Has any photo expert who has a problem with the shadows been allowed to view first generation photos???????

So tell us Robert, how will first generation prints change the shadow angle?

And actually Jack White and Groden viewed first generation material....

 

[Robert Prey]

So you are admitting you have no evidence to substantiate the claims? No case number to substantiate the claiim that Wilson was ever an expert witness? No list from the Dept of Justice showing him listed as an expert? Nothing except the original claims themselves?

So you are attempting to shift the burden of proof, and are now asking us to refute the claims?

All you have are the claims themselves, which might be nothing more than a self-prepared (by Tom Wilson) publicity blurb for inclusion in the book or other material.

Hank

In over ten years, no one has refuted his credits or his bio. The challenge is insipid and sophomoric.

 

[infocusinc]

In over ten years, no one has refuted his credits or his bio. The challenge is insipid and sophomoric.

And who has actually confirmed them in these 10 years? Your statement is infantile.

 

[Robert Prey]

Straw man. The "anomaly" is caused by your improper (but commonly attempted by amateurs) reckoning of shadow coherence.

In other words, common sense -- something you and your Amen chorus self-proclaimed "experts" have seen fit to ignore.

 

[Robert Prey]

Great, cite the timestamp of this "explanation".

It's in episode six. Do your own homework.

 

[Robert Prey]

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



Translation: I have a double standard for substantiating expertise.

[.

Still waiting for your to substantiate your own alleged "expertise."

 

[infocusinc]

It's in episode six. Do your own homework.

Uh Robert, there is nothing in episode six that explains his process that would allow for verification. If you think there is, just show us.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Has any photo expert who has a problem with the shadows been allowed to view first generation photos???????

One question mark at a time or no dialogue.

Robert, can you detect anything odd about the shadow in this picture????????


LOL.

 

[thedopefishlives]

In other words, common sense -- something you and your Amen chorus self-proclaimed "experts" have seen fit to ignore.

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that common sense can be, and often is, wrong?

 

[infocusinc]

In other words, common sense -- something you and your Amen chorus self-proclaimed "experts" have seen fit to ignore.

Sorry but your "common sense" fails. You have proven you don't understand how shadows work.

You have shown us you are simply making "common mistakes".

Great job. Might I remind you of the first rule of holes...

 

[infocusinc]

Proves absolutely nothing. The stance (leaning on right foot) is the same. The position is slightly different. Brilliant deduction. But the shadows -- they are still an anomaly if taken at the same time of day.

Using Roberts 'common sense', these shadows are an anomaly! LOL! Great work shooting yourself in the foot Robert!

 

[infocusinc]

dupe deleted

 

[JayUtah]

And in ten years time, no one has been able to refute anything regarding his bio or credits, including you.

You mean except for the part where I did. Why haven't you said a single word about what I was able to discover from U.S. Steel and Honeywell? I guarantee you that the other posters here are reading it, and they're judging you by your assiduous avoidance of it.

And you still can't deal with Wilson's loss of credibility among other JFK researchers who were once enthusiastic about him. He can't even maintain the trust of people who are predisposed to believe him. Yeah, I call that refuted.

Asking for a case number is your way of avoiding his evidence...

Asking for a case number you cannot or will not provide is my way of revealing that you don't know whether your claims about Tom Wilson are true or not. Now you're scrambling to try to shift the burden of proof.

and I can see why Tom Wilson scares the holy b'jesus out of Lone Nutter's dogma.

"Dogma?" Why do you insist on phrasing your rebuttals in religious terms? I don't. I'm just looking at the science. You want to talk about ideologies; I want to talk about facts. You're the one who goes into a panic of denial every time one of your purported "experts" is challenged.

 

[JayUtah]

Still waiting for your to substantiate your own alleged "expertise."

Asked and answered.

Besides according to you, a claim of expertise should be implicitly believed, and stands until refuted. When you established that as the standard for Wilson's expert claims, I figured it applied to me too.

 

[JayUtah]

In over ten years, no one has refuted his credits or his bio.

If Wilson is claiming to be an expert, and you are extending the claim by proxy, the burden of proof is yours.

Anyone can claim to have been an expert witness in a federal trial. The difference is that people who really have been witnesses in a trial can show some documentation. Copious documents are kept in connection with any trial. I even gave you an example of how expert witnesses are certified to the court.

In ten years, not one single person has been able to come up with the case number, jurisdiction, citation, names of parties to the case, year, or anything that would substantiate Wilson's claim. We can't even get a recollection of which circuit it was in. Everyone in Conspiracy Land just "knows" that Wilson was some witness in a trial, but no one actually knows how they know.

And I checked Wilson's claim to have developed his magical computer system while at U.S. Steel. But contemporary reports at U.S. Steel attribute their computerized hot-slab inspection system to other people working at Honeywell, on behalf of U.S. Steel -- named engineers who have stature and reputation. Tom Wilson is not even mentioned. I have no reason to doubt that he worked at U.S. Steel. But U.S. Steel does not confirm his alleged involvement in the hot-slab video/computer inspection system.

The challenge is insipid and sophomoric.

You wish. It's fairly obvious here who has the b'jesus scared out of him when dealing with Wilson's alleged expertise.

 

[JayUtah]

In other words, common sense -- something you and your Amen chorus self-proclaimed "experts" have seen fit to ignore.

We employ expertise precisely where experience has shown uninformed intuition (i.e., common sense) repeatedly to fail. Infocusinc has shown where your common sense has failed.

 

[HSienzant]

Either two identical tiles or one moveable one. They position the broom far enough away from original position that it casts a different shadow.

No, wait. Info also said camera didn't move. Hmm, it's tougher than it first looks.

Tilting the broom directly away from the camera changes the shadow angle, but the tilt away from the camera is pretty much undetectable to the naked eye. You need to take into account the perspective.

But I think the question ["how did you do that?"] concerned the toggling backyard images - if you look at it long enough, certain aspects look 3D -- like the stairs.