JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

No. I am an engineer, trained in many types of photo analysis (for forensic engineering purposes) and published in peer-reviewed journals as such. I have debated Jack White on his "analysis" of the Apollo space mission photos. White has absolutely no stature whatsoever in the field of photographic analysis; he is seen as a conspiracy-theory crackpot only. He has demonstrated time and again almost complete ignorance not only of the elementary principles of photographic analysis and interpretation, but a below-average aptitude for spatial reasoning.

Saying he is an "expert in the anomalies" seems to be a polite way of saying he's a conspiracy theorist. Jack White is most decidedly not an image analysis expert. Not even close. Here is an example from my web site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html showing just how inept White is.

Further I don't much care for his honesty. I was hired by Ten Worlds Productions to appear on a pilot for a series they were producing for the History Channel. I was asked to debunk some photo analysis and scientific claims made by others. I learned that White was claiming he was a "consultant" to this same program, and that he had worked with the producer "for several days." The producer is a long-time friend from my hometown, so I called to check up on that claim. John, the producer, said no, he'd only interviewed White for an hour or two, and then only to collect White's conspiracy claims on video. Clearly White is comfortable overstating his case and misleading his readers for his own personal aggrandizement. This is not someone I trust to get to the bottom of some claim.

So, instead of discussing White's specific evidence anomalies of the backyard photos, you attack the man. Thus, you betray yourself as just another ad hominem attacker with no knowledge or credibility of the subject at hand (With all due respect to your own auto-biographical puffery.

 

[Robert Prey]

Why? He has been shown to be entirely lacking the knowledge and skill required to be an expert. This is as laughable as it would be for you to claim to have a professional medical opinion. You seem to have mistaken White making his claims as proof of his expertise. They are not. They are unsupported by anything that remotely resembles actual knowledge in the field he wants to discuss.

I could bombard you with equally bombastic claims about Aztec ruins. I could spiel. Of all kinds of facts and deductions. I can claim expertise through my research. But it will be worth exactly bumpkis.

...anything at all excepting an analysis of the evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

By that definition, I am too an expert on the supposed anomalies in the back yard photos. I think I have demonstated a pretty damn good knowledge of the assassination, the criticisms, and the failures of those criticisms to hit home.

Hank

And just what anomaly experiments have you conducted?????

 

[Robert Prey]

It would appear Robert doesn't understand the burden of proof is on him to validate witnesses with material/physical/what ever term you like/ actual evidence, and it is not our place to believe assertions until proven otherwise.

But then he has now admitted he is not here to persuade us, but wants to examine facts. I suppose it could be argued that examinig facts does not require discussion, and a discussion where you don't intend to convince others of your view nor accept the possibility of your own views being found flawed is not a discussion but a dictation.

Sherlocke Holmes, Columbo, Sam Spade, Moses, Jesus Christ and army of Angels could come down from heaven and explain it all for you in living color and you and your Amen Chorus of Lone Nutters would still keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.

 

[Robert Prey]

I'm inclined to concur with jb's suggestion. Regardless, one can quickly point out, validly, that Jack White is certainly not an expert by any reasonable definition of the word.

What is it, Robert, about White's testimony that leads you to believe that he is an expert? Is it your definition of 'expert', I wonder, which seemingly reads something like: 'A person who has a purported authoritative knowledge or skill in a particular area but in reality has a keen but amateurish, naive interest.'

What authoritative knowledge and/or skill do you consider White demonstrated in his testimony?

He has simply pointed out a number of anomalies which no one on this esteemed board has dared to refute, but rather engage in ad hominem attack on the man, but ignore his evidence.

 

[Border Reiver]

So, instead of discussing White's specific evidence anomalies of the backyard photos, you attack the man. Thus, you betray yourself as just another ad hominem attacker with no knowledge or credibility of the subject at hand (With all due respect to your own auto-biographical puffery.

Except its not an attack on White, it's an attack on his complete lack of qualifications to do what he purports to do.

If you attempted to introduce White as an expert witness in a trial he would be disallowed, as he lacks relevant qualifications or expertise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

He has simply pointed out a number of anomalies which no one on this esteemed board has dared to refute, but rather engage in ad hominem attack on the man, but ignore his evidence.

Why do you find Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?" White's obvious (Logic 101) errors compelling?

 

[Robert Prey]

Your interpretation of how long blood should be visible for is not evidence

Show us where we can see paint on the frame, or artefacts of tampering. Until then we have no reason to assume alterations were made.

Why don't you begin with frame 313 and go to about 330. There you will see what appears to be a a blob of paint on the side of K's head, which alternately moves around from one location to another. Funny, but on one Z film DVD special, Zapruder's associate, Irwin Hirsch, describes the very first viewing of the Z film at which he was present. He said the film was like nothing he has seen since in the various copies and renditions. He said the film was 'needle sharp" and 'locked in focus" in "beautiful color." And when it came to the head shot, you could see it in detail. Sounds to me very much unlike viewing a blob of paint.

