JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

The only arguments regarding photo fakery given by the Lone NUt posters is the claim that their experts are more expert than other experts. That is a fallacious argument from authority and an ad hominem attack as well.

Nope. Determining the authenticity of a photograph is not a matter of inference or deduction but of skilled judgment. Therefore it does not fall under the fallacy, which applies only to the inferential or deductive elements of a question, not to any interpretive or analytical portions. You omitted the specific part of the definition that disputes your dismissal, and failed to properly reference it, so it's obvious you intended to misrepresent what Argument from Authority really is.

The difference in expertise among the analysts matters, no matter how much the amateurs whine to the contrary. It is not ad hominen in the least to point out that an an analytical inductive argument suffers from a lack of foundation. The fallacy of Argument from Authority does provide an "out" for dismissing inconvenient expert testimony.

 

[JohnG]

And that is all a bunch of baloney. I have indeed made one or two mistakes and admitted to them. One was assuming that the Z film was unaltered., for example. That was a mistake.

Isn't this a bit like a born again flat earther saying "I admit I was wrong when I used to think the Earth was an oblate spheroid"?

Have you admitted to being wrong about your theories (and by "your theories" I mean the decades-old theories of others that you've glommed on to) in your time here? Has there been anything you can link to where someone on this site corrected you on a point and you've explicitly acknowledged that correction?

On the other hand, when it comes to simple observations, no expertise is required. Another example of a backyard photo anomaly, is the shape of Oswald's chin.

Simple observations are neither "simple" nor "observations". Discuss. Or to quote Sherlock Holmes, "you saw, but you did not observe".

Even "experts" can be fooled, as Randi has demonstrated over the years. An expert in photogrammetry might swear on their mother's name that they observed a coin literally vanish into thin air and they could still be mistaken in their observation. It isn't always a question of amateur vs. expert, it's often a question of non-critical thinker vs. critical thinker. Some "amateurs" are critical thinkers while some "experts" are not critical thinkers. We all can be fooled into confusing what we think/hope/want/need to be there vs. what is actually there. Critical thinkers at least are aware of this seductive bias and consciously work to overcome it through an objective as possible application of the scientific method. You don't have to be an "expert" in anything to be a critical thinker, but it just so happens that the best "experts" in science tend to have well honed critical thinking skills.

Does it take a degree in photogrammetry to make the observation that the chin in the back yard photo is different, square, while the chin in Oswald's other photos is not???

Factors such as the quality of the camera/lens/film, lighting conditions, distance of the camera from the subject, shadows from other objects falling across the subject's face, the angle of the subject relative to the camera and the expression on the subject's face can make two photographs taken of the same subject appear to be two different people. I have photos of myself where due to various factors mentioned above I appear to have an enormous Jay Leno-style chin...or a weak/receding chin...or a "normal" sized chin. I can safely assure you no one "altered" the photos.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:
a'1: Stringer signed a statement in 1966 saying he took the photos in the archives.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm
He signed this after viewing the archival photos."

According to an interview with D. Lifton, that is also false.

Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?"

Stringer: In the back.
P. 516, Best Evidence

and

on page 518:

Lifton: What did you guys check for when you logged it into the archives in 1966?"

Stringer: "Well, I can't since I didn't see it after it was developed."

According to his AARB testimony, which you cited earlier, Stringer said they did view the photos at the archives (it makes no sense that he went there, saw no photos, then signed a document saying he did).

Q: Did you ever speak to Mr. Riebe about the apparent discrepancy in the number of films that had been exposed on the night of the autopsy?
A: I don't know whether I did or not.
Q: After the conversation with Captain Stover that you discussed earlier, did you ever raise the issue with him again?
A: I don't know, but we raised the issue when we saw the photographs in `66.

So you need to do something besides pick and choose only the parts you like. You can say Stringer's memory was fine, in which case his testimony above takes precedence; or you can say Stringer's memory deteriorated over the years (as is known to happen) and his best recollection would be his earliest statement on the record (in which case the 1966 signed statement would be the one that takes precedence.

Let me know where you come down on this issue.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
(bottom of page 143-top of 144 for the quote above).

