• 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.
jargon buster said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the non-medical witnesses at Parkland and the witnesses at Bethesda and on the scene at Dealey Plaza.
 
Robert Prey said:
White's expertise as it relates to anomalies in the backyard photos is evidenced by his demonstration of them.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning.

On the other hand, your expertise as it relates to the backyard photos is demonstrated by your avoidance of the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm not avoiding the subject. I'm questioning Jack White's ability to identify "anomalies" in photographs, as opposed to simply being ignorant of what actually is depicted. I've shown several examples of his demonstrable inability to do so, yet for some reason you ignore them and continue to profess that this is something Jack White is good at. I've also alluded to Jack White's explicit statement that he is unfamiliar with the science normally used to identify the kinds of anomalies he says he found. You ignore that as well.

What you want to characterize as my "avoidance" of the subject is my unwillingness to leap over the important part of the discussion -- Jack White's allegations of expertise in photographic analysis -- and accept without question the premise that he knows what he is talking about when he sees "anomalies." This sort of evasion is common among conspiracy theorists, who don't want certain portions of their claims examined. They only want to discuss the parts of their arguments they think are strong.

An anomaly is an observation that differs from the expected result. What one expects in the context of a specialized field depends heavily on what one knows about the field. What a layman expects is not necessarily what an expert may expect, given the expert's deeper and broader mastery of the field. Conspiracy theorists often wrongly assume that the little bit of layman's knowledge they profess is sufficient to establish proper expectations against which to measure observations. Experience shows this very much not to be the case. I have shown ample evidence that what Jack White considers "anomalies" are really gaps in his understanding and skill. Further, White in his testimony explicitly admits ignorance of the relevant field, and his "anomalies" are shown to be misunderstandings on his part due to that ignorance. Therefore you and White have the burden to prove that his "anomalies" are real anomalies and not just White being typically ignorant.

White simply does not have the appropriate knowledge to determine whether photographs are authentic based on alleged "anomalies" in them, and I have shown this to everyone else's reasonable satisfaction. The other experts in this field agree. And your inability to address that amply-demonstrated fact speaks volumes. You want to wallow in "anomalies" before you have proven that they are, in fact, anomalous.

Your "baloney" non-answers to my detailed posts suggest that you too lack the appropriate knowledge to determine the authenticity of photos through these methods. You alluded to your own study, but refused to answer whether experts have reviewed your work. I consider that suspicious. In fact, I consider it proof that you lack not only the skill to analyze photographs, but that you lack the skill to determine for yourself whether or not Jack White is similarly qualified.
 
Robert Prey said:
As it relates to specific evidence, you have nothing to offer.
Click to expand...


You haven't offered any evidence, Robert. Just speculation and uninformed opinion.

That's been pointed out to you in the past. You ignored it then. You will no doubt ignore it again.

Jack White's opinions of the photos are no better than mine. He's not an expert, as has been amply demonstrated, and your continuing to proclaim him as such is simply bizarre.

His opinions on the backyard photos carry no weight. Niether do yours. No matter how much you wish otherwise, it won't change. Clicking your Ruby shoes together won't change it, either.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


I see that JayUtah has already replied, so this will be brief.

That's classic circular reasoning, Robert.

Jack White hasn't demonstrated anything, as has been pointed out in print, in the HSCA volumes of evidence, since 1978.
Real experts studied those backyard photos and they dismissed all of White's claims as nonsense.

He even admitted he had no clue in his testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He told everyone -- and I know you read it, because you responded previously on this point -- that he didn't know how to take perspective into account when determining the length of the rifle!
He told Congress, "I don't indulge in that sort of thing." Remember?

He further admitted:
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?
Mr. WHITE. No.

White's expertise as it relates to photographic analysis is best evidenced by his testimony before Congress. He admitted he had none.

And when you resort to circular reasoning like your statement above to defend Jack White's supposed expertise it shows you have no evidence, and no clue either. There's no other way to say that.

Time for you to declare "Jack White needs no defense from me. His work stands on its own." and declare victory, Robert.

Sorry,
Hank
 
Last edited:
The single best piece of evidence of a shooter on the grassy knoll is .... a drawing, and even that blows your theory of a shooter from the grassy knoll, it would add weight to the theory of "the driver did it" but a shot from the right???
The exit wound would have been on the left wouldn't it?

Robert, you should stick to drawings of feet with holes in.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
If you want to wallow in brainwash, you shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Robert. You are the one making assertions unvalidated by evidence.

Im not wallowing, and it's not brainwash. Your best evidence appears to be accusations against other posters and a drawing.

Have fun wallowing, try to stop the projecting.

Are you ready for teacher yet?
 
Robert Prey said:
White's expertise as it relates to anomalies in the backyard photos is evidenced by his demonstration of them.
Click to expand...

No he claims such anomalies exist, it's been demonstrated he's wrong, you simply choose to ignore that and cling to your irrational beliefs
 
Garrison said:
No he claims such anomalies exist, it's been demonstrated he's wrong, you simply choose to ignore that and cling to your irrational beliefs
Click to expand...


NO. He demonstrates their existence. You, on the other hand, merely make assertions unsupported by any facts.
 
JayUtah said:
Circular reasoning.



I'm not avoiding the subject. I'm questioning Jack White's ability to identify "anomalies" in photographs, as opposed to simply being ignorant of what actually is depicted. I've shown several examples of his demonstrable inability to do so, yet for some reason you ignore them and continue to profess that this is something Jack White is good at. I've also alluded to Jack White's explicit statement that he is unfamiliar with the science normally used to identify the kinds of anomalies he says he found. You ignore that as well.

What you want to characterize as my "avoidance" of the subject is my unwillingness to leap over the important part of the discussion -- Jack White's allegations of expertise in photographic analysis -- and accept without question the premise that he knows what he is talking about when he sees "anomalies." This sort of evasion is common among conspiracy theorists, who don't want certain portions of their claims examined. They only want to discuss the parts of their arguments they think are strong.

An anomaly is an observation that differs from the expected result. What one expects in the context of a specialized field depends heavily on what one knows about the field. What a layman expects is not necessarily what an expert may expect, given the expert's deeper and broader mastery of the field. Conspiracy theorists often wrongly assume that the little bit of layman's knowledge they profess is sufficient to establish proper expectations against which to measure observations. Experience shows this very much not to be the case. I have shown ample evidence that what Jack White considers "anomalies" are really gaps in his understanding and skill. Further, White in his testimony explicitly admits ignorance of the relevant field, and his "anomalies" are shown to be misunderstandings on his part due to that ignorance. Therefore you and White have the burden to prove that his "anomalies" are real anomalies and not just White being typically ignorant.

White simply does not have the appropriate knowledge to determine whether photographs are authentic based on alleged "anomalies" in them, and I have shown this to everyone else's reasonable satisfaction. The other experts in this field agree. And your inability to address that amply-demonstrated fact speaks volumes. You want to wallow in "anomalies" before you have proven that they are, in fact, anomalous.

Your "baloney" non-answers to my detailed posts suggest that you too lack the appropriate knowledge to determine the authenticity of photos through these methods. You alluded to your own study, but refused to answer whether experts have reviewed your work. I consider that suspicious. In fact, I consider it proof that you lack not only the skill to analyze photographs, but that you lack the skill to determine for yourself whether or not Jack White is similarly qualified.
Click to expand...

It's an Ad Hominem Attack broken record. Absolutely nothing of substance but attack the man; avoid the evidence. Boring.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. He demonstrates their existence. You, on the other hand, merely make assertions unsupported by any facts.
Click to expand...

No, he demonstrates that his observations differ from his expectations. In this case it is because his expectations are in error. I have shown explicitly how White's expectations are in error, and you have failed to address it. I am not the only one to have demonstrated this. Your repeated evasion of those explanations does not entitle you to claim that anyone has made unsupported assertions.

White's is the type of error most common among those not properly qualified in the relevant field. White admits he is not trained in the relevant field, and indeed was unaware that such a field even existed. Admitted ignorance is not a position from which defensible expectations arise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom