• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
What "expert" qualifications do your house panel members have other than having worked for the very Am. govt. intelligence organizations that are prime suspects in the crime and the cover-up????
Click to expand...


You really don't know much about the assassination, do you?

First off, the prime suspect is and will always be Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy who left his rifle behind on the sixth floor, had attempted the murder of another politician seven months earlier, and later the same day as the assassination, shot and killed police officer J.D.Tippit in cold blood. You don't get to name American intelligence agencies as prime suspects as long as all the hard evidence points to Oswald. You don't dispute the evidence points to Oswald, you simply claim it's all forged or altered, planted or substituted. Nonetheless, that's an admission by you the evidence points to Oswald.

Secondly, the panel was named after consulting with the American Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineeers.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations photographic panel consisted of these members:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0004b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0005a.htm

Working for the American Government in some capacity in the past makes everyone who did so suspect? Can you name any photographic expert who hasn't worked in some capacity for the American government - even on a consulting basis? Can you name some better qualified experts who should have been on the panel, but weren't?

If you cannot name anyone, then your protest is just complaining for the sake of complaining, because you can't name anyone who was at least as qualified as the members above, and had no affiliation at any time with American intelligence. Having worked for American Intelligence agencies should not be an automatic disqualifier, as you are simply assuming -- again -- what you need to prove: That American Intelligence agencies were behind the assassination and the [assumed by you] coverup.

PS: I said expert, so naming Jack White doesn't qualify. Robert Groden doesn't either, so don't even think of going there.

But to be fair, you asked for qualifications. I previously cited the work of C.S.McCamy in earlier posts, so let's go there. I googled his name and came up with a number of published papers in optical and photographic journals of science.

I also found this info on his background:

As Vice President for Research of the Macbeth Division of the Kollmorgen Corporation in 1970– 1990, after leaving NBS, McCamy continued research on optical design, precise transmission measurements, color measurement, optical filter design, simulation of daylight for color inspection, geometric attributes of appearance, densitometry in photography and color printing, color order systems, color standards, and related mathematics. He substantially improved the classical absolute method of photometry based on the inverse-square law of illumination, and he designed the Macbeth ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart, which is used internationally to evaluate color-imaging systems. At the request of Congress in 1978, he analyzed all known photographs and x rays related to the assassination of President Kennedy and testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. His method of analyzing images of long firearms is used routinely by the U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. He continued to be active in national and international standardization of photography, color printing, and color science, chairing committees of the American National Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). He wrote the spectral specifications for optical character recognition for the banking industry and the Universal Product Code for the grocery and other retail industries.

He is on the Advisory Board of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology and was Adjunct Professor at Rensselaer Poly-technic Institute, President of the Kollmorgen Foundation, and Trustee of the Munsell Foundation. He was elected fellow of the Optical Society of America, Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers, Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, and the Washington Academy of Sciences and has been honored for his lectures. He received the 1997 Bruning Award of the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology and the 1999 Godlove Award of the Inter-Society Color Council.

Scroll to the bottom of this to see some of McCamy's published papers:
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/html/145-148.html

You did ask what qualifications these guys had, right? Are you satisfied McCamy is a legitimate expert now?

Now, quote Jack White's "expert" photographic qualifications and let's compare it to McCamy's.

Or just admit you and he simply eyeballed the photos and didn't like what you saw.
Ergo, you [and he] concluded they were fakes.
It's okay, we already know that's exactly what you did.



Hank
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
In what way exactly does that explanation fail to answer your question? Or do you simply not understand the answer?
Click to expand...


"Baloney" is Robert's response when he is stuck for a rebuttal, whether it's because he doesn't understand or doesn't have any facts on his side. He will sometimes use "One question at a time", or some other equally dismissive nonsense to avoid responding to the points in a responsible, adult fashion.

It is as close to a concession that you will come from Robert, and I treat it as such.

Hank
 
Garrison said:
If you could be bothered to do any research you would find that JayUtah has dissected White's work in detail in the past, why should he do so again because of your laziness?
Click to expand...

Chiefly his Apollo claims, over the past 12 years. I was asked to do so again on camera a few years ago, for the stated program, but History Channel pulled the plug on the series before the pilot aired. Too bad too, because the host was Lewis Black.

Jack White simply cannot demonstrate any skill at what he purports to be good at, which is probably the reason his work is not considered anything but crackpottery outside of his small group of selected friends. Sure his friends think he's a genius, but they don't know anything about photographic analysis either. They just believe White when he says he does.

And this is not just Jay making sour-grapes claims with no support. I gave one example of White's gross ineptitude. Here's another: http://www.clavius.org/earthmt.html . These are elementary mistakes. These are not the kind of mistakes experts make. It would be like a supposed expert chef asking a diner how he wanted his steak tartare cooked.