 

[HSienzant]

... Does it take a degree in photogrammetry to make the observation that the chin in the back yard photo is different, square, while the chin in Oswald's other photos is not???

Factors such as the quality of the camera/lens/film, lighting conditions, distance of the camera from the subject, shadows from other objects falling across the subject's face, the angle of the subject relative to the camera and the expression on the subject's face can make two photographs taken of the same subject appear to be two different people. I have photos of myself where due to various factors mentioned above I appear to have an enormous Jay Leno-style chin...or a weak/receding chin...or a "normal" sized chin. I can safely assure you no one "altered" the photos.

And actually, this issue has been resolved since at least 1978, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic Review Panel reviewed the Oswald Backyard Photos for evidence of fakery and found none.

I say since at least 1978, as the FBI had conducted a study of these photos in 1964 and determined the photos were legit. Their examination was in-depth and determined there was no evidence of fakery.

That didn't quell the critics.

Volume 6 of the HSCA's 12 volumes of evidence is dedicated to the Photographic Panel's studies. I recommend it highly.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol6.htm

Their section on the backyard photos starts here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.htm\

Among other things, they used vanishing point analysis to ascertain the rifle shadow (which Robert alleges is false) is legit, and falls exactly where it should.
They also studied the chin issue, and determined it's Oswald's chin. The chin portion of their study starts here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0084a.htm

Their overall conclusion: there is no evidence of fakery in the backyard photographs.

But, like the FBI determination in 1964, the HSCA's determination that the photos were legit was ignored by the critics, and continues to be ignored to this day. Robert is no exception from other conspiracy theorists in the way he treats this evidence. He simply ignores any conclusion he doesn't like.

 

[Southwind17]

And totally irrelevant.

That Jack White didn't account for certain key phenomena in his analysis of the photo that massively affect the validity of the conclusion is irrelevant? You and he are obviously very much birds of a feather. I wish we could get you up before Goldsmith - that sure would be a spectacle to behold!

Amusingly Fallacious.
An attempt to deflect attention away from the evidence in favor of discrediting the man. An Ad Hiomnem attack Also considered the converse of a fallacious argument from authority -- that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy )

All of your junk about who is or is not an "expert" is your attempt to deflect attention away from the evidence, and its a prime example of Ad Hominem attack. You cannot attack the evidence, so you attack the man. Also known as the converse of an Appeal to Authority fallacy. If you want to have some credibility in these matters, you must discuss the evidence, and not throw mud at the witnesses.

The 'evidence', in this case, Robert, is essentially the interpretation of the photo, hence the credibility of the interpretor is paramount, by which I mean his expertise. How would you describe and validate Jack White's 'expertise', Robert? It's no different from comparing handwriting samples, in principle. We could ALL have a go at that, with some confidence, I'm sure. I believe most of us believe we could make a reasonable assessment. Would your or my opinion be accepted in court, though? Why is that, do you think?

Still waiting for you to cite some of your own "material' "Physical" evidence. ZZZZZ.

'Material' physical evidence now, I see. Is there another kind?!

Southwind wrote:
Witness statements, Robert, whilst in the written form are undoubtedly 'physical' in that they exist, certainly do not constitute 'physical evidence'. Do you know what 'physical evidence' actually means? [Why did I even ask that?!
Comment: Physical evidence is the body itself ...

Exactly, thank you Robert. So why did you class the witness statements as 'physical evidence'?

The only arguments regarding photo fakery given by the Lone NUt posters is the claim that their experts are more expert than other experts. That is a fallacious argument from authority and an ad hominem attack as well.

Again, please explain what you consider renders Jack White an expert.

And that is all a bunch of baloney. I have indeed made one or two mistakes and admitted to them. One was assuming that the Z film was unaltered., for example. That was a mistake.

Assuming that a bunch of people examining the body miles from Dealey Plaza proves that there was a shooter on the grassy knoll is another ... and a bunch of conflicting witness statements from people who, also, never saw a shooter, but drew a conclusion nonetheless ... yep, that's another.

White didn't concede anything about not accounting for perspective. Only that he didn't know the meaning of a technical term for it.

