• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
How sad for you not being able to let go of your irrational nonsensical conspiracy fictions.
 
HSienzant said:
l

Why don't you take up my challenge and name one person who was better qualified in 1978 to replace a member of the HSCA photographic panel who was left off the panel? Why don't you name one person who didn't have any association with, or ever perform any work for, the U.S. Intelligence community who was at least as qualified as the members who were on the panel?
Hank
Click to expand...


Detective Malcomb Thompson, Past Pres. of the Inst. of Incorporated Photographers in England and

Maj.John Pickard, Commander of the photographic Dept.at the Canadian Defense Dept.
 
BazBear said:
That made me think of the scene in Dr. Strangelove when Pickens (as B-52 commander Major Kong) inventories their survival kits, then says to his co-pilot "Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff." The city he said while filming was Dallas, but after the JFK assassination they had Slim overdub it with Vegas.
Click to expand...
Kubrick... altered... the film?!

This JFK conspiracy is a vast as vest gets!
 
Robert Prey said:
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. 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. 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...
Olive loaf.
 
HSienzant said:
Robert, when we discuss anything on the assassination, do I strike you as an unknowledgeable sort who is just spouting something I've read someplace, or do seem relatively knowledgable about the assassination?

PS: I've read over 500 books on the subject, most of which are conspiracy books. But I actually researched the claims therein. That's where you and I differ. You read, for the most part, the same conspiracy books I do. But you accept the claims, I research them and make up my own mind based on the facts.

Hank
Click to expand...

Funny that after reading 500 books on the subject, you still can't account for the fact that 40 plus Medical Witnesses observed a large blow-out in the back of JFK's head -- other than to theorize that they must either all be crazy, or lying, or both.
 
Robert Prey said:
Funny that after reading 500 books on the subject, you still can't account for the fact that 40 plus Medical Witnesses observed a large blow-out in the back of JFK's head -- other than to theorize that they must either all be crazy, or lying, or both.
Click to expand...

Amazing. Back in post 1405 of this thread, back in November,it was 30 witnesses. Robert found 10 more witnesses in the last 4 months, 50 years after the assassination? What an amazing discovery! Why didn't you tell us, Robert?

Of course, most of the 30 witnesses you listed in post 1405 have been shown to say something entirely different. Not that Robert cares.
 
Robert Prey said:
So your definition of the word "expert" is what???
Click to expand...

  1. The expert possess all the following as they pertain to some well-defined field of study or practice:
    1. Knowledge - the comprehensive body of accumulated fact, technique, and behavior that applies to the field.
    2. Judgment - the ability to apply the knowledge widely and appropriately to problems in the field with satisfactory results.
    3. Skill - the ability to execute proficiently the methods and techniques of the field.
  2. The expert's proficiency is demonstrated by some objective and externalized means of adjudiction. Such means include, but are not limited to:
    1. An academic degree or certificate granted by an accredited entity.
    2. Long-term successful professional employment in the field.
    3. Creation of an significant original contribution to the field.
  3. The expert's proficiency is widely recognized by other practitioners in the field, and in the world at large.

Jack White meets few if any of these criteria in the field of photographic analysis. He is largely ignorant of the facts that apply (e.g., projective geometry), the models and methods, and underlying principles. His judgment, as indicated, is clearly compromised by ego. He fails to show not only the expert level of skill in spatial reasoning, but even an ordinary level. His key skills are below average. He demonstrates no adjudicated proficiency. Yes, he has worked in photograph darkrooms etc. but he can certify to no proficiency in the type of photographic analysis he undertakes. None of his schooling or professional experience includes the requisite skills. He does write and speak prodigiously, but it does not contribute to the field of photographic analysis. Producing large amounts of nonsense does not constitute a significant contribution. Finally, he has no stature in the field at large. He is seen as "authoritative" only within the very narrow confines of conspiracism, only among a carefully chosen audience that applies no discrimination except by ideology.
 
