JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends - Page 115

JayUtah · 22nd March 2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Before anyone can logically allege that there is no photo fakery...

Straw man. The question is whether your specific claims of fakery hold water. I am not commenting about any other claims of fakery, except as you have deferred to Jack White. I have covered White's claims separately.

Quote:

...it must first be established that the one making the allegation presumes the photo is genuine

The allegation that I am making is that your claims of fakery are not supported by the data and relevant sciences. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever claims I may or may not make about the photograph. We are discussing your claims already made. Kindly do not attempt to deflect that scrutiny by demanding that others propose and defend a claim instead of you.

Quote:

something our "expert" friend refuses to do.

I refuse to be baited by a clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made allegations of forgery. You have presented reasons why you think forgery occurred. I have examined those reasons from a position of expertise and find them unconvincing, for reasons I have laid out in depth. Are you wiling to defend them further? Clearly not. But you dishonestly decline to concede.

RoboTimbo · 22nd March 2012, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Oh,no. Not in terms of assassination conspiracy. It only serves to prove the other conspiracy -- the conspiracy to cover up the truth, by convicting the dead Patsy in the Court of Public opinion by a highly prejudicial photo.

Then you're admitting that you have no evidence and it is only your non-expert opinion. See? That wasn't so difficult to put on your big boy pants and admit, was it? Oops! Two questions! LOL.

Tomtomkent · 22nd March 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Oh,no. Not in terms of assassination conspiracy. It only serves to prove the other conspiracy -- the conspiracy to cover up the truth, by convicting the dead Patsy in the Court of Public opinion by a highly prejudicial photo.

Or it proves somebody, for plenty of motives that can be speculated, created some "evidence" then pretended it was around thirty years earlier...

As there are more than one inerpretation it doesn't "prove" either.

It may suggest it, but it is not proof. It "proves" nothing about any conspiracy.

You would appear to have a very low standard of evidence, all of which you seem to think is "proof".

Robert Prey · 22nd March 2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Citation needed. For the entire claim. When did Hester 'assert' this? How do you know the house was searched twice and in what way is that suspicious (Pro-tip: It's not, that's fairly typical of any criminal investigation)?

What makes you think that the 'ghosted pic' of Oswald existed prior to the nineties? What makes you think that it was used to frame Oswald? Do you have a source for it 'not having been seen by the Commission or the HSCA'? If it was used to frame Oswald why wasn't it burned along with any other potentially condemning evidence?

Yeah, that's not legit there Robert.

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.

Robert Prey · 22nd March 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

My opinion about whether the photograph is authentic has absolutely nothing to do with investigating your reasons for asserting that it is false.

I'm not passing judgment on the photo. I'm passing judgment on your claim that it is fake. You're clearly unwilling and unable to defend your claim, so either stop trying to change the subject or concede that you cannot support your assertion.

The difficulty of the question is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are now suddenly insisting on asking it as a distraction from having to defend your claims.

Insult noted and reported.

If you cannot support the claims you made by addressing the expert disputation of your analysis, then why not simply say, "I don't know enough about the science to address your objections?"

You're the one making this difficult, not me. But I assure you that I am fairly immune to the common tactics of trying to change the subject and shirk one's burden of proof when it becomes clear one cannot sustain it.

Cop-out.

RoboTimbo · 22nd March 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Cop-out.

Still can't support your claims? Why do you make them?

Maybe you could ask your pee-stained janitor friend.

Robert Prey · 22nd March 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Straw man. The question is whether your specific claims of fakery hold water. I am not commenting about any other claims of fakery, except as you have deferred to Jack White. I have covered White's claims separately.

The allegation that I am making is that your claims of fakery are not supported by the data and relevant sciences. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever claims I may or may not make about the photograph. We are discussing your claims already made. Kindly do not attempt to deflect that scrutiny by demanding that others propose and defend a claim instead of you.

I refuse to be baited by a clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made allegations of forgery. You have presented reasons why you think forgery occurred. I have examined those reasons from a position of expertise and find them unconvincing, for reasons I have laid out in depth. Are you wiling to defend them further? Clearly not. But you dishonestly decline to concede.

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

RoboTimbo · 22nd March 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

Still very clumsy at trying to shift the burden of proof. Try again. You're still failing.

Regnad Kcin · 22nd March 2012, 02:48 PM

See this tennis ball? Its central shell is made of a rubber compound. As are all tennis balls.

Oh, you say different? You state it's made of a microscopic carbon weave? Well, then you'll have to prove it. I don't have to first prove it's rubber.

Garrison · 22nd March 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

You apparently can't tell the difference between shadow and no shadow. You've had it explained half a dozen ways but you still want to deny some basic optics. As I've said before if your aim is to persuade others of the reality of your theory you are failing badly, hanging it on the shape of a chin photographed in totally different lighting conditions is simply making your task harder.

