Who killed President Kennedy

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

...The pictures you keep displaying were admittedly "enhanced" by the conspiracy nut web site author you are borrowing from.

... Actual experts, ...have concluded the rifle in the picture is the exact rifle found in the TSBD. ..
...

Let's once again set the record straight:
The enhanced pictures show the bottom sling mount because it is in the original photo.
The enlarged Pictures show the bottom sling mount because it is in the original photo.
The Original picture shows the bottom sling mount because it is there on the rifle.

You are in quite a fix: You have argued relentlessly that these Backyard photos are not forged or composites. Yet, these photos contain evidence that proves a conspiracy. It is right there for everyone to see. That leaves you stuck in the unenviable position of trying to convince everyone that they cannot see what is right in front of their eyes.

And You have not even attempted to address the rest of the photo evidence that was presented in my first post on the subject.

BTW, would love to see you list the names of your "rifle experts" you keep referring to.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

Let's once again set the record straight:
The enhanced pictures show the bottom sling mount because it is in the original photo.

Does it? Funny how the actual bottom of the rifle is not shown. Funny how neither you or your CN web site author will actually state what the enhancements were? How do we know that he didn't deliberately darken another background object to fool you?

The enlarged Pictures show the bottom sling mount because it is in the original photo.

Enlarging a copy of a photo does not improve the quality of it. You have watched too many spy movies. Enlarging a poor picture only enlarges errors.

The Original picture shows the bottom sling mount because it is there on the rifle.

Now you are just making stuff up. We dont see the bottom of the rifle in any of the pictures!

You are in quite a fix:

not really, you are the one that is trying to use doctored photos to prove a point, not me

You have argued relentlessly that these Backyard photos are not forged or composites. Yet, these photos contain evidence that proves a conspiracy. It is right there for everyone to see. That leaves you stuck in the unenviable position of trying to convince everyone that they cannot see what is right in front of their eyes.

Sorry, Spart. The original photos show no such thing. In fact the other backyard photos do show the sling attachment as being on the side of the rifle just like the one found in the TSBD. Rather than rely on the original photos, your web-site CN has enlarged doctored photos or doctored enlarged photos to make his spurious claim.

And You have not even attempted to address the rest of the photo evidence that was presented in my first post on the subject.

don't want you accusing me of changing the subject.

BTW, would love to see you list the names of your "rifle experts" you keep referring to.

Harry C. Andrews, PhD, Image Processing Institute, USC
Richard J. Blackwell, BS, MS, JPL, Pasadena
Thomas N Canning, BS, MS, NASA
Robert Chiralo, BS, MS, Aerospace Corp, LA
David B. Eisendrath, BA, consultant in technical and scientific photography, Brooklyn
Ronald Francis, PhD, School of Photographic Sciences R.I.T. Rochester, NY
William K. Hartmann, PhD, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson AZ.


Now, do you want to compare the expert credentials of my list of experts to you, Leo, your web-site CN and Jack White?

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

...
Now, do you want to compare the expert credentials of my list of experts to you, Leo, your web-site CN and Jack White?...

Just wanted to make sure that the "experts" you were referring to were the Panel of Photo experts selected by the HSCA.

Below is a very telling excerpt from the HCSA notes on the selection of the Photographic panel:
* Initially, an effort was made to limit membership on the photographic evidence panel to individuals who had never done any work for the U.S. intelligence community. Nevertheless, after spending weeks contacting various photographic specialists, it became apparent that most of the leading photographic scientists in this country have done some intelligence-related work. Accordingly, a previous affiliation with an intelligence agency was not considered be an automatic basis for precluding someone from membership on the panel. "

Gosh... they scoured the whole country and could not find any photo experts that had not previously worked in intelligence........

In other words, the Investigation was once again manipulated by the FBI to staff the panel with "experts" with intelligence connections they could manipulate and rely on to reach the desired conclusion.

The story does not end there. Groden and White were both consultants to the HCSA photo panel. Both feel the Backyard photos were faked. Also, From the HSCA report:, "Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert, questioned in public the authenticity of the photographs in a 1978 British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) television documentary. At request of the BBC, he had examined copies of the backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes.

Similarly, a photographic analyst with the Canadian Department of Defense reached the conclusion that these photographs were composites."