To go into greater depth about the spatial reasoning problems, Jack White cannot tell which direction and Apollo lunar module is facing in any particular photo. Yes, we accept that it's a complex shape. But White made a particular claim that was based on thinking the LM was facing one way in a picture when it was in fact facing a different way. With a little help it's not hard to teach someone the key features of the LM, so that he can determine orientation. But White had none of it. Despite the most determined efforts, White still maintains that certain blatantly misidentified features work in his favor. And he repeats his "which way is the LM facing?" in several other claims, and in several other instances.

This is simply unacceptable. This is part of the photographic interpretation expertise that cannot be taught. It's like a ballerina with an inner-ear disorder, a pilot with a fear of heights, or a blind surgeon. Certain occupations simply require you to either possess or develop physical skills. Photographic interpretation, especially the kind that involves photogrammetry, requires highly-developed spatial reasoning skills. White lacks those. Without them, photographic interpretation is a non-starter for him.

So after 12 years of this, when someone tells me that Jack White is an expert because he has found some "anomalies," my first reaction is to guess which of the classic Jack White errors this gullible person has been fooled by. But sorry, Robert, you don't get to simply write me off as another "ad hominem attacker" who hasn't properly been introduced to White and his shenanigans.

And sadly, White is not above fabricating evidence either. We caught him trying compose an "identical" lunar skyline, to supposedly show how a backdrop had been used, by cutting and pasting different portions of different pictures together, not even from the same mission. There is no way that can be a simple "error."

Once you realize that Jack White is not an expert, then all his "anomalies" simply evaporate into a vapor of misleading claims. You realize that it's an "anomaly" only because White doesn't understand what's happening in the photo.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
And this is not just Jay making sour-grapes claims with no support. I gave one example of White's gross ineptitude. Here's another: http://www.clavius.org/earthmt.html . These are elementary mistakes. These are the kind of mistakes experts make. It would be like a supposed expert chef asking a diner how he wanted his steak tartare cooked.
Click to expand...


I think you meant "These are NOT the kind of mistakes experts make."

Otherwise Robert will quote that one phrase by you as a concession that Jack White IS an expert.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Jack White (and his disciple on this board) would probably claim that can't happen, and it's an altered photo:

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

Hank
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's exactly what White and Costella claimed about those exact photos. They maintain that what is depicted there "contradicts the laws of physics and therefore must be fake." It's sad, because the Converging Shadows photos are the easiest for people to reproduce with their own cameras. I can't imagine how White et al. can have their heads so far in the sand with stuff like this. I always try to be charitable, but White makes it difficult. The mistakes that lead to his "anomalies" are so obvious that White comes off looking either very dishonest or very inept.
 
Not directly, but since the fake backyard photos were created and published in order to brainwash the public into thinking that their noble government has solved the crime, and the dead perp did it all by himself, and all who claim otherwise are a bunch of loonies, then yes, the faked photos point to an attempt to deny there were any other shooters, including the possibility of grassy knoll shooters.
Click to expand...
So, the backyard photos do not in themselves indicate a shooter on the grassy knoll, thank you Robert.
I will concede that if the photos were doctored they were likelier doctored to link Oswald to the rifle as opposed to evidence of an additional assassin.
Do you agree or disagree?
The Direct Evidence of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll are the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, and the close up witnesses who claimed they heard and in some cases saw the flash from the Knoll.
Click to expand...
So your strongest evidence is the 40 plus witness statements?
Let me ask you this Robert, if you had 40 witnesses that said I had held up a liquor store and during the trial CCTV footage of someone else holding up the store on the day and time in question was presented by my defence, what do you think would happen?
Plus most of the autopsy witnesses as well who claimed the same observations as to the wounds as did the Parkland personnel.
Click to expand...
Again witness statements as opposed to photographic evidence?
Which is the strongest?

I know there are three questions there, so take your time Robert.
 
Last edited:
Robert, you do know that when you say baloney that we all know that you mean you don't understand the post you're quoting, right?


And I'm amazed that you still don't understand what an ad hom fallacy is even though it was clearly explained to you. Though given your track record I guess I really shouldn't be surprised at all that you don't understand something that simple. Obviously.
 
jargon buster said:
So, the backyard photos do not in themselves indicate a shooter on the grassy knoll, thank you Robert.
I will concede that if the photos were doctored they were likelier doctored to link Oswald to the rifle as opposed to evidence of an additional assassin.
Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I only address one question at a time. The answer to the first is well expressed by HSCA Chair Robert Blakely:

“If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.”
 
HSienzant said:
You really don't know much about the assassination, do you?

First off, the prime suspect is and will always be Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy who left his rifle behind on the sixth floor, had attempted the murder of another politician seven months earlier, and later the same day as the assassination, shot and killed police officer J.D.Tippit in cold blood. You don't get to name American intelligence agencies as prime suspects as long as all the hard evidence points to Oswald. You don't dispute the evidence points to Oswald, you simply claim it's all forged or altered, planted or substituted. Nonetheless, that's an admission by you the evidence points to Oswald.

Secondly, the panel was named after consulting with the American Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineeers.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations photographic panel consisted of these members:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0004b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0005a.htm

Working for the American Government in some capacity in the past makes everyone who did so suspect? Can you name any photographic expert who hasn't worked in some capacity for the American government - even on a consulting basis? Can you name some better qualified experts who should have been on the panel, but weren't?