JayUtah · 22nd March 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

Well, this has nothing to do with my post. I was reminding you what you had previously asserted and why you have the burden of proof for it.

As to the new matter you raise, we're not talking about ovals and squares. Oswald's face, like any other person's face, is a complex, contoured three-dimensional object. The simple two-dimensional shapes you refer to exist only in the luminosity map of those affine objects projected into a plane. The appearance of that map depends on many factors, only one of which you've considered. Hence your attempt to attribute your variant observation to that one factor only is rightly being rejected. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of demonstrations of the effects of those factors you ignore.

If you can't be bothered to learn what other people know about something, kindly don't waste their time by trying to disagree and debate them.

JayUtah · 22nd March 2012, 03:57 PM

Hm, Robert, what shape would you say this guy's chin is?

Southwind17 · 22nd March 2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

It means that in the view of a self-appointed "expert," the same principles of evidence he applies to others, do not apply to him.

Speaking of which, Robert, are you still working on your definition of an 'expert', or shall we proceed on the basis that none shall be forthcoming?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.

It seems you can't help yourself, either, Robert!

Mudcat · 22nd March 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework.

Are you sure this is a statement you want to be making? Because here you have a golden opportunity to instruct some with zero knowledge on the subject of the JFK assassination. Think of the possibilities you have to post your evidence, your view points, your data and so forth, and share them with someone you can potentially convince of the validity of your statements.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then ask better questions.

Those were some pretty good ones, and deserve an answer.

JohnG · 22nd March 2012, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then why don't you put some words in your own mouth??? Take a stand, man. Are the photos legit or not????

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And you, and your Amen chorus of Lone Nutter Photo "Experts" on this board???
Are you in possession of superior knowledge because you are working from the originals????

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

But you can???? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit. It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine. It's not a difficult question. If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know????

One question mark at a time, please.

LSSBB · 22nd March 2012, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.

An interesting viewpoint. Tell me, does digging up everything you can find that proves your foregone conclusion count as doing homework? Well, in this day and age, with young un's ripping off term papers online, I guess it can be defined that way. But I like to think with an open mind, and look at all the facts to make a conclusion, Robert, including the ones I don't agree with without hand-waving them off as fake. To actually Do Research, you know? Heck, I may even ask questions if I don't know the answer, and hopefully someone will treat me respectfully, and give me an answer, straightforward and honest.

How about you?

HSienzant · 22nd March 2012, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Well,that's a crock. Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, no representation was made by me that it was the same as the other photos, but consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning and using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other,springtime background which the FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

Your evidence for any of the above? I will wager you have nothing except the assertions of the Hesters.

Hank

HSienzant · 22nd March 2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject.

Robert, this is the first sensible thing you've said in a long time, and one of the few statements you've made on this board that I agree with.

But probably not in the way you intended.

Hank

HSienzant · 22nd March 2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Well,that's a crock. Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, no representation was made by me that it was the same as the other photos, but consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning and using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other,springtime background which the FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

It appears your evidence got a long stronger since you last posted on this subject, or you are overstating your case. I remind you that originally, all you had was an 1980's assertion, which you freely admitted to, and a photo that surfaced in 1993:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd. The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b6233d267d.jpg

Now you've gone from that assertion to asserting a whole bunch of other stuff, all without any additional evidence.

Overstating your case won't convince anyone.

What do you really have?

1. A story by the Hesters that they first told in the early 1980's.
2. An image that was first revealed in 1993.

Everything else is simply unsupported conjecture by you:

Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination.

And as far as the background, ... [it is] consistent with late November in Texas.

The reason for the Ghost Photo ... may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery,

using the ghosted image for positioning

using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other springtime background

The FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

It is quite clear you are most comfortable dealing in speculation, and most uncomfortable when you have to discuss actual evidence.
Anyone can speculate. You should try sticking to the evidence for a change, and see where that leads you.

Hank

pakeha · 23rd March 2012, 12:18 AM

Hi, I've come very late indeed to this thead.
I remember the day Kennedy was shot and have grown up with the conspiracy theories.
I've been reading the last pages here and this post really jarred:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.

I think you have a great opportunity to show just what is the evidence of a conspiracy here. I'm willing to bet there are a number of people who'd be interested enough to examine what decided you on the subject.

Why not give a resumen here for us?
50 pages is a lot of thread to read and I'm sure you could marshall your facts and sources to give us an overview of what you consider to be note-worthy.

Robert Prey · 23rd March 2012, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Hi, I've come very late indeed to this thead.
I remember the day Kennedy was shot and have grown up with the conspiracy theories.
I've been reading the last pages here and this post really jarred:

I think you have a great opportunity to show just what is the evidence of a conspiracy here. I'm willing to bet there are a number of people who'd be interested enough to examine what decided you on the subject.