 

[JimBenArm]

Sherlocke Holmes, Columbo, Sam Spade, Moses, Jesus Christ and army of Angels could come down from heaven and explain it all for you in living color and you and your Amen Chorus of Lone Nutters would still keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.

Yeah. We're like that, since we need actual evidence and not speculation from cranks on internet forums.
You've sure changed my mind. I used to think that JFK conspiraloons were just misinformed. Now I know they're just stupid. Thanks!

 

[Tomtomkent]

...anything at all excepting an analysis of the evidence.

If you ever validate an eyewitness claim with material evidence, that may become an issue.

 

[Robert Prey]

How do I nominate this for a Stundie?

Here's the logic Robert is arguing is perfectly valid:




Aside to Robert: There's a very big IF in your argument you appear to be ignoring:

...If the film can be shown without question to have been altered...

You see, the film must be shown to be altered first as you yourself admit.

And Zavada's study does an excellent job of eliminating that possibility as Horne above admits ("All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas...").

Horne ignores all that, and so do you, simply because you both want the Z-film to be altered, because otherwise it pretty effectively destroys your arguments for conspiracy. So Horne argues none of that matters, because we know the film is altered, so of course all that shows is the conspirators were really good at altering stuff.

That sir, is pretty classic circular reasoning.

If none of that matters, why did the AARB commission the study?

Why did they hire the best 8mm expert they could find on this planet to do the study?

Or is that too many questions for you to answer?

As per usual, too many questions. No specificity. I've already given two examples of Z film alteration.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sherlocke Holmes, Columbo, Sam Spade, Moses, Jesus Christ and army of Angels could come down from heaven and explain it all for you in living color and you and your Amen Chorus of Lone Nutters would still keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.

Sherlock Holmes would require you first showed him where there the signs of photographic tampering, then would deduce your assertions are invalid because they are not supported by physical evidence.

He after all told Watson the simple truth that men can be fooled or fool themselves,but evidence can not lie.

You can fool yourself that photos are fakes because you believe otherwise, but don't pretend I have my head in the sand when I keep telling you plainly the simple requirements you would need to meet to change my mind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

As per usual, too many questions. No specificity. I've already given two examples of Z film alteration.

Hahahahahahaha... you have given two claims. That fall flat. And "too many questions"? Really? Its the other guys fault your story has too many holes in it? You get to set a limit on how many questions are raised?

Nope. Those questions are out there Robert. Answer them one at a time, or not at all, but don't pretend you will ever set a limit on how many we ask.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert plays dodge-ball with the evidence. He cannot rebut the HSCA's photographic panel's conclusions, so he now wants to change the subject!

The closest thing I could find that comes close to fitting this on the top twenty logical fallacies on this board, which can be found here:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

It's certainly a non-sequitor as we were discussing the validity of the backyard photos Robert himself brought up earlier and the photographic panel's expertise relative to Jack White's, and now he follows up a point on the validity of those photos by tossing in a conclusion by the HSCA about an audio tape (which was a conclusion by a different three-man outside consultant group; not a HSCA panel, and certainly not the HSCA's photographic panel).

Hey, Robert, let's discuss the photographic evidence you brought up. What's the evidence the chin is different than Oswald's in the backyard photos, other than you eyeballed it and didn't like the appearance?

Hank

Square versus rounded. This is like a Sesame Street lesson.

 

[Robert Prey]

No you aren't. Facts are formed from objective reviews of material evidence.

What you are doing is repeating assertions with out supporting them with facts.

For example you are discussing your opinion of LHOs chin while avoiding providing a fact by showing where the photo in question has signs of composites and cuts, paint, double exposure, or any other artefact of tampering.

You discuss the opinions based on subjective memories of doctors with out studying the facts formed from the available evidence. You outright refuse to study the evidence, and dismiss any you disagree with.

40 plus consistent eye witness observations is Slam Dunk evidence.

 

[jargon buster]

Robert, just one question from me, you do keep avoiding my posts and i know why

OK Robert, what relevance have the doctored photographs to do with a shooter on the grassy knoll?

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

The natural line above the chin may have something to do with it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, just one question from me, you do keep avoiding my posts and i know why

OK Robert, what relevance have the doctored photographs to do with a shooter on the grassy knoll?

You are late to the party, but I'll give you one more try. A large blow-out in the back of the head points to an exit wound from a shot from the front. If the autopsy pics don't show that, then they are a fraud with deception begin the reason for the fraud.

 

[Robert Prey]

Why do you find Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?" White's obvious (Logic 101) errors compelling?

How does the use of photogrammetry prove a rounded chin as square and a square chin as rounded?????

 

[jargon buster]

Forget those photos for the time being Robert, it's the "backyard" photos Im talking about.

Do the backyard photos point to there being a second shooter on the grassy knoll?