HSienzant said:
Costella has a degree in physics. He has no training in photography or film.
Here's someone (Craig Lamson) who disagrees with Costella, and has training in photography:
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, this is the critique I helped Lamson put together. He consulted me on it, although I confess I didn't read his final analysis. Lamson is a first-rate photographer and quite knowledgeable about analytical techniques as well.

[ETA My mistake, this is not the study I helped Lamson author. It was something altogether different. --JU]
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Funny that after reading 500 books on the subject, you still can't account for the fact that 40 plus Medical Witnesses observed a large blow-out in the back of JFK's head -- other than to theorize that they must either all be crazy, or lying, or both.
Click to expand...


None of the above. And it's a falsehood for you to ascribe either of those explanations to me, because I've never said anything of the sort. More dishonesty on your part, Robert.

Memory plays tricks on people.

Here's something else you will want to avoid learning:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm

You can add that to the pile of other stuff you refused to learn that exposes your beliefs as nonsense.

You do realize that in many of those cases of the witnesses you are citing, the first mention of a wound in the back of the head came years - or decades - after the assassination, right?

But since you have no other evidence other than some witnesses recollections, it is important that you keep your immunity up by refusing to learn how memory works, as that might cause you to actually question your conclusions on this subject.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Detective Malcomb Thompson, Past Pres. of the Inst. of Incorporated Photographers in England and

Maj.John Pickard, Commander of the photographic Dept.at the Canadian Defense Dept.
Click to expand...

Please post their qualifications and who you would replace on the panel. Remember the challenge was you must not just name two people, but two people better qualified; or two people equally qualified but with no connection ever with American intelligence.

You raised the point that the entire panel was picked solely because of their connections to American Intelligence, and had no qualifications otherwise. Which two members would you remove, and why?

Hank
 
bynmdsue said:
Okay okay Jack White's wrong about the moon photos, BUT HE'S TOTALLY RIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO NEELY ST.!!1!
Click to expand...

That seems to be the course Robert is pursuing. I'm not trying to hijack this into an Apollo thread. However if I'm going to explain my position regarding White's expertise, that's the best data I have. It pertains because the errors White makes are irrespective of the subject matter; they are not going to improve if you change what the picture was taken of. His inability, for example, to normalize the image-space scale of photographs prior to comparison is a problem in general, not a problem with Apollo photos specifically.

After reading those clavius pages I have to wonder if Jack White's ever used a camera.
Click to expand...

Frankly that's the opinion many people reach. And it is why he has no stature in the field, and is roundly dismissed as a buffoon. As I said, I aim for the the most charitable explanation. I could say in some cases that White is deliberately misleading and obtuse, but I have no evidence that this is his motive. So the mildest implication I can apply is that he simply errs. But these are then errors of such colossal magnitude that one wonders how a rational man can continue making them. When I say White's analysis is inept, I mean grossly inept. Hence the conclusion others draw is that he's deliberately misleading.

Or... he knows he's wrong and he's in it for the money.
Click to expand...

In my experience few conspiracy theorists are motivated solely by money. Yes, some of them receive substantial income that is tied to the degree of belief in their theories. This creates some pecuniary motive. But all the ones I know about maintain separate sources of income that I presume are larger and more stable.

Notoreity seems to be a better hypothesis for motivation. That is, I think White merely seeks attention. And there are plenty of people, it seems, quite willing to give it to him (for undeserved reasons).

Does he know he's wrong? At some level that would have to be yes. He goes to great lengths to insulate himself from criticism. He seeks to silence or shame his critics rather than investigate whether their criticism has merit. He ignores contrary evidence, even when it is clear that he has been exposed to it. These are not the actions of a man who honestly believes that his findings are supported by available fact.

However, speculating on motive is never easy and rarely useful. Hence at some other level White may actually believe his own hype. He may indeed see his sycophantic following as representing the world at large, or at least a larger segment than it is. People on the fringe often find ways to make that fringe their functional reality.

