Are these two photos legit?

[Charles Collins]

The substance is this:  LN evangelists will twist themselves in knots, and apply all kinds of double standards in order to cherry-pick the stuff that they think supports their narrative.  This is just one of the more transparent examples.

What the heck are you trying to say? This is an example of someone who doesn’t have a clue trying to make the other clueless people think that someone moved some boxes. Now, again, if you think otherwise, show us.

[Charles Collins]

Rich, ain't it?

CT Fruitcake Claim		What the Govt. panel or LNer Actually Did
The Govt. or MIC, etc. supresses all evidence that might work in Oswald's favor		The HSCA believed in 1978 there was rearrangement of boxes in Dillard/Powell, and published it.
LNers believe everything the Govt. and agencies say		Using science, 3D, etc., LNers reject the 1978 HSCA claim of box-shifting

It should be obvious to anyone that Blakey and some of his recruits in the HSCA had an agenda to attempt to implicate the mob in the assassination. Look at what they came up with (acoustics sham, etc). When their sham was shown to be a sham it made them look rather silly. If the HSCA photographic experts really did claim the boxes were moved in the time between these photos, they look even sillier than the acoustics experts who said there was a 95% chance of a grassy knoll shooter based on the audio tapes. 

And the silliest of all was Blakey and those in the committee who agreed with him. Thankfully, there were some who disagreed and published their dissent as part of the report…. 

[John Iacoletti]

What the heck are you trying to say? This is an example of someone who doesn’t have a clue trying to make the other clueless people think that someone moved some boxes. Now, again, if you think otherwise, show us.

The HSCA photo panel determined that the boxes were moved between the two photos.  If you want to characterize them as clueless, that's fine with me -- as long as you apply that consistently to their other analyses, such as with the backyard and autopsy photos.

[Charles Collins]

The HSCA photo panel determined that the boxes were moved between the two photos.  If you want to characterize them as clueless, that's fine with me -- as long as you apply that consistently to their other analyses, such as with the backyard and autopsy photos.

They were not only clueless. They were lazy and they had an agenda.

You are being ridiculous regarding generalizing. Each analysis must be considered individually.

Again, if you think that they are correct, then please, please, please show us just how they got it right.

[John Iacoletti]

They were not only clueless. They were lazy and they had an agenda.

So did the Warren Commission.

You are being ridiculous regarding generalizing. Each analysis must be considered individually.

Sure, considered based on whether it matches what you want to believe.

Again, if you think that they are correct, then please, please, please show us just how they got it right.

I don't know if they're correct, but the notion that the specially chosen photo experts didn't think to consider the effects of perspective or lighting doesn't say much about their qualifications, does it?

But then that's the problem with any appeal to authority.  People who do it only do it when it supports their own positions.

[Charles Collins]

So did the Warren Commission.

Sure, considered based on whether it matches what you want to believe.

I don't know if they're correct, but the notion that the specially chosen photo experts didn't think to consider the effects of perspective or lighting doesn't say much about their qualifications, does it?

But then that's the problem with any appeal to authority.  People who do it only do it when it supports their own positions.

I don't know if they're correct, but the notion that the specially chosen photo experts didn't think to consider the effects of perspective or lighting doesn't say much about their qualifications, does it?


They did consider those effects (you apparently haven’t even read what Jake posted  ). But they arrived at the wrong answer because they apparently jumped to some wrong conclusions about the positions of the boxes. This was apparently based on some wrong assumptions regarding how the angle of the sun would create shadows on the boxes.

None of your other charges have enough merit to even deserve a response.

One thing that is abundantly clear is your apparent agenda to try to rattle as many cages as possible. It appears to me that you have no desire to find the truth. Just rattle cages to get a response. 

[John Iacoletti]

If your "cage is rattled", that says more about you than it does about me.  Yes, I read what Jake referenced.  The HSCA panel concluded that the boxes were moved.  On what basis do you just declare that "they arrived at the wrong answer"?