Monday, October 3, 2016

Lookie here: "Move over little dog because the big dog's moving in." 

John McAdams 

- show quoted text -
It seems that when real scientists examine the photos, they are all of

Just for people who don't want to fool with the science:  what would
be the point of producing all those "phony" photos of Oswald? 

Ralph Cinque: 

John, that is pure dis-info. First of all, you cited the HSCA, an entity that was determined NOT to find such things as phony images of Oswald and would not have reported it if they did. So why, in a discussion with me, would you cite the HSCA? Are you unaware of my opinion of the HSCA?

I read through all the relevant pages. And at no point, did they address any of the issues that I raised in my recent post. I provided specific reasons why each of the suspect images of Oswald should be rejected by the rational observer. None of those issues were addressed. 

For instance, if I point out that an image shows Oswald with severely sloping shoulders, which we know he didn't have, that is a basis to reject the image. There is no excuse for it. There is no rationalization for it. There is no talking-point that will make it go away. 

So, all they did was make a flat-out denial that there are phony images of Oswald. And you are citing it as though it means something?

The "real scientists" to which you referred compared one image of Billy Lovelady from the 1950s with an image of Oswald from the day of the assassination, which was a real image of him. So, the issue of whether there are phony images of Oswald elsewhere was never addressed by those real scientists. 

And yet, you made it sound like real scientists confirmed all the images of Oswald, including the ones from Russia. 

Does that kind of dis-info work in your world, John? Because it doesn't work in my world. 

I'm going to post this exchange on my blog. My criticisms stand: unscathed by anything you, the HSCA, or the real scientists said. Maybe you should look at the images again because some of them are definitely and undeniably not Oswald.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.