Why not give a resumen here for us?
50 pages is a lot of thread to read and I'm sure you could marshall your facts and sources to give us an overview of what you consider to be note-worthy.

The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. I suggest you do a search on this thread for "The Final Nail" and "Addendum to The Final Nail" which has several of the medical doctor's quotes.

The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.

Robert Prey · 23rd March 2012, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

It appears your evidence got a long stronger since you last posted on this subject, or you are overstating your case. I remind you that originally, all you had was an 1980's assertion, which you freely admitted to, and a photo that surfaced in 1993:

Now you've gone from that assertion to asserting a whole bunch of other stuff, all without any additional evidence.

Overstating your case won't convince anyone.

What do you really have?

1. A story by the Hesters that they first told in the early 1980's.
2. An image that was first revealed in 1993.

Everything else is simply unsupported conjecture by you:

Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination.

And as far as the background, ... [it is] consistent with late November in Texas.

The reason for the Ghost Photo ... may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery,

using the ghosted image for positioning

using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other springtime background

The FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd.

It is quite clear you are most comfortable dealing in speculation, and most uncomfortable when you have to discuss actual evidence.
Anyone can speculate. You should try sticking to the evidence for a change, and see where that leads you.

Hank

An absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that the theory is false. The ghosted photoi is a fact. How would you explain the existence of the Ghosted Photo?????

Robert Prey · 23rd March 2012, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Hm, Robert, what shape would you say this guy's chin is?

Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see?

Robert Prey · 23rd March 2012, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Well, this has nothing to do with my post. I was reminding you what you had previously asserted and why you have the burden of proof for it.

As to the new matter you raise, we're not talking about ovals and squares. Oswald's face, like any other person's face, is a complex, contoured three-dimensional object. The simple two-dimensional shapes you refer to exist only in the luminosity map of those affine objects projected into a plane. The appearance of that map depends on many factors, only one of which you've considered. Hence your attempt to attribute your variant observation to that one factor only is rightly being rejected. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of demonstrations of the effects of those factors you ignore.

If you can't be bothered to learn what other people know about something, kindly don't waste their time by trying to disagree and debate them.

If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.

Robert Prey · 23rd March 2012, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Garrison

You apparently can't tell the difference between shadow and no shadow. You've had it explained half a dozen ways but you still want to deny some basic optics. As I've said before if your aim is to persuade others of the reality of your theory you are failing badly, hanging it on the shape of a chin photographed in totally different lighting conditions is simply making your task harder.

There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.

jargon buster · 23rd March 2012, 02:02 AM

Quote:

The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter.

Theres no medical evidence of a large blow out in the back of Ks head, there is just your alledged 40 witnesses.
Also any evidence of a grassy knoll shooter would have been evidenced by a blowout at the left side of KS head and you dont even have a drawing to back that up.

Quote:

The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.

They had a body, it wasnt a requirement that he had a background, so why bother creating one by forging photos?

pakeha · 23rd March 2012, 02:15 AM

Thanks for the answer, Robert!

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. I suggest you do a search on this thread for "The Final Nail" and "Addendum to The Final Nail" which has several of the medical doctor's quotes.

I used the search engine and found this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4015

To tell the truth, it's difficult to take that very seriously, given that the drawing is just that, a drawing and that the 'quotes' can't make up their minds about the side of the head affected.

That's really the best proof of a conspiracy?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.

Yes, I'd read the last several pages of the thread.
So who, in your opinion WERE the real perps of the assasination of JFK?

Tomtomkent · 23rd March 2012, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see?

Hate to bust your "common sense" but there is no chin at all... or even a person for whom to discuss the size or nature of chins.

Tomtomkent · 23rd March 2012, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.

But we are discussing the claims you made about one photo.

You assert that photo is faked. You have offered flawed evidence. No other photograph is relevent unless discussing context in a series. Which would not prove or disprove your claims. How cant you be failing to grasp this?

Tomtomkent · 23rd March 2012, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.

You make the claim. You prove the claim to be true or retract the claim.
You don't try and force anybody to draw conclusions on anything but your claim. Or do you feel a desperate need to prejudise objective evaluation of your claims? As good critical thinkers everybody else is putting aside their assumptions, remaining neutral and offering you the best possible chance of proving an assertion. We do this in spite of you insulting that possiton and claiming we are "nutters" with "heads in the sand" and sarcastic remarks about our deep thinking. Tell me Robert was Objective Reasoning covered in Logic 101? If not, just admit so, and it can be explained. If you actually grasp the most basic sceptical stand point you may actually understand why what you are saying sounds so childish. If you dont want others to talk to you from an objective standpoint, you may want to go to a different venue of discussion where it wont irk you so much.