The transcript clearly demonstrates that he made absolutely no adjustments for perspective:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this
photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement.
Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which
might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere
measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of
the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of
a scientist who could determine anything relating to the
perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We
don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be
virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret
the perspective of this photograph.

"so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph."​

Robert, please explain yourself man. Please try to tell us where your head's at with the reliance you place on Jack White.

But you continue to dwell on "expertise" in favor of the evidence that he and other experts have pointed out. I refer you to the above post regarding Oswald's square as versus rounded chin. Explain how photogrammetry has any bearing on that anomaly??

Why do you assume it has anything to do with photogrammetry, Robert?

Mr. SOUTHWIND. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. PREY. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. SOUTHWIND. Mr. Prey, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. PREY. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. SOUTHWIND. I just have one more question Mr. Prey. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. PREY. No.

Mr. SOUTHWIND. I have no further questions. Thank you.​

"We have no evidence that Oswald even fired a rifle." -- DPD Police Chief Jesse Curry.

"Nor do we have any evidence that there was even a shooter on the grassy knoll." -- DPD Police Chief Jesse Curry.

The evidence of a grassy knoll shooter is the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head indicating a shot from the right front, as well as the up close witnesses to the shooting who asserted that the fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

Robert - exactly how many of these people actually saw a shooter on the grassy knoll? To save time counting you may round off to zero or one, if you like.

The evidence that the medical personnel are correct is that each and every one of them is independently corroborated by each other ...

Appeal to popularity, Robert. From the exact same source that you rely on.

... and the fact that the up close witnesses the shooting itself asserted that that fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

Robert, the 'fact' that somebody, or indeed a number of people, asserts something doesn't make the assertion factual. Did you know that 1+1 actualy equals 3? It's true, I assure you. Again ...

 

[bynmdsue]

I've always found the Oswald's Chin argument very amusing. Why oh why did these idiot forgers splice the photo across the chin? Did they not have a full face photo of Oswald?

 

[Robert Prey]

Southwind wrote:

The 'evidence', in this case, Robert, is essentially the interpretation of the photo, hence the credibility of the interpretor is paramount, by which I mean his expertise. How would you describe and validate Jack White's 'expertise'?

Comment:
I evaluate witnesses by their evidence. You, and other Lone Nutters would prefer to commit the fallacy of appealing to authority, while deflecting attention away from the evidence. While I do not dwell on whether White is an "expert" since that is a very ambiguous term, the HSCA did by calling him in as an "expert" witness.

 

[Robert Prey]

Southwind wrote:

Robert - exactly how many of these people actually saw a shooter on the grassy knoll?

Answer:
The same number who actually saw a shooter in the TSBD.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

And actually, this issue has been resolved since at least 1978, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic Review Panel reviewed the Oswald Backyard Photos for evidence of fakery and found none.

Comment:
The HSCA also reviewed the tape recordings of the shots and concluded there was more than one shooter and thus a conspiracy. If you are going to continue to play the game of Appealing to Authority, you will continue to condemn your own ridiculous, erroneous theories.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

Their overall conclusion: there is no evidence of fakery in the backyard photographs.

Comment:

Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. Here is the interview he gave on the backyard rifle photos:

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.


INTERROGATOR. So does it strike you as strange that in their search, after all connected with the assassination of a president that they should find such damning evidence the next day?

Mr. THOMPSON. It does, it does seem unusual. One would think that the officers involved would be highly experienced officers, would know and have been trained to carry out the search of premises.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

INTERROGATOR. Thank you very much.

 

[jargon buster]

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

That statement actually reads as though he believes they are genuine.
Take out the unnecessary section and read it again.
Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

 

[GregHouseMD]

Nobody saw him shoot Tippet and Tippet is off topic. Nobody knows who really signed the fake photos with the fake murder weapon and the fake LHO, and there were no fingerprints found on the shells nor the rifle. Get your facts straight.

This has got to be the most hypocritical thing posted to this thread, bar none.

 

[Robert Prey]

According to his AARB testimony, which you cited earlier, Stringer said they did view the photos at the archives (it makes no sense that he went there, saw no photos, then signed a document saying he did).