If you cannot name anyone, then your protest is just complaining for the sake of complaining, because you can't name anyone who was at least as qualified as the members above, and had no affiliation at any time with American intelligence. Having worked for American Intelligence agencies should not be an automatic disqualifier, as you are simply assuming -- again -- what you need to prove: That American Intelligence agencies were behind the assassination and the [assumed by you] coverup.

PS: I said expert, so naming Jack White doesn't qualify. Robert Groden doesn't either, so don't even think of going there.

But to be fair, you asked for qualifications. I previously cited the work of C.S.McCamy in earlier posts, so let's go there. I googled his name and came up with a number of published papers in optical and photographic journals of science.

I also found this info on his background:

As Vice President for Research of the Macbeth Division of the Kollmorgen Corporation in 1970– 1990, after leaving NBS, McCamy continued research on optical design, precise transmission measurements, color measurement, optical filter design, simulation of daylight for color inspection, geometric attributes of appearance, densitometry in photography and color printing, color order systems, color standards, and related mathematics. He substantially improved the classical absolute method of photometry based on the inverse-square law of illumination, and he designed the Macbeth ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart, which is used internationally to evaluate color-imaging systems. At the request of Congress in 1978, he analyzed all known photographs and x rays related to the assassination of President Kennedy and testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. His method of analyzing images of long firearms is used routinely by the U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. He continued to be active in national and international standardization of photography, color printing, and color science, chairing committees of the American National Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). He wrote the spectral specifications for optical character recognition for the banking industry and the Universal Product Code for the grocery and other retail industries.

He is on the Advisory Board of the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology and was Adjunct Professor at Rensselaer Poly-technic Institute, President of the Kollmorgen Foundation, and Trustee of the Munsell Foundation. He was elected fellow of the Optical Society of America, Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers, Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, and the Washington Academy of Sciences and has been honored for his lectures. He received the 1997 Bruning Award of the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology and the 1999 Godlove Award of the Inter-Society Color Council.

Scroll to the bottom of this to see some of McCamy's published papers:
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/html/145-148.html

You did ask what qualifications these guys had, right? Are you satisfied McCamy is a legitimate expert now?

Now, quote Jack White's "expert" photographic qualifications and let's compare it to McCamy's.

Or just admit you and he simply eyeballed the photos and didn't like what you saw.
Ergo, you [and he] concluded they were fakes.
It's okay, we already know that's exactly what you did.

Hank
Click to expand...

So your definition of the word "expert" is what???
 
Robert Prey said:
I only address one question at a time. The answer to the first is well expressed by HSCA Chair Robert Blakely:

“If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.”
Click to expand...

Yeah I've highlighted the keyword there. So does Robert Blakely believe they were faked? And if so does he have any evidence to offer? Because you certainly haven't produced any.
 
I only address one question at a time. The answer to the first is well expressed by HSCA Chair Robert Blakely:

“If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.”
Click to expand...

Never mind what someone else says Robert, what do you think?
Do you think the photographs were made to link Oswald to the rifle or to hide the fact of the second shooter?

When are you going to answer the other two, I will keep asking them by the way.

Let me ask you this Robert, if you had 40 witnesses that said I had held up a liquor store and during the trial CCTV footage of someone else holding up the store on the day and time in question was presented by my defence, what do you think would happen?

Again witness statements as opposed to photographic evidence?
Which is the strongest?
Click to expand...
You see I unlike the others here dont allow you much leeway and as such you tend to avoid my posts, heres hoping you try and address my points.
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
If you could be bothered to do any research you would find that JayUtah has dissected White's work in detail in the past, why should he do so again because of your laziness?
Click to expand...

This is a discussion of Oswald Backyard Photos. Not the Apollo nor 9/11.
 
JayUtah said:
Subversion of support. The speculation of motive rests first on the body of the accusation, which is not yet established. The body of the accusation is the authenticity of the photos, which has been challenged only according to invalid ac hoc methods of disproven validity.



That is, at best, indirect evidence.



Again, at best indirect evidence. Direct evidence would be the capture of a man with a gun on the Grassy Knoll immediately following the incident. All the evidence to date amounts to nothing more than tidbits, interpreted as whole according to some as a body of evidence that there "must have been" such a gunman.

Please research the difference between evidence and induction/inference.
Click to expand...

And as to the alleged perp:

"We don't even have any evidence that Oswald even fired a rifle." --DPD chief Jesse Curry.
 
Robert Prey said:
So your definition of the word "expert" is what???
Click to expand...

Someone possessed of a high level of theoretical and practical experience on a subject. Someone who has the skills to evaluate a particular set of evidence and draw a reasoned conclusion; in short the precise opposite of Jack White. And frankly based on the content of your posts you yourself do not as such an expert however long you may have studied the Kennedy assassination, simply reading a lot of books on the topic is of no value if they aren't coupled to an ability to evaluate the material logically and sceptically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom