JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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

I think that's your way of saying you have no evidence to back up your claims.

All the photographic experts who've examined the first generation photos and extant negative concluded there is no evidence of alteration.

All of them.

And the original materials are available for inspection at the National Archives.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Look at the head in the two images posted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8190804&postcount=5764

The head moves from left to right by about a head width (with a slight overlap) as the photos toggle back and forth.

Now look at the shadows of the head in the same two images.

The shadows move from left to right by about a head width as the photos toggle back and forth.

The shadows of the head look legit. I think you simply drew your red lines incorrectly.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Nobody needs to refute anything.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thus far, you've presented extraordinary claims and have asked us to refut them.

Not the way it works - the burden of proof for these claims rests with you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

lol. If I am ever accused of murder, I want 12 Robert Prey's on my jury.

Witchcraft? No, they said nothing of the sort. You won't be able to quote anything of that nature in the article you cited.

Forget this is the Kennedy assassination. Let's say your neighbor is accused of shooting a relative of yours from a tall building with a rifle.

1. Your neighbor's rifle is recovered in the building where numerous saw a man who they described in similar terms to your neighbor. Others saw the rifle only.
2. Your neighbor's fresh prints are found on the rifle.
3. Your neighbor admits in a press interview he was in the building at the time of the shooting.
4. Your neighbor has no alibi for the time of the shooting.
5. Paperwork shows your neighbor ordered the rifle and had it shipped to his PO Box.
6. Photographs of your neighbor holding the rifle are discovered among his possessions the next day.
7. Two fragments ballistically traceable to the rifle are recovered from the car in which he was riding.
8. Another nearly whole bullet is recovered from the hospital, likewise traceable to the rifle recovered from the scene of the shooting.
9. The autopsists conclude the shots were fired from behind and above the victim, consistent with the spot with a rifle was seen, and file a report to that effect.​

Again, forget this is the Kennedy assassination for the moment. What do you conclude and why?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

lol - the challenge consists of nothing more than asking you to back up your claims.

His extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thus far, you've cited what appears to be nothing more than a publicity blurb.

Not exactly evidence of anything.

You need to put this evidence on the table that he can do what he says he can do.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

In other words, Robert can't find it either.

"Do your own homework" is conspiracy-addict-speak for "Please don't ask me to back up my claims with evidence. I don't have any. And I could not back up my claims with evidence if my life depended on it."

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Has your inept and moronic attempt at switching the burden of proof ever worked?

 

[HSienzant]

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...

So you - by your own words - are merely presuming the claims are true.

I see. You are presuming what you have to prove.

That would explain why you haven't been able to provide any proof of them, and why you continually are shifting the burden of proof, and asking us to refut them.

You saw nothing wrong with Tom Wilson's claim that he could prescribe the correct prescription for the gunman on the grassy knoll from the image in the Moorman photo, and it never even occurred to you that Wilson might be blowing smoke out his anal cavity, and it never occurred to you that Wilson needed to provide proof of the claims he made.

I am starting to understand why you believe in a conspiracy so avidly.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

In relation to the autopsy photos, his method was explained and clear.

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

Robert, do explain Wilson's method here.

You said it was clear. That implies you understood it.

Surely you can explain it.

Can't you?

Thanks much,
Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Has your inept and moronic attempt at switching the burden of proof ever worked?

Indeed, it should read "In ten years no one has been able to confirm anything in his credits or bio."

Conspiracy theorists always inflate their credentials because the payoff for conspiracism for them is the illusion of competence or celebrity. They create a fantasy world in which they are big heroes, and they try to extend that fantasy world into the real world. They always fail, but it's fun to watch them try.

 

[JayUtah]

You said it was clear. That implies you understood it.

+1

Yes, I'd like Robert to explain the validity of Wilson's method to us in his own words, to prove that he (Robert) has understood it sufficiently. After all, he proved he hadn't read the book on Wilson's work and thus made the glaring error of telling us Wilson hadn't examined the backyard photos when he really had. Robert has proven himself not to be an accurate source for what Tom Wilson claims. He appears only to know what is claimed in The Men Who Killed Kennedy and has done little if anything himself to determine how true those claims are. Therefore I think it's appropriate that he demonstrate a working understanding of the validity of Wilson's method before trying to tell us that Wilson's evidence is what has us allegedly quaking in our boots.

 

[HSienzant]

Indeed, it should read "In ten years no one has been able to confirm anything in his credits or bio."

Conspiracy theorists always inflate their credentials because the payoff for conspiracism for them is the illusion of competence or celebrity. They create a fantasy world in which they are big heroes, and they try to extend that fantasy world into the real world. They always fail, but it's fun to watch them try.

And if I may don my amateur psychiatrist hat for a moment, it enables a nobody like Tom Wilson who would be forgotten the moment he died by all but his closest relatives to have not just their fifteen minutes of fame, but their opportunity to go down in history - even if only as a footnote. Just like Oswald saw his opportunity to go down in history and seized it, so did Wilson.

If Wilson never came forward with his nonsense, would anyone be talking about him today? No.

Hank

 

[Garrison]

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

You've yet to demonstrate such an expert exists.

 

[CORed]

lol. If I am ever accused of murder, I want 12 Robert Prey's on my jury.

Witchcraft? No, they said nothing of the sort. You won't be able to quote anything of that nature in the article you cited.

Forget this is the Kennedy assassination. Let's say your neighbor is accused of shooting a relative of yours from a tall building with a rifle.

1. Your neighbor's rifle is recovered in the building where numerous saw a man who they described in similar terms to your neighbor. Others saw the rifle only.
2. Your neighbor's fresh prints are found on the rifle.
3. Your neighbor admits in a press interview he was in the building at the time of the shooting.
4. Your neighbor has no alibi for the time of the shooting.
5. Paperwork shows your neighbor ordered the rifle and had it shipped to his PO Box.
6. Photographs of your neighbor holding the rifle are discovered among his possessions the next day.
7. Two fragments ballistically traceable to the rifle are recovered from the car in which he was riding.
8. Another nearly whole bullet is recovered from the hospital, likewise traceable to the rifle recovered from the scene of the shooting.
9. The autopsists conclude the shots were fired from behind and above the victim, consistent with the spot with a rifle was seen, and file a report to that effect.​

Again, forget this is the Kennedy assassination for the moment. What do you conclude and why?

Hank

I think most rational people would conclude the neighbor is guilty. Robert would probably conclude that they framed him.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Spot on, Hank - as usual!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

There is no "expert" who has a "problem with the shadows." Can you figure out why that is?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Bolding mine.

You are 100% incorrect.

But continue on. Arrogance coupled with ignorance produces the most marvelously entertaining offspring.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Still waiting for your [JayUtah] to substantiate your own alleged "expertise."

You make a claim, you must prove it.

Will this ever get through to you?

 

[Mudcat]

Today you learned a good lesson too.

That sometimes it really is that simple,

 

[Robert Prey]

lol - the challenge consists of nothing more than asking you to back up your claims.

His extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thus far, you've cited what appears to be nothing more than a publicity blurb.

Not exactly evidence of anything.

You need to put this evidence on the table that he can do what he says he can do.

Hank

Here's one for you. What would you like to be "proved"? That he worked for US Steel for 30 years as a computer image specialist? That he has been accepted as an expert witness in Federal trials involving gunshot wounds? What? And just explain how such proof would alter your thinking regarding the one point I have alluded to, namely, the morticians wax and paint on the fake autopsy photos. Now if such "proof" would not alter your views, then what is the point?