Q: Did you ever speak to Mr. Riebe about the apparent discrepancy in the number of films that had been exposed on the night of the autopsy?
A: I don't know whether I did or not.
Q: After the conversation with Captain Stover that you discussed earlier, did you ever raise the issue with him again?
A: I don't know, but we raised the issue when we saw the photographs in `66.

So you need to do something besides pick and choose only the parts you like. You can say Stringer's memory was fine, in which case his testimony above takes precedence; or you can say Stringer's memory deteriorated over the years (as is known to happen) and his best recollection would be his earliest statement on the record (in which case the 1966 signed statement would be the one that takes precedence.

Let me know where you come down on this issue.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
(bottom of page 143-top of 144 for the quote above).

According to the ARRB's Doug Horne, Stringer disowned the brain photgraphs in the archives for several reasons. Deal with it.

On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, by Dick Russell p. 290

 

[Robert Prey]

Nope. Determining the authenticity of a photograph is not a matter of inference or deduction but of skilled judgment. Therefore it does not fall under the fallacy, which applies only to the inferential or deductive elements of a question, not to any interpretive or analytical portions. You omitted the specific part of the definition that disputes your dismissal, and failed to properly reference it, so it's obvious you intended to misrepresent what Argument from Authority really is.

The difference in expertise among the analysts matters, no matter how much the amateurs whine to the contrary. It is not ad hominen in the least to point out that an an analytical inductive argument suffers from a lack of foundation. The fallacy of Argument from Authority does provide an "out" for dismissing inconvenient expert testimony.

Baloney.

 

[LSSBB]

Baloney.

Yeah, the only criteria on whether a film or photo is legit should be whether it agrees with your point of view.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

No, it's an argument that you have no experts. Just ordinary people like you and me with no credentials.

Jack White, Costella, Mantik, Lifton and now Horne; none of these people you named are recognized as photo experts. Anywhere.

Comment:

Baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

I notice you've twice had opportunities to rebut my points about Doug Horne, and you haven't tried yet.

The first time you merely cut my points and then asked me to make a point; now you simply ignore my points again and ask another question.

You brought up the quotes by Horne; apparently you do now realize he has raised NO legitimate objections to the evidence; and instead of defending Horne's meaningless objections; raise a question about John McAdams, which is clearly a side issue and a mere diversion from the points you raised via Horne's quote.

So address the substantive issues I raised; or admit you cannot (or ignore it all for the third time, which will be a concession by you that you cannot rebut the points below):

You need to look up the word "concise" and try to apply it to your posts which are anything but, and therefore are not deserving of an answer.

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, what has a potentially doctored photograph got to do with a shooter on the grassy knoll?

Dont bother answering I know its only a red herring so you can hide the fact you have nothing at all left in the locker.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

Their overall conclusion: there is no evidence of fakery in the backyard photographs.

Comment:

Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. Here is the interview he gave on the backyard rifle photos:

INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.


INTERROGATOR. So does it strike you as strange that in their search, after all connected with the assassination of a president that they should find such damning evidence the next day?

Mr. THOMPSON. It does, it does seem unusual. One would think that the officers involved would be highly experienced officers, would know and have been trained to carry out the search of premises.

INTERROGATOR. Is there any possibility in your mind that those two photographs are genuine?

Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think there is any possibility having examined them for a considerable time it is my considered opinion that they are not genuine.

INTERROGATOR. Thank you very much.

The FBI and the HSCA photographic panel examined first generation originals as well as the extant negatives. Did Thompson examine those materials? Or did he examine copies of copies ?

Was he asked about this? What did he say about first-generation vs copies?

He is a legitimate expert - so I know he knows. What I want to find out is if you will actually quote his opinion on THAT and whether you will give your own expert any credence - or whether you will want to yank him off the stand without cross-examination.

Hank

 

[jargon buster]

You need to look up the word "concise" and try to apply it to your posts which are anything but, and therefore are not deserving of an answer.

obvious troll is obvious

So a concise post is only one that is worthy of an answer?
All my questions have been one liners Robert yet you have dodged them all, why is that?