JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

I'm simply identifying the hypothesis.



Please don't rely on accusing your critics of closed-mindedness, especially when so many of our questions go unanswered by you.

And please understand my quote. All you keep showing us is evidence away from Oswald: merely items you say are inconsistent with Oswald's purported actions. You don't show us any evidence for another testable hypothesis: items consistent with some other party's guilt. You will never have credibility without a plausible, well-defined affirmative claim. And you will never sustain any affirmative claim by simply eroding the lone gunman theory.



That's the problem: you haven't reached any conclusion. Everything is "may be" or "could possibly be." But you don't seem to be undertaking any exercise to actually test the information you develop. This is what differentiates JFK conspiracy theories from a real investigation. You seem to be prolonging the debate, not testing the claims.

The information has been tested 9 ways to Sunday or perhaps more than 40 by the on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head or in the alternative shots from the grassy knoll.

 

[Robert Prey]

Approximately how many witnesses thought they heard shots from the depository?

Lots. But the exact number depends on who's counting.

 

[abaddon]

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?

Due to the absence of evidence of fakery. Got any?

 

[Tomtomkent]

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?

By photoartefacts in the photo that would be indicitive of tampering.

How do you know your cherry picked quotes are not misremembered if only relying on human memory?

Unlike human memories that are subjective, objective analysis is possible on the material evidence including photographic evidence. So far you have alleged, but yet to prove the z film and others were painted or altered, that the backyard photos were composites, or autopsy photos were "tampered with" and "smeered with morticians wax". No such editing is is perfect. All forms leave detectable traces. None of which you have identified to us.

Until you do so I for one have no reason to assume such tamperings took place, andrecognise that the human memory is prone to error and misinterpretation. Your witnessess are not validated by objective material evidence, ergo they are unvalidated.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Lots. But the exact number depends on who's counting.

If the number depends on the counter it is not exact.
Lots is not an approximation either.

Could you try and actually Jays point please. It is somewhat essential to your case. Especially when the follow question of how many placed the shot as coming from elsewhere is asked, and the results compared. Not wanting to leap too far ahead.

 

[Robert Prey]

By photoartefacts in the photo that would be indicitive of tampering.

How do you know your cherry picked quotes are not misremembered if only relying on human memory?

Unlike human memories that are subjective, objective analysis is possible on the material evidence including photographic evidence. So far you have alleged, but yet to prove the z film and others were painted or altered, that the backyard photos were composites, or autopsy photos were "tampered with" and "smeered with morticians wax". No such editing is is perfect. All forms leave detectable traces. None of which you have identified to us.

Until you do so I for one have no reason to assume such tamperings took place, andrecognise that the human memory is prone to error and misinterpretation. Your witnessess are not validated by objective material evidence, ergo they are unvalidated.

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

 

[Tomtomkent]

So around 40 of the nearly 300 witnessess apparently support the assertion that the shot came from the knoll. Even though many of those 40 have been shown not to support the claim, by their own testemony.

So less than 40 out of 300ish.


This is not going well fot the CT.

 

[Robert Prey]

"The photos are fake."

-- Photographer John Stringer

-- Photographer Floyde Reibe

-- Developer Sandra Spencer

-- FBI Agent Francis O'Neill

So why does this man say he can't see the evidence???

 

[Tomtomkent]

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

This is not a criminal trial. I see no judge. No grand jury. No court room.

How we know the autopsy photos are genuine was discussed at length already.
Either you have physical evidence to support your claims of fakery or not.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"The photos are fake."

-- Photographer John Stringer

-- Photographer Floyde Reibe

-- Developer Sandra Spencer

-- FBI Agent Francis O'Neill

So why does this man say he can't see the evidence???

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5920[/qimg]

Because a list of names is not supplying the base level of physical evidence you would require to convince me.

You realise, right of the bat, we have already shown you Sandra Spencer stated the photoswere not the ALTERED sanitised versions she developed. That does not support yourclaim, it infact shows the photos we have to be more accurate. Given that the only reason you would still include her on this list is to dishonestly represent her testemony, what credence do you assume that offers anybody else on that list?


Saying they dont remember taking the photos, or they developed a second set of photos is NOT supplying physical evidence the photos were faked. If the photos are faked why can't you show me the signs of fakery? Why do you have to rely on trying to force conclusions that your selected testemony wont support?


Because you can't.

Just admit you don't know how to show me what signs in the photographs might indicate fakery, or that you do know and can't find any. Stop trying to get me to accept a button as a dime.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If one were to try to enter the alleged autopsy photos into evidence in a criminal trail, such evidence would not be allowed unless a foundation were first laid as to the validity of the photos. How could that be possible when the creators of the originals deny that the ones in evidence are the ones they took. Thus, there is no way such photographic evidence would be allowed without such validation. So how do you know the photos are valid???

Have any of your inept attempts at switching the burden of proof ever worked?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So why does this man say he can't see the evidence???

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5920[/qimg]

Does this pee-stained doofus say he can?



LOL.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Prey:

Please give a definition for your term "blow out."

 

[JayUtah]

The information has been tested 9 ways to Sunday or perhaps more than 40 by the on the scene witnesses...

