JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[infocusinc]

You've just proved my point. In your twisted view, only crackpots believe in conspiracy.

Your logic is so infantile. He's not a crackpot because he believes in conspiracy, hes a crackpot because of his "work". He could "believe" Oswald did it and he would STILL be a crackpot.

Poor Robert, reality is simply too much for you to handle.

 

[infocusinc]

Baloney.

Baloney to your baloney, too bad that simple photographic principle is beyond your ken ( and your barbie too!)

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

To you and your Amen Chorus of Tom Wilson pooh-poohers:

When have you ever seen a introductory bio that mention expert witness experience ever bother to list case numbers???? The challenge is ridiculous and infantile. If you doubt the man's credentials, then take it up with the authors and producers who made the claim -- Nigle Turner, Amazon.com and Lancer. The assumption is that the bio is true. No one has ever questioned this in ten years time. If you or your Amen Chorus question it. then the burden is on you to prove it.

 

[jargon buster]

The assumption is that the bio is true. No one has ever questioned this in ten years time. If you or your Amen Chorus question it. then the burden is on you to prove it.

Someone makes claims in a book and the burden of proof lies with people who say its nonsense????
Really Robert?

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

More Baloney. Those photo analysts include Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, Hershel Womack and others.

 

[infocusinc]

To you and your Amen Chorus of Tom Wilson pooh-poohers:

When have you ever seen a introductory bio that mention expert witness experience ever bother to list case numbers???? The challenge is ridiculous and infantile. If you doubt the man's credentials, then take it up with the authors and producers who made the claim -- Nigle Turner, Amazon.com and Lancer. The assumption is that the bio is true. No one has ever questioned this in ten years time. If you or your Amen Chorus question it. then the burden is on you to prove it.

The ASSUMPTION...boy are you scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to keep your silly fantasy alive.

 

[Robert Prey]

Your logic is so infantile. He's not a crackpot because he believes in conspiracy, hes a crackpot because of his "work". He could "believe" Oswald did it and he would STILL be a crackpot.

Poor Robert, reality is simply too much for you to handle.

So despite the fact that the creators and developers of the original autopsy photos have asserted that the Reality is that the ones in evidence in the public domain are fake, you believe they are authentic??? How does that follow? How do you know that or is reality too much for you to handle???

 

[dudalb]

Baloney to your baloney, too bad that simple photographic principle is beyond your ken ( and your barbie too!)

[qimg]http://www.craiglamson.com/shadow2.gif[/qimg]

I think that Robert Prey has a degree in Baloney (apologies to Futurerama).

 

[Robert Prey]

The ASSUMPTION...boy are you scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to keep your silly fantasy alive.

Exactly what you do in an attempt to keep your belief in the Lone Nutter fable alive.

 

[infocusinc]

More Baloney. Those photo analysts include Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, Hershel Womack and others.

And down the rabbit hole Robert goes again.

Lets quote a bit of his newest "expert" and see how that plays out....

April 26, 2001

Mike,

If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.

Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's NO WAY you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.

With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa.

Hershel Womack

April 27, 2001

Mike,

I very much enjoyed reading your material and agree with the things you have written [i.e., my article "A Brief Analysis of the Backyard Rifle Photos"]. I have tried in my research to concentrate on items that a person with even a very limited knowledge of photography could understand.

Get 8x10s of the two Warren Report photos and the Roscoe White photo if possible. If not get the largest and best photo from a publication or book and enlarge them so they are identical in size using a couple of reference points. This is because some of the photos have been enlarged and cropped differently.

Then measure from his nose to a common point on each side, do the same to other areas such as the same point on the pistol etc. Measure from identical points at his feet to different points at his heads. Measure the stairpost.

Hershel Womack

 

[infocusinc]

Exactly what you do in an attempt to keep your belief in the Lone Nutter fable alive.

I don't "believe" in any fable LN, CT or other wise. I don't give a dang about who killed JFK.


So with that in mind, what exactly have I "assumed"?

Your answer is sure to be entertaining, and comical.

Thanks in advance.

 

[infocusinc]

So despite the fact that the creators and developers of the original autopsy photos have asserted that the Reality is that the ones in evidence in the public domain are fake, you believe they are authentic??? How does that follow? How do you know that or is reality too much for you to handle???

Did they, Really? Come on now Robert, you know that is not true.

Floyd Reibe tells us in his ARRB depo that the images are correct and Stringer signs an affidavit in 1966 after looking at the photos and states he took them.

You wanna try again or are you going now to wiilly wonka Lifton, Livingstone or god forbid Horne?

 

[jargon buster]

I don't give a dang about who killed JFK.

me neither, I couldnt care less if the government did do it with a team of shooters.
I want Robert to show me if thats the case though.
If it wasnt Oswald then whoever did it got away with it so it doesnt matter now.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So despite the fact that the creators and developers of the original autopsy photos have asserted that the Reality is that the ones in evidence in the public domain are fake, you believe they are authentic??? How does that follow? How do you know that or is reality too much for you to handle???

One question mark at a time or no dialogue. LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

me neither, I couldnt care less if the government did do it with a team of shooters.
I want Robert to show me if thats the case though.
If it wasnt Oswald then whoever did it got away with it so it doesnt matter now.

If they have the inept Robert Preys of the world trying to uncover them, they will continue to get away with it.

 

[Border Reiver]

More Baloney. Those photo analysts include Major John Pickard, a former commander of the photographic department of the Canadian Defense Department, Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England, Hershel Womack and others.

Robert, while Maj Pickard was the CO his military occupation and all his training was as an airframe technician (when he was an NCO) and as an aero frame engineer. He had no training in photo analysis.

At the time he commanded the unit the CF Photo Unit did not carry out photo analysis, his role was to act dispatch CF photographers when and were they where requested, and to store negatives and official photos.

During the 70s photo analysis was carried out in the CF by Int Ops, Int O and the map makers (for terrain) - not the people who fix aircraft.

 

[HSienzant]

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?

Hi Robert,

At this point I will settle for you explaining how his methodology works. You said it was clear, so you should be able to do that.

Once we have that understanding, we can perform the experiments ourselves and if we get the same results, then we know it works.

But it starts with being able to replicate the experiment.

Or so you've said.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Hi Robert,

I asked one question - and you answered a different one entirely. I told you forget about the Kennedy assassination for the moment and answer the hypothetical one I asked. You couldn't do that. Why is that? We can move on to what actually occurred in the assassination, but I am asking a question unrelated to the Kennedy assassination for the moment.

Here it is again:

... 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

 

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

I asked one question - and you answered a different one entirely. I told you forget about the Kennedy assassination for the moment and answer the hypothetical one I asked. You couldn't do that. Why is that? We can move on to what actually occurred in the assassination, but I am asking a question unrelated to the Kennedy assassination for the moment.

Here it is again:

It this little exercise has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination then it is off point.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

When and where did U.S.Steel affirm him as an photographic expert, Robert?
Can you actually quote something from U.S.Steel where they stated that, using his name and the word 'expert' (or an equivalent word) in the same sentence?

Thanks,

Hank