You DID say you were here to look at evidence, and not convince anybody. So why the determination anybody should be convinced one way or another?

Why oh why do you keep trying to make people stand on one side of the fence or the other? You may have preconcieved conclusions, others don't. They have a null hypothosis and they, we, ask if you can overcome this null.

So far you have failed to meet the minimum standard of evidence to prove any of your assertions.

Multivac · 23rd March 2012, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Garrison

Robert you can't add detail to a photo when it wasn't there in the first place. The shadow eliminated the detail of the lower face and distorted the appearance of the jawline. Lightening the shadow will not alter that.

Exactly. Whether detail is lost due to shadows, reflections from oily skin or blown highlights, there is no way to reclaim the lost details.

Multivac · 23rd March 2012, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The story becomes increasingly credible when you add up the fact that the B/Y photos are proven forgeries ...........

But you haven't proven they are forgeries.

jargon buster · 23rd March 2012, 04:29 AM

Quote:

But you haven't proven they are forgeries

.

Dont worry, he does that a lot.

Tomtomkent · 23rd March 2012, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

.

Dont worry, he does that a lot.

But it is good for people to remind him they didn't buy his guff. Otherwise he might be under the impression people were falling for it.

It does call into question if Robert should be suggesting he is the teacher who will appear when we are ready (ie, agree with him). Or if he should admit to being the student whose untested opinion does not make a fact.

Southwind17 · 23rd March 2012, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

I remember the day Kennedy was shot ...

Mmm ... should we go there?! Only kidding - welcome!

RoboTimbo · 23rd March 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.

Why should anyone but you take a stand on something that only you have made a claim about?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Do you have anything to refute the hundreds of millions of witnesses to the large blowout on the right side of JFK's head?

You might want to pull your head out and look around.

TheRedWorm · 23rd March 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Baloney. Open your eyes.

I was there, Robert. Open YOUR eyes.

Southwind17 · 23rd March 2012, 05:34 AM

Robert - I've thought for a while now that you've defaulted to trolling. If that's the case then that's OK; I, for one, am happy to feed the troll, because I've learned so much here from the likes of HSienzant and JayUtah, at your expense. If I'm right, however, I think it's now high time you started behaving with at least a modicum of honesty, and paid due respect to those posters who have been giving up much of their time with a view to having an intelligent dialogue with you. In the meantime:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter.

By any reasonable test this most certainly is not 'The Best Evidence' for a conspiracy. Even if what you claim were true, it's an extremely tenuous link. Very simply, Robert, how do you reconcile your claim of 'a large blow-out in the back of K's head' with the video evidence showing the fatal gun shot wound to the front right of the head? If that's the entry wound then surely the exit wound would be around the left ear, no?.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see?

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Hate to bust your "common sense" but there is no chin at all... or even a person for whom to discuss the size or nature of chins.

Robert - do you see the irony of this post of yours, eloquently highlighted by tomtomkent? By your own tacit admission here you've 'seen' and commented on something that doesn't even exist, but that your mind has conjured up from an illusion cast by a shadow! Given that, how can you reasonably dismiss the possibility of the appearance of a 'square chin' in the B/Y photos, being a similar, albeit far less complex, illusion created by simple light and shadow effects?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.

Robert - do you really not understand that the issue under debate is whether or not your claims of falsification are justified, and that the 'taking of a stand' by those taking you to task is completely irrelevant to determining that?

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.

That's an interesting choice of word, Robert, 'betray'. Given that you're relying entirely on simple observation of a monochromatic two-dimensional image made up simply of different shades of grey to deduce the shape of a 3-D object I'd say the most appropriate words to use would be 'give the impression of'. Even those words, however, only really apply if one fails to allow or elects to suspend one's powers of deduction from assimilating even the most obvious factors that have generated the image, in this case light and shade, at least to cast some doubt.

Originally Posted by pakeha

Yes, I'd read the last several pages of the thread.
So who, in your opinion WERE the real perps of the assasination of JFK?

... and more importantly what evidence can you offer that supports your opinion?

JayUtah · 23rd March 2012, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see?

I see sunlight filtering through tree leaves onto a garage. You lose.

JayUtah · 23rd March 2012, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.

Nonsense. Your belief is either supported by fact or it is not. That is entirely independent of whether someone else's belief may be supported by fact.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are trying to make someone else state and defend a belief as a distraction from your inability to do so for yourself. You claim your belief is supported by fact, but you dishonestly refrain from letting others determine whether this is so.

22nd March 2012, 02:27 PM	#4561
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Before anyone can logically allege that there is no photo fakery... Straw man. The question is whether your specific claims of fakery hold water. I am not commenting about any other claims of fakery, except as you have deferred to Jack White. I have covered White's claims separately. Quote: ...it must first be established that the one making the allegation presumes the photo is genuine The allegation that I am making is that your claims of fakery are not supported by the data and relevant sciences. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever claims I may or may not make about the photograph. We are discussing your claims already made. Kindly do not attempt to deflect that scrutiny by demanding that others propose and defend a claim instead of you. Quote: something our "expert" friend refuses to do. I refuse to be baited by a clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made allegations of forgery. You have presented reasons why you think forgery occurred. I have examined those reasons from a position of expertise and find them unconvincing, for reasons I have laid out in depth. Are you wiling to defend them further? Clearly not. But you dishonestly decline to concede.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

22nd March 2012, 02:30 PM	#4563
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Oh,no. Not in terms of assassination conspiracy. It only serves to prove the other conspiracy -- the conspiracy to cover up the truth, by convicting the dead Patsy in the Court of Public opinion by a highly prejudicial photo. Or it proves somebody, for plenty of motives that can be speculated, created some "evidence" then pretended it was around thirty years earlier... As there are more than one inerpretation it doesn't "prove" either. It may suggest it, but it is not proof. It "proves" nothing about any conspiracy. You would appear to have a very low standard of evidence, all of which you seem to think is "proof".
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

22nd March 2012, 02:31 PM	#4564
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by Mudcat Citation needed. For the entire claim. When did Hester 'assert' this? How do you know the house was searched twice and in what way is that suspicious (Pro-tip: It's not, that's fairly typical of any criminal investigation)? What makes you think that the 'ghosted pic' of Oswald existed prior to the nineties? What makes you think that it was used to frame Oswald? Do you have a source for it 'not having been seen by the Commission or the HSCA'? If it was used to frame Oswald why wasn't it burned along with any other potentially condemning evidence? Yeah, that's not legit there Robert. At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497

22nd March 2012, 02:34 PM	#4565
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by JayUtah My opinion about whether the photograph is authentic has absolutely nothing to do with investigating your reasons for asserting that it is false. I'm not passing judgment on the photo. I'm passing judgment on your claim that it is fake. You're clearly unwilling and unable to defend your claim, so either stop trying to change the subject or concede that you cannot support your assertion. The difficulty of the question is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are now suddenly insisting on asking it as a distraction from having to defend your claims. Insult noted and reported. If you cannot support the claims you made by addressing the expert disputation of your analysis, then why not simply say, "I don't know enough about the science to address your objections?" You're the one making this difficult, not me. But I assure you that I am fairly immune to the common tactics of trying to change the subject and shirk one's burden of proof when it becomes clear one cannot sustain it. Cop-out.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497

22nd March 2012, 02:40 PM	#4567
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by JayUtah Straw man. The question is whether your specific claims of fakery hold water. I am not commenting about any other claims of fakery, except as you have deferred to Jack White. I have covered White's claims separately. The allegation that I am making is that your claims of fakery are not supported by the data and relevant sciences. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever claims I may or may not make about the photograph. We are discussing your claims already made. Kindly do not attempt to deflect that scrutiny by demanding that others propose and defend a claim instead of you. I refuse to be baited by a clumsy attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made allegations of forgery. You have presented reasons why you think forgery occurred. I have examined those reasons from a position of expertise and find them unconvincing, for reasons I have laid out in depth. Are you wiling to defend them further? Clearly not. But you dishonestly decline to concede. If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497

22nd March 2012, 02:28 PM	#4562
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,867	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Oh,no. Not in terms of assassination conspiracy. It only serves to prove the other conspiracy -- the conspiracy to cover up the truth, by convicting the dead Patsy in the Court of Public opinion by a highly prejudicial photo. Then you're admitting that you have no evidence and it is only your non-expert opinion. See? That wasn't so difficult to put on your big boy pants and admit, was it? Oops! Two questions! LOL.

22nd March 2012, 02:36 PM	#4566
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,867	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Cop-out. Still can't support your claims? Why do you make them? Maybe you could ask your pee-stained janitor friend.

22nd March 2012, 02:44 PM	#4568
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,867	Originally Posted by Robert Prey If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert. Still very clumsy at trying to shift the burden of proof. Try again. You're still failing.

22nd March 2012, 02:48 PM	#4569
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,214	See this tennis ball? Its central shell is made of a rubber compound. As are all tennis balls. Oh, you say different? You state it's made of a microscopic carbon weave? Well, then you'll have to prove it. I don't have to first prove it's rubber.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

22nd March 2012, 03:04 PM	#4570
Garrison Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Milton Keynes UK Posts: 1,441	Originally Posted by Robert Prey If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert. You apparently can't tell the difference between shadow and no shadow. You've had it explained half a dozen ways but you still want to deny some basic optics. As I've said before if your aim is to persuade others of the reality of your theory you are failing badly, hanging it on the shape of a chin photographed in totally different lighting conditions is simply making your task harder.

