Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bond vs Skaggs


Recommended Posts

Here is one of my comparisons which leads me to

believe some/many evidence photos were altered.

These two images are cropped from Bond and Skaggs

at virtually the same instant ON THE SAME LINE OF

SIGHT. They should match...but do not. Which is

genuine?

Jack :tomatoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one of my comparisons which leads me to

believe some/many evidence photos were altered.

These two images are cropped from Bond and Skaggs

at virtually the same instant ON THE SAME LINE OF

SIGHT. They should match...but do not. Which is

genuine?

Jack

Jack - there are no signs of fakery between these two photos that I can see ... please explain why you think one or both is faked?

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one of my comparisons which leads me to

believe some/many evidence photos were altered.

These two images are cropped from Bond and Skaggs

at virtually the same instant ON THE SAME LINE OF

SIGHT. They should match...but do not. Which is

genuine?

Jack

Jack - there are no signs of fakery between these two photos that I can see ... please explain why you think one or both is faked?

I now see why Mr. Peters is so bad at photoanalysis!

He is visually challenged and has no comprehension

of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was

a handicapped person.

Jack White :tomatoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would these particular photos be faked?

What is the picture of a bus relevant to in the first place?

How does this picture factor into the assassination or the cover up?

I now see why Mr. Frank is so bad at photoanalysis!

He is visually challenged and has no comprehension

of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was

a handicapped person.

I do not know why one of these photos was faked.

The bus is NOT THE RELEVANT FEATURE of the photos.

The foregrounds are the same; the backgrounds are not.

If an innocuous photo like Bond (or Skaggs) is altered, it

must have shown something to dispute the offical story.

Jack :tomatoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an innocuous photo like Bond (or Skaggs) is altered, it must have shown something to dispute the offical story.

So everyone's visually challenged if they didn't bother to examine the photos enough to see a discrepancy, huh?

Maybe they were altered, but maybe it has nothing to do with the conspiracy. It just gives guys like Jack something to chew on.

Maybe they got these altered photos out there right away so that they could sit back and watch guys like Jack say, "Look at this alteration in this photo."

But in reality, the photo itself has nothing to do with the assassination and cover up. That's very amusing to the conspirators in the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now see why Mr. Peters is so bad at photoanalysis!

He is visually challenged and has no comprehension

of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was

a handicapped person.

Oh, Mr. White - Just like I did with the timing of the Altgens number 6 photograph by getting you to first admit that a 1:03 p.m. CST placement of that photo on the news wire would not leave time to alter it, I sat back and allowed you to expose your cards once again before now showing you just how much I do Know. Let the lesson begin, Mr. White.

The first thing I have learned about you is that you like to crop photos in making some of your alteration claims. More often than none I have noticed that the information that you crop out of the picture is what is needed to see the error in your observation. Below is just another example of you doing this.

First of all, the angle from each photographer to the pergola is slightly different, but more importantly you have matched the wrong pergola sections up to one another and that is why your shadows do not match and why the tree is different over the top of one cropping compared to the other. Please look at the example I made below offering everyone just a little more of a wider view than you were willing to give. You will see one section of the pergola marked with a green box and the other section marked with a blue box. Do you not see the shaded areas inside each box ... now don't they look awfully familiar? Do you see the tree line over the top of each section ... now don't they match the two photos that you said proved alteration! I not only know where your mistake was, but I know how you made it. You believed that the two photographers were so close to the same line of sight that a view over the top back corner of the bus in each man's photograph should connect to the same background, namely the same section of the pergola. In this particular instance that was a fatal mistake on your part, Jack.

In the future Mr. White, you may wish to get your reply back before you start throwing stones. The reason we disgree so much is because of things I just raised in the past two alteration claims we have discussed. Once again you have made a small error that has allowed you to make a claim based on false information.

When all is said and done, maybe you'll have to admit that I am not as bad at analyzing photographs as you first believed. Of course that will mean that you'll have to admit that you weren't as good at it as you thought you were, so I won't hold my breath.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now see why Mr. Peters is so bad at photoanalysis!

He is visually challenged and has no comprehension

of what photos clearly show. I did not realize he was

a handicapped person.

Oh, Mr. White - Just like I did with the timing of the Altgens number 6 photograph by getting you to first admit that a 1:03 p.m. CST placement of that photo on the news wire would not leave time to alter it, I sat back and allowed you to expose your cards once again before now showing you just how much I do Know. Let the lesson begin, Mr. White.

The first thing I have learned about you is that you like to crop photos in making some of your alteration claims. More often than none I have noticed that the information that you crop out of the picture is what is needed to see the error in your observation. Below is just another example of you doing this.

First of all, the angle from each photographer to the pergola is slightly different, but more importantly you have matched the wrong pergola sections up to one another and that is why your shadows do not match and why the tree is different over the top of one cropping compared to the other. Please look at the example I made below offering everyone just a little more of a wider view than you were willing to give. You will see one section of the pergola marked with a green box and the other section marked with a blue box. Do you not see the shaded areas inside each box ... now don't they look awfully familiar? Do you see the tree line over the top of each section ... now don't they match the two photos that you said proved alteration! I not only know where your mistake was, but I know how you made it. You believed that the two photographers were so close to the same line of sight that a view over the top back corner of the bus in each man's photograph should connect to the same background, namely the same section of the pergola. In this particular instance that was a fatal mistake on your part, Jack.

In the future Mr. White, you may wish to get your reply back before you start throwing stones. The reason we disgree so much is because of things I just raised in the past two alteration claims we have discussed. Once again you have made a small error that has allowed you to make a claim based on false information.

When all is said and done, maybe you'll have to admit that I am not as bad at analyzing photographs as you first believed. Of course that will mean that you'll have to admit that you weren't as good at it as you thought you were, so I won't hold my breath.

Congratulations, Mr. Peters...YOU HAVE SCORED A DIRECT HIT. Good find.

I was misled by the relative position of the sign, the bus, and the walking man.

Thanks for your correct observation.

Jack White :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations, Mr. Peters...YOU HAVE SCORED A DIRECT HIT. Good find.

I was misled by the relative position of the sign, the bus, and the walking man.

Thanks for your correct observation.

Jack White :o

Jack - I respect your honesty in admitting the error.

I respect your VERY SHORT MESSAGE. Short is better.

Jack White ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still want to know how these photos factors into the assassination or the cover up of the conspiracy.

What are they relevant to, if anything?

Anthony - I understand exactly what you are saying. It just shows that for the alteration crowd - looking at any and every photo for anything that doesn't make sense to them will show photo alteration and promote a conspiracy. The problem is that just because it doesn't make sense to them, it doesn't mean it won't make sense to others. The Bond/Skaggs claim was just one of many examples. I don't know what the Bond/Skaggs idea was all about. I guess Jack thought the conspirators doctored the shadows on the wall for some reason - who really knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry,

Considering Jack's obsession with saying that 9/11 and the Apollo Moon pictures are hoaxes, I think Jack alters the pictures so that he can cite his photographic knowledge and expertise. Maybe Jack's got a problem.

Tony

P.S. How do you make your font bold like that?

Edited by Anthony Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...