So even the HSCA was nowhere near unanimous in its opinion of the photos. And the report admits that the experts who did endorse the photos was composed of people who had done previous intelligence work for the the FBI or CIA. So, much for the objectivity of that group.

But I do not want to wander away from the issue of the forged rifles:
If you read the report, there are pages of descriptions of the HCSA photo panel enhancement techniques used to evaluate the photos. Yet, RQA has consistently maintained photo enlargement and enhancement as being unreliable.
But the panel relied on these techniques to make their judgement....

So what is it RQA, are photo enhancement techniques valid or are they not?



Choose your poison.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

Just wanted to make sure that the "experts" you were referring to were the Panel of Photo experts selected by the HSCA.

Yeah right! At least you know how to google the names and find the link back to the HSCA. That you likely did not know these names and their credentials until I posted the names is evidenced by your following snippet that you found when you googled the names. If you had actually known the names and their credentials you would have posted the following long ago.......

Below is a very telling excerpt from the HCSA notes on the selection of the Photographic panel:
* Initially, an effort was made to limit membership on the photographic evidence panel to individuals who had never done any work for the U.S. intelligence community. Nevertheless, after spending weeks contacting various photographic specialists, it became apparent that most of the leading photographic scientists in this country have done some intelligence-related work. Accordingly, a previous affiliation with an intelligence agency was not considered be an automatic basis for precluding someone from membership on the panel. "

Gosh... they scoured the whole country and could not find any photo experts that had not previously worked in intelligence........

In other words, the Investigation was once again manipulated by the FBI to staff the panel with "experts" with intelligence connections they could manipulate and rely on to reach the desired conclusion.

So you are accusing these 8 men of lying or falsification of the evidence in order to obstruct the truth? Each of these men is guilty of obstruction of justice? Each, along with the "FBI" (care to name some names? interesting that you insist that I list names while you don't) is part of the conspiracy?

The story does not end there. Groden and White were both consultants to the HCSA photo panel. Both feel the Backyard photos were faked.

Please list the credentials and qualifications of Groden and White to be photo experts. I will if you won't. In fact this is such an important point that there is no need to go any further until you do. I will be waiting for your answer to this one.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

I The dissappearing evidence included all photos and film that showed a shot from anywhere else but the TSBD.

Wow, I'd like to see the film that shows the shots coming from the SBD....this is news to me!

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

...

So you are accusing these 8 men of lying or falsification of the evidence in order to obstruct the truth? Each of these men is guilty of obstruction of justice? ...

You really are so full of yourself. ...

You can call them whatever names you want. Thats your forte', not mine.

I am saying this:
1. they are guys with connections to the Intelligence agencies, and that is precisely why they were selected.
2. They were people who could be relied upon to give the rubber stamp validity to the photos that the FBI was seeking.
3. It's the old story of the fox guarding the hen house. The same tactic that was used in the WC.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have an investigation where the FBI did not control the evidence?

Please list the credentials and qualifications of Groden and White to be photo experts. ...

Their best credentials are they were not working for the FBI
(like the boys you listed above). But beyond that, they both have done some outstanding work.

Noticed you are trying to focus just on Groden and White.... I listed several others with excellent credentials that publicly stated the photos are fakes.

The main point that you apparently need to be reminded of:

Two Mannlicher Carcano's with the same serial number presented as evidence proves a forgery and a conspiracy.

You keep trying to change the subject and not deal with the hard evidence, but that really does not matter. That evidence is always going to be there.

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by S2NII

Wow, I'd like to see the film that shows the shots coming from the SBD....this is news to me!

[Spartanic]

Keeping on the issue of the forged rifles:

If you read the report, there are pages of descriptions of the HCSA photo panel enhancement techniques used to evaluate the photos. Yet, RQA has consistently maintained photo enlargement and enhancement as being unreliable.
But the panel relied on these techniques to make their judgement....

So what is it RQA, are photo enhancement techniques valid or are they not?



**(I am posting this again, to see if RQA will attempt to answer...)

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

The story does not end there. Groden and White were both consultants to the HCSA photo panel. Both feel the Backyard photos were faked.

Originally Posted by RQA

Please list the credentials and qualifications of Groden and White to be photo experts. I will if you won't. In fact this is such an important point that there is no need to go any further until you do. I will be waiting for your answer to this one.