But neither is an important consideration. Regardless why White does what he does, he is decidedly not an expert. There simply is no question about it when the matter is considered at the professional level.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I don't go running off to read stuff without a point being raised. If you have a point regarding one of White's anomaly theories, state it. What is your point?
Click to expand...


I think the article makes the point nicely, and I don't have to add a thing.

A pity you'll be in ignorance about it for the rest of your life since you won't read it, however.

Your loss, not mine.

Alternately, ignorance really is bliss, I guess.

Hank
 
Ahem......Robert, your failure to respond speaks volumes.

  1. Do you think the backyard photographs were made to link Oswald to the rifle or to hide the fact of the second shooter?
  2. 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?
  3. Again 40 witness statements as opposed to photographic evidence, which is the strongest?
 
JayUtah said:
  1. The expert possess all the following as they pertain to some well-defined field of study or practice:
    1. Knowledge - the comprehensive body of accumulated fact, technique, and behavior that applies to the field.
    2. Judgment - the ability to apply the knowledge widely and appropriately to problems in the field with satisfactory results.
    3. Skill - the ability to execute proficiently the methods and techniques of the field.
  2. The expert's proficiency is demonstrated by some objective and externalized means of adjudiction. Such means include, but are not limited to:
    1. An academic degree or certificate granted by an accredited entity.
    2. Long-term successful professional employment in the field.
    3. Creation of an significant original contribution to the field.
  3. The expert's proficiency is widely recognized by other practitioners in the field, and in the world at large.
Click to expand...

Those are all subjective and ambiguous attributes. Compare Jack White's experience and non-degrees with this other guy from the Panel and I just don't see much difference.

"David B. Eisendrath, a photographer, writer and lecturer known for his understanding of photographic principles and techniques, died of a heart attack Monday. He was 73 years old and lived in Brooklyn.

Mr. Eisendrath was born in Chicago in 1914. He began photographing while a student at the University of Chicago and after graduating in 1937 worked as a staff photographer for The Chicago Times. In 1940 he moved to New York to join the picture staff of the newspaper P.M. During World War II he worked in the Office of War Information as a photojournalist for America magazine.

After the war he became a freelance photographer, specializing in industrial subjects. At the same time, he began to write and lecture about his craft. His columns, which appeared in the magazines Popular Photography, Industrial Photography and Photo Methods for Industry, were admired for conveying often abstruse subject matter understandably. At the time of his death he was a contributing editor of Modern Photography.


Mr. Eisendrath was a member of the American Society of Magazine Photographers and the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers, and he was a fellow of the Photographic Society of America."

* * *

Mr. BLAKEY. "Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr.
Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied
the backyard photographs for over 10 years.
Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor
from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice
president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm.
Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for
over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction, including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic
arts."

** *

Thus, seems to me "expertise" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Rich_C said:
Amazing. Back in post 1405 of this thread, back in November,it was 30 witnesses. Robert found 10 more witnesses in the last 4 months, 50 years after the assassination? What an amazing discovery! Why didn't you tell us, Robert?

Of course, most of the 30 witnesses you listed in post 1405 have been shown to say something entirely different. Not that Robert cares.
Click to expand...

All depends who you count. Medical witnesses at Parkland. Other witnesses at Parkland. Medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. All witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza, etc.,

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
 
All depends who you count. Medical witnesses at Parkland. Other witnesses at Parkland. Medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. All witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza, etc.,
Click to expand...
Well we have the medical witnesses at Parkland, then we have the medical witnesses at Parkland, then we have the medical witnesses at Parkland,then we have the medical witnesses at Parkland, and of course not forgetting the medical witnesses at Parkland.

Robert, mentioning the same witnesses more than once doesnt actually increase the number of witnesses.
 
Robert Prey said:
All depends who you count. Medical witnesses at Parkland. Other witnesses at Parkland. Medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda. All witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza, etc.,

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
Click to expand...

Can they be validated by material evidence?
If not, why should we care about their faliable memories when the available evidence disproves their claims?
 
Oh and why would you want to "teach" people if you arent looking to convince us of your claims?

Flip flopped again Robert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom