JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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

None of those points are consistent with the Kennedy assassination.

l. LHO was not Kennedy's 'neighbor, nor do we know that the rifle belonged to LHO.

2. There were no fresh prints found on the rifle, but only faded prints, weeks old, that could not be readable nor ID'd

3. LHO did not "admit" anything. That he was in the building was an irrefutable fact that required no "admission".

4. LHO most certainly did have an alibi, namely that he was eating lunch in the lunch room.

5. There was no paper work showing that LHO ordered the rifle, but only a fellow named Hidell, and no proof that LHO ever took delivery of the rifle.

6. Photographs of LHO allegedly holding a rifle were not found after 2 separate searches, but only after a third search after the incriminating fake photos were planted in the garage and "discovered" by an unknown person.

7. A traceable bullet found is an ambiguous term which does not preclude that the bullets came from another source.

8. Ditto, NO. 7.

9. The autopsists conclusions were not consistent with the medical evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

The extrodinary claim is the Thomas Wilson was liar who never worked for US Steel and never was a witness in a Federal case involving gunshot wounds. That is such an extraordinary claim that it is you and your Amen Chorus of pooh-poohers who have the burden of proof and must provide the evidence. You haven't and you can't.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

There us enough of a difference in the angle of the shadow to betray an anomaly.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

All of the photo experts, eh? But you automatically dismiss anyone who believes the photos are fake to be photo 'experts". That would include Thomas Wilson, eh???

 

[Robert Prey]

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.



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

That Wilson is a complete fraud is an extraordinary claim upon which you, and your Amen chorus of pooh-poohers have the burden to prove which you have not done. Moreover, the systems that Wilson uses Wilson himself attributed to NASA.

 

[Robert Prey]

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 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.



"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.

Asking for a case number is a silly, sophomoric challenge. If such a case number were given, just how would that change your views of Wilson's work???? Of course it would not. Therefore, your challenge is just so much hot air.

 

[Robert Prey]

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...

And the first rule of science is replication. I've done it; you haven't.

 

[Tomtomkent]

All of the photo experts, eh? But you automatically dismiss anyone who believes the photos are fake to be photo 'experts". That would include Thomas Wilson, eh???

They are not discredited as experts because of this belief.
They are discredited by being unable to substantiate their claimed expertise. Regardless of his views on any given photo Wilson has not been attached to any court case, or offer his process for peer review and validation. The industrial work he claims to highlight his expertise are credited to engineers.

You will notice none of the "experts" in photo analysis work in the field. They all have tangentile expertise.

You will notice you have not cited an expert in photogeometry who shares your conclusions. Perhaps you could use a little "common sense" you value so highly to deduce why there are no professional photo analysts who advocate your chosen assertions?

 

[Mudcat]

Asking for a case number is a silly, sophomoric challenge. If such a case number were given, just how would that change your views of Wilson's work???? Of course it would not.

You are wrong. If such a thing existed and you provided it and it checked out we would have no choice but to recognize it. But it doesn't exist. Or you'd have provided it. Thus forcing us to recognize it.

 

[Robert Prey]

You've yet to demonstrate such an expert exists.

By your definition, no such expert exists for if he did and believed the photos were fake, you would dismiss him as a CT and therefore a non-expert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And the first rule of science is replication. I've done it; you haven't.

Which lie are you trying to feed us here:

That your pee-stained stick wielder is accurately replicating the pose adopted by LHO with his rifle analogue held the right way (except how it is different)?

That the "impossible" shadow has not been replicated in this thread?

That if your doofus-with-stick photo was a scientific replication, then identifying variables with a direct outcome on the result were not part of the replication?

Please explain how you determined the relative angle and direction of the sun to replicate the shadow effect if your experiment was to the scientific methodology.

 

[Mudcat]

By your definition, no such expert exists for if he did and believed the photos were fake, you would dismiss him as a CT and therefore a non-expert.

My (aviation maintenance) teacher is an expert pilot. He buys into JFK assassination theories. His expertise still exists, is displayable and undeniable, because a person's personal belief's have zero weight on their expertise.

 

[Tomtomkent]

By your definition, no such expert exists for if he did and believed the photos were fake, you would dismiss him as a CT and therefore a non-expert.

That is not what has been claimed. Are you dishonest or failing to understand?

 

[Southwind17]

There us enough of a difference in the angle of the shadow to betray an anomaly.

