• 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:
It's an Ad Hominem Attack broken record.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If you can't be bothered to learn the difference between an ad hominem argument and a voir dire of expertise, that's your problem. The rest of the world learned it a long time ago: if you profess to be an expert, but you can't walk the walk, then you don't get to have your opinions respected as those of an expert. That's the way the world works whether you like it or not.

Absolutely nothing of substance but attack the man; avoid the evidence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. White's "evidence" is his opinion that certain features of the photograph are not as they should be. Unfortunately, White's concept of "as they should be" is flawed -- demonstrably so. You want to skip over the part where White has to justify the validity of his expectations. I won't let you do it.

White himself purports to be an expert. He himself claims that the strength of his argument lies in his ability to identify anomalies in a photographs. In fact he won't stop crowing about how "dangerous" he is in this respect. So when that's the basis White identifies as the strength of his argument, how am I amiss in examining it?

No, you just don't want to face the real-world nature of expertise. You want to pretend that White's claim somehow stands on its own as a separate entity, independent of anything or anyone else. That's not how White presented it, and that's not how I address it. I address it on the same basis as White established: that White himself knows what should and shouldn't be the case in photos. I've shown that he does not have the ability he claims to have. You have no rejoinder other than to whine about my supposed shabby treatment of your hero.

You don't get to ask people to explain the "anomalies" until you've first proven that they are anomalies. "Because Jack White said so" is not proof.

Boring.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry the real world does not excite you. Please kindly retreat into your fantasy world.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. He demonstrates their existence. You, on the other hand, merely make assertions unsupported by any facts.
Click to expand...

Really? I think I offered up some decent evidence that the assertions about the face shape are nothing to do with tampering and entirely the result of lighting. Jack Whit has no expertise in photographic analysis, that is an established fact. That you don't like certain facts does not allow you to dismiss them as assertions.

Again I must point out that if your intention is to convince people of your conspiracy theory you appear to be failing badly.
 
Perhaps a concrete example. White discusses the identity of the rifle in the backyard photo. He says certain points on the depiction of the rifle in the photo should have a certain geometrical relationship deriving from measurements taken of the rifle itself and of the rifle as depicted in other photos. He observes that they do not, in the background photo, and concludes that the backyard photo does not depict the rifle in question. That is, he lays out a certain expectation, notes a departure in the data from that expectation, and forms an opinion of what explains that departure.

However, proficient experts were able to point out that White's expected geometric distribution of points (his "control network," in the language of the profession) did not account for certain principles of projective geometry. Expert photographic analysts are trained in projective geometry, but White was not. Therefore he was unaware of the effect and did not factor that into his expectations. Therefore his opinion of why the observations differed from his expectations was not an informed opinion.

It is not ad hominem to note that White's expectations were naive and that his "anomaly" in this case was his own misunderstanding. It is simply a failure to demonstrate the claimed expertise. Conspiracy theorists don't want to face this fact. They want to pretend that White's expectations are objectively valid and do not require any justification. This omits an examination of half the argument!

In syllogism:
Authentic photos should display Property X
This photo does not display Property X, therefore
This photo is not authentic.​

Under what miscarriage of logic would we fail to examine the major premise of this argument to see if it is valid? Conspiracy theorists want to believe that the major premise is self-evident. But in this case it isn't; it is an assertion made by one of the layman proponents, on the basis of his own incomplete knowledge. Experts, who have better knowledge, know that this major premise isn't universally true. Hence the line of reasoning doesn't hold.

When a proponent demonstrates his inability to identify what properties an authentic photo should display, then his opinion of what constitutes an authentic photo based on his flawed understanding does not get to stand without being questioned. Hence he bears the burden to prove that his understanding is sufficiently grounded to establish rules for authentic photos. Since White didn't satisfy that burden of proof, his argument dies right there. Conspiracy theorists' fervent desire to avoid questions about the validity of their expectations does not matter.
 
Robert, you've run like a rabbit from this question. Time to put on your big boy pants and answer it.

Why do you put such credence in Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?" White's obvious (Logic 101) errors?
 
Robert, who cares about a drawing? I WAS THERE. Is your case that you pretend to believe in really so lacking in evidence that you can't deal with a single eyewitness, or even acknowledge I exist?
 
Southwind17 said:
Please proffer your definition, Robert, so as we're all clear here where you set the bar.
Click to expand...
Robert, we seem to be going round in circles regarding the veracity of Jack White's testimony. Your argument seems to depend on your belief that Jack White is appropriately qualified to comment on the backyard photos, ergo what he sees as anomalies is unquestionable.

We might be able to resolve this if you were to proffer your definition of an 'expert', or alternatively if you were to explain what attributes Jack White beholds that you consider render him suitably placed to draw valid conclusions from his examination of the photos, and to whom we should, hence, all defer.

So far his credentials seem to amount to the apparent fact that he has simply 'studied' the photos and that he has worked extensively in photo reproduction, neither of which I, and possibly nobody here, including yourself, is able to confirm, I suspect, although I have little reason to doubt it.

Regardless, please explain what it is about Jack White that leads you to put your unquestioning faith in him.

BTW - I 'studied' what at the time was termed 'Advance Level' pure mathematics at college (under-graduate). Failed miserably - just didn't get most of it. Am I an expert by virtue of my studies? You tell me, Robert.
 
JayUtah said:
Perhaps a concrete example. White discusses the identity of the rifle in the backyard photo. He says certain points on the depiction of the rifle in the photo should have a certain geometrical relationship deriving from measurements taken of the rifle itself and of the rifle as depicted in other photos. He observes that they do not, in the background photo, and concludes that the backyard photo does not depict the rifle in question. That is, he lays out a certain expectation, notes a departure in the data from that expectation, and forms an opinion of what explains that departure.

However, proficient experts were able to point out that White's expected geometric distribution of points (his "control network," in the language of the profession) did not account for certain principles of projective geometry. Expert photographic analysts are trained in projective geometry, but White was not. Therefore he was unaware of the effect and did not factor that into his expectations. Therefore his opinion of why the observations differed from his expectations was not an informed opinion.

It is not ad hominem to note that White's expectations were naive and that his "anomaly" in this case was his own misunderstanding. It is simply a failure to demonstrate the claimed expertise. Conspiracy theorists don't want to face this fact. They want to pretend that White's expectations are objectively valid and do not require any justification. This omits an examination of half the argument!

In syllogism:
Authentic photos should display Property X
This photo does not display Property X, therefore
This photo is not authentic.​

Under what miscarriage of logic would we fail to examine the major premise of this argument to see if it is valid? Conspiracy theorists want to believe that the major premise is self-evident. But in this case it isn't; it is an assertion made by one of the layman proponents, on the basis of his own incomplete knowledge. Experts, who have better knowledge, know that this major premise isn't universally true. Hence the line of reasoning doesn't hold.

When a proponent demonstrates his inability to identify what properties an authentic photo should display, then his opinion of what constitutes an authentic photo based on his flawed understanding does not get to stand without being questioned. Hence he bears the burden to prove that his understanding is sufficiently grounded to establish rules for authentic photos. Since White didn't satisfy that burden of proof, his argument dies right there. Conspiracy theorists' fervent desire to avoid questions about the validity of their expectations does not matter.
Click to expand...
Excellent response, Jay. Predicted Robert Prey reply: Baloney.
 
JayUtah:

In all seriousness, I'm enjoying your posts. Intellectual, yet comprehensible-to-a-layman (like me). I have no way of knowing, but I suspect your efforts are wasted on Mr. Prey.

Someone, in effect, stated the Shroud of Turin reveals the negative image of Jesus of Nazareth. Imagine! It's much more sexy to think that's true than for it to be of some random corpse or even an ancient prank. One can marshall plenty of expertise to debunk the claim, but the true believer, invested with no shortage of ego, will have nothing of it. Much the same, I think, with regard to JFK, the moon landings, 9/11, etc.

Now, Mr. Prey might very well know what he offers is worthless, if not corrupt; he might have some kind of "rage against the man" agenda. Who knows. But if he's sincere, in the face of logic, rationality, and even a liberal dose of common sense, he's probably too far gone.

Or maybe...in his life...he's always been far away.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
JayUtah:

In all seriousness, I'm enjoying your posts. Intellectual, yet comprehensible-to-a-layman (like me). I have no way of knowing, but I suspect your efforts are wasted on Mr. Prey.
Click to expand...
'No way of knowing'? Oh, I think we can all hazard a good guess!

Regnad Kcin said:
Now, Mr. Prey might very well know what he offers is worthless, if not corrupt; he might have some kind of "rage against the man" agenda. Who knows. But if he's sincere, in the face of logic, rationality, and even a liberal dose of common sense, he's probably too far gone.
Click to expand...
'Common sense'? Be careful with that, RK. Robert seems to defer to a different dictionary from the rest of us for his definitions. Unless something makes perfect 'Robert sense' it can pretty much be considered 'baloney'!
 