No, their testimony is the evidence that must be tested.. You have the cart before the horse.

 

[JayUtah]

And how would you know whether the photos are faked or not, if only relying on the faked photos?

This was your homework question from months ago, that you refused to answer. There is an historical convention regarding the authenticity of artifacts and documents the burden of proof for forgery. I will renew my request that you research what that convention is, and why scholars in all fields choose to respect it.

As to how photo forgery is detected, there are many methods. Compositions are detected by otherwise unexplained discontinuities in any of the observable properties of the final image: optical density, detail, grain, contrast, illumination. Discontinuity is also apparent at the boundaries of the composition. Alterations are detected by observing other types of discontinuity, and also by artifacts such as negative damage, brushstrokes, and non-halide pigmentation. There are other methods that apply to digital photography, by they are irrelevant for allegations involving the Kennedy photos.

These methods have been applied to the Kennedy photos, but no sign of composition or alteration was detected. The allegations of composition and forgery by others are supported only by evidence developed by those proponents according to non-valid methods.

 

[Robert Prey]

This was your homework question from months ago, that you refused to answer. There is an historical convention regarding the authenticity of artifacts and documents the burden of proof for forgery. I will renew my request that you research what that convention is, and why scholars in all fields choose to respect it.

As to how photo forgery is detected, there are many methods. Compositions are detected by otherwise unexplained discontinuities in any of the observable properties of the final image: optical density, detail, grain, contrast, illumination. Discontinuity is also apparent at the boundaries of the composition. Alterations are detected by observing other types of discontinuity, and also by artifacts such as negative damage, brushstrokes, and non-halide pigmentation. There are other methods that apply to digital photography, by they are irrelevant for allegations involving the Kennedy photos.

These methods have been applied to the Kennedy photos, but no sign of composition or alteration was detected. The allegations of composition and forgery by others are supported only by evidence developed by those proponents according to non-valid methods.

1. You are assuming that the bootleg photos in the public domain are the ones that were allegedly "examined".

and

2. You are also forgetting that while a photo may or may not be valid, it is the corpse itself that may be the object of fakery.

 

[JayUtah]

Lots. But the exact number depends on who's counting.

First, please don't rail-split my post. I'm asking you to consider the distribution of witnesses, so pulling out one of my three questions and answering only it fails to address my point.

Witnesses to brief, happenstance events tend to give testimony that's all over the map (no pun intended). So one of the first things we do is try to develop an understanding of the distribution of testimony. That's what I'm asking you to do here. Among the hundreds of witnesses in Dealey Plaza, who saw or heard what, where? Those who claim they heard or saw something at the grassy knoll -- do they represent a statistically significant minority? Did other people hear or see something from other non-TSBD locations?

In terms of investigation, there is always more happening than what you're interested in. That is, while the plane is crashing or the lady is being mugged, there are other unrelated events occurring that may catch witnesses' eyes. Similarly the arson investigator has to know that there were other things going on in the house besides the mechanism of ignition and combustion; he can't assume everything he runs across in the cinders is related to the alleged crime. The investigator must determine which of all witnesses reports and evidence are related to the event he's investigating and which are not.

Second, why would it depend on who's counting? Is the number uncertain, or does some of the witness testimony require interpretation?

 

[JayUtah]

You are assuming that the bootleg photos in the public domain are the ones that were allegedly "examined".

Examined by whom?

You are also forgetting that while a photo may or may not be valid, it is the corpse itself that may be the object of fakery.

That is possible, but you didn't ask that question. You asked how one could determine whether a photo is fake.

 

[Robert Prey]

Because a list of names is not supplying the base level of physical evidence you would require to convince me.

You realise, right of the bat, we have already shown you Sandra Spencer stated the photoswere not the ALTERED sanitised versions she developed. That does not support yourclaim, it infact shows the photos we have to be more accurate. Given that the only reason you would still include her on this list is to dishonestly represent her testemony, what credence do you assume that offers anybody else on that list?


Saying they dont remember taking the photos, or they developed a second set of photos is NOT supplying physical evidence the photos were faked. If the photos are faked why can't you show me the signs of fakery? Why do you have to rely on trying to force conclusions that your selected testemony wont support?


Because you can't.

Just admit you don't know how to show me what signs in the photographs might indicate fakery, or that you do know and can't find any. Stop trying to get me to accept a button as a dime.

Hey, let's get one thing straight. I have no desire nor any hope of convincing you of anything. My only purpose is to point out the facts, and how you and other Lone Nutters deny them.

And In a court of Law, or for that matter in the Court of Public Opinion, before you can offer any opinions at all as to a photo, you must bear the burden of proof that the photo is valid. You have not done that. JayUtah has not done that. No one has anyone done that, but those in involved in the process declare all of the photos in evidence as Fraud. End of story.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And In a court of Law, or for that matter in the Court of Public Opinion, before you can offer any opinions at all as to a photo, you must bear the burden of proof that the photo is valid. You have not done that. JayUtah has not done that. No one has anyone done that, but those in involved in the process declare all of the photos in evidence as Fraud. End of story.

Have any of your inept and clumsy attempts to shift the burden of proof ever worked?