Rude Robert, can you not see that any difference in the angle of the shadow is patently accounted for by a corresponding difference in the stance? It's just so obvious.

 

[Southwind17]

None of those points are consistent with the Kennedy assassination.

l. LHO was not Kennedy's 'neighbor, nor do we know that the rifle belonged to LHO.

2. There were no fresh prints found on the rifle, but only faded prints, weeks old, that could not be readable nor ID'd

3. LHO did not "admit" anything. That he was in the building was an irrefutable fact that required no "admission".

4. LHO most certainly did have an alibi, namely that he was eating lunch in the lunch room.

5. There was no paper work showing that LHO ordered the rifle, but only a fellow named Hidell, and no proof that LHO ever took delivery of the rifle.

6. Photographs of LHO allegedly holding a rifle were not found after 2 separate searches, but only after a third search after the incriminating fake photos were planted in the garage and "discovered" by an unknown person.

7. A traceable bullet found is an ambiguous term which does not preclude that the bullets came from another source.

8. Ditto, NO. 7.

9. The autopsists conclusions were not consistent with the medical evidence.

The extrodinary claim is the Thomas Wilson was liar who never worked for US Steel and never was a witness in a Federal case involving gunshot wounds. That is such an extraordinary claim that it is you and your Amen Chorus of pooh-poohers who have the burden of proof and must provide the evidence. You haven't and you can't.

All of the photo experts, eh? But you automatically dismiss anyone who believes the photos are fake to be photo 'experts". That would include Thomas Wilson, eh???

That Wilson is a complete fraud is an extraordinary claim upon which you, and your Amen chorus of pooh-poohers have the burden to prove which you have not done. Moreover, the systems that Wilson uses Wilson himself attributed to NASA.

Asking for a case number is a silly, sophomoric challenge. If such a case number were given, just how would that change your views of Wilson's work???? Of course it would not. Therefore, your challenge is just so much hot air.

And the first rule of science is replication. I've done it; you haven't.

By your definition, no such expert exists for if he did and believed the photos were fake, you would dismiss him as a CT and therefore a non-expert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hmmm. And I thought the Hiddel=Oswald thing was meant to prove Oswald was a spy. Funny howthefakeid, paper trail and handwriting are meant to convince us LHO and Hiddel were one and the same when it suits the CT camp, but not when it becomes apparent the fake ID was used to obtain the murder weapon.

Unfortunately that the paperwork makes it clear LHO was simply buying a weapon under an assumedname (not as unusual crime as it sounds and in no way indicative of being a cia spy) iswell proven. But of course, thats what the nasty super secret LBJ plumbers (who were so dedicatedto LBJ theycontinued spying for Nixen?) Want us to think!

 

[jargon buster]

Robert wrote

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.

Oh so its the RIGHT front now is it, the subtle change from the shot from the front to enable you to continue your grassy knoll shooter theory.

Well done Robert, I dont think anyone noticed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If the bullets were fired from the alleged rifle? The ONLY rifle that could fire the bullets because of the rifling pattern that connects them? The one LHO bought with his assumed ID? The one that had LHOs prints on it? In the TSBD?


By Jove! Didnt Bobbykins say there were no witnesses to LHO in the TSBD? Clearly he was on the grassy knoll shooting JFK! All those witnesses actually saw the heroic Mac Wallace and his super secret sniper squads trying to shoot LHO and save the president.

Now, despite having no evidence for this, I will assume that the burden of proof is on Robert to prove LHO was not on the grassy knoll shooting JFK. As evidence I will site 40 witnesses who didnt see it, but did claim to see something I consider to fit with the story.

 

[Rich_C]

The extrodinary claim is the Thomas Wilson was liar who never worked for US Steel

No one claimed Thomas Wilson never worked for US Steel. The claim is he didn't work for US Steel at the time of his "experiment" and didn't have access to the equipment he needed to have used. Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

[Southwind17]

No one claimed Thomas Wilson never worked for US Steel. The claim is he didn't work for US Steel at the time of his "experiment" and didn't have access to the equipment he needed to have used. Your reading comprehension needs work.

Oh Rude Robert can read alright, believe me (his spelling's pretty wayward at times, and some elementary Latin tutelage wouldn't go wasted (well, it probably would, actually!)). He just chooses to be deliberately obtuse, at best, and at worst: