JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[jargon buster]

Can they be validated by material evidence?
If not, why should we care about their faliable memories when the available evidence disproves their claims?

I remember as a child we jumped off the rocks into the quarry pond during the summer, it was at least a 100 foot drop , my mate showed me some photos recently and it was only about 20 feet to the water.

 

[Rich_C]

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.

Maybe it depends on what number you have made up out of nowhere.

I see absolutely no evidence of 4 witnesses, much less 40.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I remember as a child we jumped off the rocks into the quarry pond during the summer, it was at least a 100 foot drop , my mate showed me some photos recently and it was only about 20 feet to the water.

Its not as though Psychology hasn't proven the human memory to be mutable and unreliable for years. Or as though we all encounter evidence o this almost every day. How many times have you found a door unlocked you swore was bolted when you went out? Or had somebody comment a film had seemed scarier last time they saw it? Or confused twocases?


They have to be validated.

 

[Southwind17]

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

Robert, my earlier post:

Robert, you're splitting hairs now in a desperate attempt to avoid severe embarrassment. The profile of most chins, including Oswald's, as demonstrated by the mug shots, and as you well know, transfers from essentially vertical to essentially horizontal. Hence the shadow line from an elevated light source, (the sun, in the case of the Oswald photo) occurs at a point somewhere before essentially true horizontal, i.e. well in advance of the neck, namely still on the chin. Get it? Or would a simple line diagram help?

Would you like that line diagram, or not?

So your definition of the word "expert" is what???

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.

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."

So, Robert, it seems that White's 'expertise' pertinent to the photos in question emanates from, precisely:

1. his 'study' of the backyard photographs for over 10 years; and
2. his 'extensive work' in photographic reproduction.

You do realize that these are the exact same attributes held by any JFK conspiracist who happens to work the photoprint machine in the local Walmart? How would you translate this into your definition of an 'expert'? Please proffer your definition, Robert, so as we're all clear here where you set the bar.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

Is that teacher the "Professor of Drastically Clinging to Selected Eyewitnesses Because That's All I Have" that I've heard tell of?

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

Are you still laboring under the arrogant delusion that you are even remotely qualified to teach anybody anything despite the blatant ignorance you have demonstrated throughout this thread?

 

[RoboTimbo]

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

Please stop handing me my ass when I humiliate myself.

ftfy

 

[jargon buster]

Ahem...Robert could I take you back to this

Here's a question I submit no one dare answer: What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving a lone assassin shooter on the grassy knoll? On previous JFK boards, no one dare answer betraying (A. a lack of scholarship on the subject, or (B. a retreat into the fog of a thousand pieces of evidenciary minutia, not one piece of which holds up under scrutiny..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7712220&postcount=13
Care to answer that?

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

Maj Pickard was an Aerospace Engineering Officer. Yes, he commanded the CF Photo Unit, but the CO is generally not involved in either taking, developing, or interpreting images. His Role is to administer the unit.

The successor to the CF Photo Unit CF Joint Imagery Centre does have those functions but that functionality was not taken up until 2001.

 

[JayUtah]

Those are all subjective and ambiguous attributes.

No, that is one definition commonly used in a court of law in the United States, which applies to many situations. Regardless of your persistent denial, photographic analysis is a well-defined field practiced by a body of professionals according to scientifically derived techniques and methods. Proficiency in the field can be measured objectively by external standards.

Compare Jack White's experience and non-degrees with this other guy...

No. The question is not whether some other person is qualified. The question is whether Jack White is qualified.

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.

That is not a test of proficiency. One may "study" in ignorance for any number of years. There is no evidence that White studied the backyard photo -- or any photo of any kind -- according to valid and proven techniques. In fact there is considerable evidence that he did not.

Further, the specific type of analysis White attempted to perform is a well-developed science. White himself disclaimed even knowledge of what that science was, much less proficiency in it. And since you're quoting from the source in which he made this disclaimer, I'll assume you're familiar with it.

Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor
from the Texas Christian University in 1949.

This course of study does not include photographic analysis or any of the attendant sciences.

Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm.

This does not engage him professionally in photographic analysis.

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."

None of this establishes White as having any proficiency in photographic analysis.

Thus, seems to me "expertise" is in the eye of the beholder.

No, expertise can be measured externally. That is the basis of professional licensure, for example. Sorry, you don't get to ask for the definition of an expert, then turn tail and say there's no such thing as an expert when the definition fails to include your desired pseudo-authority.

None of White's documented or claimed professional or academic activities qualifies him to perform the type of analysis he attempted on the backyard photo, which is the same type of analysis he attempted on the Apollo photos and many other photos pertaining to well-known conspiracy theories. White has never attempted any photographic analysis outside his conspiracy-theory activities, or been recognized by any professional, academic, or scientific organization as having any skill in that area.

Further, I have posted several examples of White's ineptitude, which you have entirely ignored.

 

[JayUtah]

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

I've appeared, but you don't appear to be ready.

Would you care to go back to all my posts to which you answered "baloney" and give a real answer?

 

[HSienzant]

I remember as a child we jumped off the rocks into the quarry pond during the summer, it was at least a 100 foot drop , my mate showed me some photos recently and it was only about 20 feet to the water.

Yeah, I had the same feeling when I went back to the old baseball field where I legged out two triples one day. It was no larger than my present day backyard, but at the time, it felt enormous.

The world is shrinking. That would also explain the red shift in stars. They aren't rushing away from us; we're shrinking away from them.

Hank

 

[Multivac]

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.”

Hilighted the important word in that sentence.

ETA: missed that Garrison had already done the same. Too slow!

 

[Robert Prey]

I've appeared, but you don't appear to be ready.

Would you care to go back to all my posts to which you answered "baloney" and give a real answer?

As it relates to specific evidence, you have nothing to offer.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, that is one definition commonly used in a court of law in the United States, which applies to many situations. Regardless of your persistent denial, photographic analysis is a well-defined field practiced by a body of professionals according to scientifically derived techniques and methods. Proficiency in the field can be measured objectively by external standards.



No. The question is not whether some other person is qualified. The question is whether Jack White is qualified.



That is not a test of proficiency. One may "study" in ignorance for any number of years. There is no evidence that White studied the backyard photo -- or any photo of any kind -- according to valid and proven techniques. In fact there is considerable evidence that he did not.

Further, the specific type of analysis White attempted to perform is a well-developed science. White himself disclaimed even knowledge of what that science was, much less proficiency in it. And since you're quoting from the source in which he made this disclaimer, I'll assume you're familiar with it.



This course of study does not include photographic analysis or any of the attendant sciences.



This does not engage him professionally in photographic analysis.



None of this establishes White as having any proficiency in photographic analysis.



No, expertise can be measured externally. That is the basis of professional licensure, for example. Sorry, you don't get to ask for the definition of an expert, then turn tail and say there's no such thing as an expert when the definition fails to include your desired pseudo-authority.

None of White's documented or claimed professional or academic activities qualifies him to perform the type of analysis he attempted on the backyard photo, which is the same type of analysis he attempted on the Apollo photos and many other photos pertaining to well-known conspiracy theories. White has never attempted any photographic analysis outside his conspiracy-theory activities, or been recognized by any professional, academic, or scientific organization as having any skill in that area.

Further, I have posted several examples of White's ineptitude, which you have entirely ignored.

White's expertise as it relates to anomalies in the backyard photos is evidenced by his demonstration of them. On the other hand, your expertise as it relates to the backyard photos is demonstrated by your avoidance of the subject.

 

[Robert Prey]

Ahem...Robert could I take you back to this

Ahem...Robert could I take you back to this
Quote:
Here's a question I submit no one dare answer: What is the one single strongest piece of evidence proving an assassin shooter on the grassy knoll? O

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7712220&postcount=13
Care to answer that?

 

[HSienzant]

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."

His resume sounds pretty impressive relative to photography.

He's a member of a number of groups dedicated to photography (not conspiracy), he's been published in photography magazines (not conspiracy books) on the subject of photography (not conspiracy) and, oh yeah, he's lectured and written about photography (not conspiracy).

Sounds pretty impressive to me.

What does Jack White have in the *photographic* field to compare to this?

Is he a member of any group dedicated to photography?
No.

Has he been published on the subject of photography in photography magazines?
No.

Has he written and lectured on the subject of photography?
No.

So he's got none of the qualifications of Eisendrath.
His photographic resume doesn't compare to Eisendrath's.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[EventHorizon]

As it relates to specific evidence, you have nothing to offer.

White's expertise as it relates to anomalies in the backyard photos is evidenced by his demonstration of them. On the other hand, your expertise as it relates to the backyard photos is demonstrated by your avoidance of the subject.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

And Robert clearly demonstrates that the student is not ready.

 

[Robert Prey]

Maybe it depends on what number you have made up out of nowhere.

I see absolutely no evidence of 4 witnesses, much less 40.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As it relates to specific evidence, you have nothing to offer.