22nd March 2012, 03:15 PM	#4571
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Robert Prey If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert. Well, this has nothing to do with my post. I was reminding you what you had previously asserted and why you have the burden of proof for it. As to the new matter you raise, we're not talking about ovals and squares. Oswald's face, like any other person's face, is a complex, contoured three-dimensional object. The simple two-dimensional shapes you refer to exist only in the luminosity map of those affine objects projected into a plane. The appearance of that map depends on many factors, only one of which you've considered. Hence your attempt to attribute your variant observation to that one factor only is rightly being rejected. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of demonstrations of the effects of those factors you ignore. If you can't be bothered to learn what other people know about something, kindly don't waste their time by trying to disagree and debate them.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

22nd March 2012, 04:04 PM	#4573
Southwind17 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Location: Location Posts: 4,461	Originally Posted by Robert Prey It means that in the view of a self-appointed "expert," the same principles of evidence he applies to others, do not apply to him. Speaking of which, Robert, are you still working on your definition of an 'expert', or shall we proceed on the basis that none shall be forthcoming? Originally Posted by Robert Prey If you can't tell the difference between an oval and a square, I can't help you Mr. Expert. It seems you can't help yourself, either, Robert!
	__________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind "Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Why is it that when I ask for a pair of hands a brain comes attached?

22nd March 2012, 04:09 PM	#4574
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,687	Originally Posted by Robert Prey At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Are you sure this is a statement you want to be making? Because here you have a golden opportunity to instruct some with zero knowledge on the subject of the JFK assassination. Think of the possibilities you have to post your evidence, your view points, your data and so forth, and share them with someone you can potentially convince of the validity of your statements. Originally Posted by Robert Prey Then ask better questions. Those were some pretty good ones, and deserve an answer.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

22nd March 2012, 04:26 PM	#4575
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Then why don't you put some words in your own mouth??? Take a stand, man. Are the photos legit or not???? Originally Posted by Robert Prey And you, and your Amen chorus of Lone Nutter Photo "Experts" on this board??? Are you in possession of superior knowledge because you are working from the originals???? Originally Posted by Robert Prey But you can???? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit. It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine. It's not a difficult question. If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know???? One question mark at a time, please.
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -Harlan Ellison

22nd March 2012, 04:45 PM	#4576
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,494	Originally Posted by Robert Prey At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions. An interesting viewpoint. Tell me, does digging up everything you can find that proves your foregone conclusion count as doing homework? Well, in this day and age, with young un's ripping off term papers online, I guess it can be defined that way. But I like to think with an open mind, and look at all the facts to make a conclusion, Robert, including the ones I don't agree with without hand-waving them off as fake. To actually Do Research, you know? Heck, I may even ask questions if I don't know the answer, and hopefully someone will treat me respectfully, and give me an answer, straightforward and honest. How about you?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

22nd March 2012, 08:13 PM	#4577
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Well,that's a crock. Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, no representation was made by me that it was the same as the other photos, but consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning and using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other,springtime background which the FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd. Your evidence for any of the above? I will wager you have nothing except the assertions of the Hesters. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

22nd March 2012, 08:19 PM	#4578
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. Robert, this is the first sensible thing you've said in a long time, and one of the few statements you've made on this board that I agree with. But probably not in the way you intended. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

22nd March 2012, 08:26 PM	#4579
HSienzant Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,050	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Well,that's a crock. Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, no representation was made by me that it was the same as the other photos, but consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo can only be speculated, but it may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning and using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other,springtime background which the FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd. It appears your evidence got a long stronger since you last posted on this subject, or you are overstating your case. I remind you that originally, all you had was an 1980's assertion, which you freely admitted to, and a photo that surfaced in 1993: Originally Posted by Robert Prey The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd. The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b6233d267d.jpg Now you've gone from that assertion to asserting a whole bunch of other stuff, all without any additional evidence. Overstating your case won't convince anyone. What do you really have? 1. A story by the Hesters that they first told in the early 1980's. 2. An image that was first revealed in 1993. Everything else is simply unsupported conjecture by you: Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, ... [it is] consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo ... may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other springtime background The FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd. It is quite clear you are most comfortable dealing in speculation, and most uncomfortable when you have to discuss actual evidence. Anyone can speculate. You should try sticking to the evidence for a change, and see where that leads you. Hank
	__________________ "Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto." Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd March 2012 at 08:52 PM.