Originally Posted by Spartanic

Their best credentials are they were not working for the FBI
(like the boys you listed above). But beyond that, they both have done some outstanding work

That's it? That is your answer?

I listed the names and qualifications of each of the experts I pointed to.

Why cannot you do the same?

Don't worry, I actually answer questions asked of me. I will get to your questions of today. But let's stick with these experts. I know you want to backpedel as quickly as possible from White and Groden. But you are the one using them to support your case.

So I ask again, what are the credentials and qualifications of White and Groden to serve as photo experts?

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

..

So I ask again, what are the credentials and qualifications of White and Groden to serve as photo experts?

I was serious when I said their credibility was higher than the Panel experts with Intelligence community ties. Objectivity is an important quality for the people making these analysis.

If you are looking for degrees or PHDs behind their names, you know and I know you will not find that with those two. So what is your point?... that you have to have a PHD to analyse the photos?

Should we throw out the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Davinci, etc, and the countless thousands of people who have made immeasurable contributions because they did not have the right letters behind their names?

Who will come closer to the truth: A PHD with an agenda to come to a pre-determined conclusion, or a knowledgeable person who does an objective analysis?

The letters behind the name mean nothing if you know your conclusion before you even begin the analysis.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

Keeping on the issue of the forged rifles:

If you read the report, there are pages of descriptions of the HCSA photo panel enhancement techniques used to evaluate the photos. Yet, RQA has consistently maintained photo enlargement and enhancement as being unreliable.
But the panel relied on these techniques to make their judgement....

So what is it RQA, are photo enhancement techniques valid or are they not?



**(I am posting this again, to see if RQA will attempt to answer...)

He's back peddling

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA

So I ask again, what are the credentials and qualifications of White and Groden to serve as photo experts?

And still no answer.

[RQA]

Originally Posted by Spartanic

I was serious when I said their credibility was higher than the Panel experts with Intelligence community ties. Objectivity is an important quality for the people making these analysis.

You know nothing about these men, yet are willing to insult their honor and integrity to promote a wacko conspiracy theory. But again, that is typical conspiracy nut logic. Demean the actual experts (my 8 names of actual qualified experts) and then falsely elevate pseudo-experts (White and Groden) (still waiting for you to tell us about their qualifications, btw). You can see this same tactic at work in the 9/11 threads, perhaps you can discuss it with Chachi and roundhead.

If you are looking for degrees or PHDs behind their names, you know and I know you will not find that with those two. So what is your point?... that you have to have a PHD to analyse the photos?

Should we throw out the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Davinci, etc, and the countless thousands of people who have made immeasurable contributions because they did not have the right letters behind their names?

This may be a quote stupid enough to rank up there with the SLU Law quote that is my signature. You pick 3 people who were among the most highly educated scientists of their day and claim they did it without proper "letters" and somehow want to equate them with White and Groden. That is just crazy I believe Copernicus actually earned a doctorate! Galileo was a math professor, DaVinci studied under the most renouned art professor of his day! "Did not have the right letters behind their names", indeed

Who will come closer to the truth: A PHD with an agenda to come to a pre-determined conclusion, or a knowledgeable person who does an objective analysis?

The letters behind the name mean nothing if you know your conclusion before you even begin the analysis.

You have no evidence of the first, just a wild accusation. I have amble evidence that White and Groden cannot be considered knowledgeable in this field. However, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt to explain their credentials and explain, as you put it, their other "outstanding work"

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

...
This may be a quote stupid enough to rank up there with the SLU Law quote that is my signature. You pick 3 people who were among the most highly educated scientists of their day and claim they did it without proper "letters" and somehow want to equate them with White and Groden. That is just crazy I believe Copernicus actually earned a doctorate! Galileo was a math professor, DaVinci studied under the most renouned art professor of his day! "Did not have the right letters behind their names", indeed...

It's difficult to tell if you completely missed the point, or if you just have reading comprehension issues. ..

Let me spell it out in even simpler language:

The letters behind the names of your panel experts do not mean Jack.

All your experts missed out on some very obvious stuff in the photo evidence. That photo evidence has been presented here for everyone to see.

You judge the tree by its fruits. Your experts screwed up big time. They put their reputations on the line when they signed on as HCSA Experts. Now they have been exposed. That is a risk that goes with the territory when you are working for the Intelligence Agencies.

Other people have brought the truth out in the open, and everyone who views this thread can see for themselves how good a job your "experts" did.

......

Concerning the original photo evidence that was presented: You have never dealt with any of it (outside of calling the bottom sling mount a smudge or a bush).
It looks like that is where it is going to stay.

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by S2NII

He's back peddling

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

The dissappearing evidence included all photos and film that showed a shot from anywhere else but the TSBD.

Please direct me to this film evidence...

Of course still no answer from RQA

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA

So I ask again, what are the credentials and qualifications of White and Groden to serve as photo experts?

And still no answer.

[RQA]

The dissappearing evidence included all photos and film that showed a shot from anywhere else but the TSBD.

Originally Posted by SN2ll

Please direct me to this film evidence...

Ah, Sherlock, there is NO such evidence showing a shot from anywhere but the TSBD

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by RQA

Ah, Sherlock, there is NO such evidence showing a shot from anywhere but the TSBD

Originally Posted by RQA

The dissappearing evidence included all photos and film that showed a shot from anywhere else but the TSBD.

You claim there is film evidence of shots from TSBD...please do show me this film

This is contridictory because the Z film would indicate a shot from the front of the limo and NOT TSBD

[Spartanic]

If anyone is interested, Here is some biographical information on Photo Historian, Jack White.


- During WWII White served in the U. S. Navy
- Discharged in 1946, White returned to Fort Worth to pursue his interest in journalism, art, and history.

- Graduated from Texas Christian University in 1949, with a B.A. in Journalism.
- Began an advertising career as Copywriter and Art director at Yates Advertising Agency in Fort Worth.


- In 1954, he joined the Witherspoon and Ridings Public Relations Agency in Fort Worth. White began as the firm’s first Art Director and during his twenty-seven years with the agency rose to vice-president, Executive Art Director, Personnel manager, and part owner.

- He specialized in Design, Type management, and Photography and developed their in-house facilities for Darkroom work, Studio Photography, and slide show presentations.

- Also did photographic Historical work for various notable clients beginning in 1950 and continuing for almost three decades.
- He is nationally recognized as an expert on the assassination of JFK and served as a photographic consultant to the House Sub Committee on Assassinations during the hearings.


- He was also a consultant on the Oliver Stone film, "JFK"

- White published two videotapes on his photographic studies of the assassination. - Regularly contributes his research to various professional journals.
- Along with David Mantik, Charles Crenshaw, and Robert Livingston, Jack White contributed to the book "Assassination Science"
- He also contributed several articles for "Murder in Dealy Plaza (2000) and "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"(2003).

- White retired from Witherspoon and Associates in 1981, and formed his own company, Jack White Enterprises, which specialized in free-lance art and photography.

- In 1984, as business increased, he took on partners. The firm’s name changed to VJS Companies, and the company added new services, including typography and photostats. The firm closed for a brief period in 1991, following several setbacks, but reopened later in the year as Jack White Graphic Arts.

[EComCon]

This show covered some of that ground last night
http://www.blackopradio.com/black333.ram

Dr. David Mantik

Mark Lane

Winter Patriot: CAT 101: Introduction to Conspiracy and Anomaly Theory

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA
So I ask again, what are the credentials and qualifications of White and Groden to serve as photo experts?

Originally Posted by Spartanic

- He was also a consultant on the Oliver Stone film, "JFK"

Can it get any funnier than this?

[RQA]

Originally Posted by RQA

Can it get any funnier than this?

Yes it can!. From the above linked "JFK article" we have:



"President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered by Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson in a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved the Federal Bureau of Investigations directed by J. Edgar Hoover, the CIA directed by David Atlee Phillips, the Secret Service, elements of the United States Air Force, including General Curtis LeMay of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States Army, the United States Navy, Henry R. Luce’s LIFE Magazine, the Ford Motor Company, the Dallas Police, including Dallas Mayor Earle Cabel, big Oil of Midland, Texas, the Texas political establishment, the mafia, the anti – Castro Cubans, Southern racists, including retired General Edwin Walker, and others. President Richard M. Nixon was also involved. "

[Spartanic]

Originally Posted by RQA

Originally Posted by RQA
So I ask again, what are the credentials and qualifications of White and Groden to serve as photo experts?



Can it get any funnier than this?

Your continuing lack of a response and trying to change the subject is pretty funny.

[FishHead]

I think Chachi killed Kennedy.....