23rd March 2012, 12:18 AM	#4580
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,991	Hi, I've come very late indeed to this thead. I remember the day Kennedy was shot and have grown up with the conspiracy theories. I've been reading the last pages here and this post really jarred: Originally Posted by Robert Prey At some point it is fruitless to try to educate someone who has obviously done zero homework on the subject. The questions you ask even knowledgeable Lone Nutters would not ask, it being pretty basic stuff not in dispute. Do some homework. Then ask better questions. I think you have a great opportunity to show just what is the evidence of a conspiracy here. I'm willing to bet there are a number of people who'd be interested enough to examine what decided you on the subject. Why not give a resumen here for us? 50 pages is a lot of thread to read and I'm sure you could marshall your facts and sources to give us an overview of what you consider to be note-worthy.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,991	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

23rd March 2012, 01:27 AM	#4581
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by pakeha Hi, I've come very late indeed to this thead. I remember the day Kennedy was shot and have grown up with the conspiracy theories. I've been reading the last pages here and this post really jarred: I think you have a great opportunity to show just what is the evidence of a conspiracy here. I'm willing to bet there are a number of people who'd be interested enough to examine what decided you on the subject. Why not give a resumen here for us? 50 pages is a lot of thread to read and I'm sure you could marshall your facts and sources to give us an overview of what you consider to be note-worthy. The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. I suggest you do a search on this thread for "The Final Nail" and "Addendum to The Final Nail" which has several of the medical doctor's quotes. The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Last edited by Robert Prey; 23rd March 2012 at 01:43 AM.

23rd March 2012, 01:30 AM	#4582
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by HSienzant It appears your evidence got a long stronger since you last posted on this subject, or you are overstating your case. I remind you that originally, all you had was an 1980's assertion, which you freely admitted to, and a photo that surfaced in 1993: Now you've gone from that assertion to asserting a whole bunch of other stuff, all without any additional evidence. Overstating your case won't convince anyone. What do you really have? 1. A story by the Hesters that they first told in the early 1980's. 2. An image that was first revealed in 1993. Everything else is simply unsupported conjecture by you: Detective Bobby G.Brown created the Oswald Ghosted photo shortly after the assassination. And as far as the background, ... [it is] consistent with late November in Texas. The reason for the Ghost Photo ... may have been an interim step to the creation of a composite forgery, using the ghosted image for positioning using the subsequent creation of the forgery using the the other springtime background The FBI apparently had in in its possession on the night of Nov. 22nd. It is quite clear you are most comfortable dealing in speculation, and most uncomfortable when you have to discuss actual evidence. Anyone can speculate. You should try sticking to the evidence for a change, and see where that leads you. Hank An absence of evidence for a theory is not evidence that the theory is false. The ghosted photoi is a fact. How would *you* explain the existence of the Ghosted Photo?????
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497

23rd March 2012, 01:34 AM	#4583
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by JayUtah Hm, Robert, what shape would you say this guy's chin is? Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see?
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497

23rd March 2012, 01:37 AM	#4584
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by JayUtah Well, this has nothing to do with my post. I was reminding you what you had previously asserted and why you have the burden of proof for it. As to the new matter you raise, we're not talking about ovals and squares. Oswald's face, like any other person's face, is a complex, contoured three-dimensional object. The simple two-dimensional shapes you refer to exist only in the luminosity map of those affine objects projected into a plane. The appearance of that map depends on many factors, only one of which you've considered. Hence your attempt to attribute your variant observation to that one factor only is rightly being rejected. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of demonstrations of the effects of those factors you ignore. If you can't be bothered to learn what other people know about something, kindly don't waste their time by trying to disagree and debate them. If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Last edited by Robert Prey; 23rd March 2012 at 01:48 AM.

23rd March 2012, 01:40 AM	#4585
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497	Originally Posted by Garrison You apparently can't tell the difference between shadow and no shadow. You've had it explained half a dozen ways but you still want to deny some basic optics. As I've said before if your aim is to persuade others of the reality of your theory you are failing badly, hanging it on the shape of a chin photographed in totally different lighting conditions is simply making your task harder. There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin.
Robert Prey Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,497

23rd March 2012, 02:02 AM	#4586
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. Theres no medical evidence of a large blow out in the back of Ks head, there is just your alledged 40 witnesses. Also any evidence of a grassy knoll shooter would have been evidenced by a blowout at the left side of KS head and you dont even have a drawing to back that up. Quote: The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors. They had a body, it wasnt a requirement that he had a background, so why bother creating one by forging photos?
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799 Last edited by jargon buster; 23rd March 2012 at 02:16 AM.

23rd March 2012, 02:15 AM	#4587
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,991	Thanks for the answer, Robert! Originally Posted by Robert Prey The Best Evidence for a conspiracy is medical evidence of a large blow-out in the back of K's head observed by the 40 plus medical witnesses indicating a shot from the front and at least one other shooter. I suggest you do a search on this thread for "The Final Nail" and "Addendum to The Final Nail" which has several of the medical doctor's quotes. I used the search engine and found this: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4015 To tell the truth, it's difficult to take that very seriously, given that the drawing is just that, a drawing and that the 'quotes' can't make up their minds about the side of the head affected. That's really the best proof of a conspiracy? Originally Posted by Robert Prey The other conspiracy now in debate is the conspiracy to set up a dead Patsy (LHO) by creating composite forgeries of a set of backyard photos designed to depict him as a crazy Communist, brandishing the alleged rifle and a pistol, and Commie Literature and placed on the cover of Life Magazine to convict the Patsy in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a clamor to find the real perps and their authors. Yes, I'd read the last several pages of the thread. So who, in your opinion WERE the real perps of the assasination of JFK?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,991	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

23rd March 2012, 02:48 AM	#4588
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by Robert Prey Unlike the B/Y photos, I only see half a chin. What do you see? Hate to bust your "common sense" but there is no chin at all... or even a person for whom to discuss the size or nature of chins.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

23rd March 2012, 02:51 AM	#4589
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by Robert Prey There are three photos, all allegedly in different lighting conditions. All betray a squared chin and 133C in very much less shadow, also betrays a squared chin. But we are discussing the claims you made about one photo. You assert that photo is faked. You have offered flawed evidence. No other photograph is relevent unless discussing context in a series. Which would not prove or disprove your claims. How cant you be failing to grasp this?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

23rd March 2012, 03:04 AM	#4590
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by Robert Prey If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it. You make the claim. You prove the claim to be true or retract the claim. You don't try and force anybody to draw conclusions on anything but your claim. Or do you feel a desperate need to prejudise objective evaluation of your claims? As good critical thinkers everybody else is putting aside their assumptions, remaining neutral and offering you the best possible chance of proving an assertion. We do this in spite of you insulting that possiton and claiming we are "nutters" with "heads in the sand" and sarcastic remarks about our deep thinking. Tell me Robert was Objective Reasoning covered in Logic 101? If not, just admit so, and it can be explained. If you actually grasp the most basic sceptical stand point you may actually understand why what you are saying sounds so childish. If you dont want others to talk to you from an objective standpoint, you may want to go to a different venue of discussion where it wont irk you so much. You DID say you were here to look at evidence, and not convince anybody. So why the determination anybody should be convinced one way or another? Why oh why do you keep trying to make people stand on one side of the fence or the other? You may have preconcieved conclusions, others don't. They have a null hypothosis and they, we, ask if you can overcome this null. So far you have failed to meet the minimum standard of evidence to prove any of your assertions.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

23rd March 2012, 03:24 AM	#4591
Multivac Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,933	Originally Posted by Garrison Robert you can't add detail to a photo when it wasn't there in the first place. The shadow eliminated the detail of the lower face and distorted the appearance of the jawline. Lightening the shadow will not alter that. Exactly. Whether detail is lost due to shadows, reflections from oily skin or blown highlights, there is no way to reclaim the lost details.

23rd March 2012, 04:27 AM	#4592
Multivac Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,933	Originally Posted by Robert Prey The story becomes increasingly credible when you add up the fact that the B/Y photos are proven forgeries ........... But you haven't proven they are forgeries.

23rd March 2012, 04:29 AM	#4593
jargon buster Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,058	Quote: But you haven't proven they are forgeries . Dont worry, he does that a lot.
	__________________ ^{^{“She’s pregnant and in very big trouble.” ......And wasn't she just}} http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thin...hildorlife.pdf Part 1 of this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176799

23rd March 2012, 04:35 AM	#4594
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,218	Originally Posted by jargon buster . Dont worry, he does that a lot. But it is good for people to remind him they didn't buy his guff. Otherwise he might be under the impression people were falling for it. It does call into question if Robert should be suggesting he is the teacher who will appear when we are ready (ie, agree with him). Or if he should admit to being the student whose untested opinion does not make a fact.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

23rd March 2012, 04:44 AM	#4595
Southwind17 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Location: Location Posts: 4,461	Originally Posted by pakeha I remember the day Kennedy was shot ... Mmm ... should we go there?! Only kidding - welcome!
	__________________ The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the unanimous view of all parts of my mind "Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Why is it that when I ask for a pair of hands a brain comes attached?

23rd March 2012, 05:21 AM	#4596
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,867	Originally Posted by Robert Prey If you can't even take a stand on whether the photo in question is or is not genuine, then it is pointless for you to even address it. Why should anyone but you take a stand on something that only you have made a claim about? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Do you have anything to refute the hundreds of millions of witnesses to the large blowout on the right side of JFK's head? You might want to pull your head out and look around.