I thought I'd have a go at dot-pointing the pertinent features of Robert's current position thus:

  • Robert's argument is based wholly on witness statements, both eye witnesses and 'expert' witnesses, believing that witness statements trump physical evidence
  • Robert fails to either understand and/or acknowledge the fallibility of eye witnesses
  • Robert fails to understand and appreciate that somebody called as an 'expert witness' isn't necessarily an expert, or even competent
  • Robert fails to understand the meaning of the following:
    • Ad Hominem
    • Common sense
    • Expert
  • Robert fails to understand and appreciate the principle of cause and effect, electing to draw tenuous conclusions from indirectly related information
  • Robert fails to understand and appreciate the fallacy of begging the question and circular arguments
  • Robert believes that one becomes expert by simply looking long and hard
  • Robert believes that if something doesn't accord with his preferred version of events then that thing has necessarily been tampered with
  • Robert believes that science is all about repetition
  • Robert's response to this will probably be 'baloney'
Have I overlooked anything?!
 
EventHorizon said:
Yes you have. I would add to this list proof, physical evidence, speculation and hearsay. There's probably a lot more too.
Click to expand...

I would add medical evidence. Your witness being a doctor, even if he drew a picture, does. Not make something medical evidence. Documentation of accurate measurement does make medical evidence. I would also suggest that Roberts misunderstanding of "professional opinion" from another thread compounds this. Oh, and if the drawing makes a"simple" left to right mistake, it is by definition flawed, and open to the possibility of a frontto back mistake. Or JFK to Tippit.
 
Southwind17 said:
I thought I'd have a go at dot-pointing the pertinent features of Robert's current position thus:

  • Robert's argument is based wholly on witness statements, both eye witnesses and 'expert' witnesses, believing that witness statements trump physical evidence
  • Robert fails to either understand and/or acknowledge the fallibility of eye witnesses
  • Robert fails to understand and appreciate that somebody called as an 'expert witness' isn't necessarily an expert, or even competent
  • Robert fails to understand the meaning of the following:
    • Ad Hominem
    • Common sense
    • Expert
  • Robert fails to understand and appreciate the principle of cause and effect, electing to draw tenuous conclusions from indirectly related information
  • Robert fails to understand and appreciate the fallacy of begging the question and circular arguments
  • Robert believes that one becomes expert by simply looking long and hard
  • Robert believes that if something doesn't accord with his preferred version of events then that thing has necessarily been tampered with
  • Robert believes that science is all about repetition
  • Robert's response to this will probably be 'baloney'
Have I overlooked anything?!
Click to expand...



 
Southwind17 said:
Robert, we seem to be going round in circles regarding the veracity of Jack White's testimony. Your argument seems to depend on your belief that Jack White is appropriately qualified to comment on the backyard photos, ergo what he sees as anomalies is unquestionable.

We might be able to resolve this if you were to proffer your definition of an 'expert', or alternatively if you were to explain what attributes Jack White beholds that you consider render him suitably placed to draw valid conclusions from his examination of the photos, and to whom we should, hence, all defer.

So far his credentials seem to amount to the apparent fact that he has simply 'studied' the photos and that he has worked extensively in photo reproduction, neither of which I, and possibly nobody here, including yourself, is able to confirm, I suspect, although I have little reason to doubt it.

Regardless, please explain what it is about Jack White that leads you to put your unquestioning faith in him.

BTW - I 'studied' what at the time was termed 'Advance Level' pure mathematics at college (under-graduate). Failed miserably - just didn't get most of it. Am I an expert by virtue of my studies? You tell me, Robert.
Click to expand...

I do not place faith in Jack White or any other alleged "expert" but in the Evidence itself, a difficult concept for those who worship at the feet of Authority and "expert" assertions.. Nor do I subscribe to all of what Jack White professes concerning the B/Y photo anomalies. But some of what he has has demonstrated is irrefutable by the "science" of simple observation.
 
Robert Prey said:
I do not place faith in Jack White or any other alleged "expert" but in the Evidence itself, a difficult concept for those who worship at the feet of Authority and "expert" assertions.. Nor do I subscribe to all of what Jack White professes concerning the B/Y photo anomalies. But some of what he has has demonstrated is irrefutable by the "science" of simple observation.
Click to expand...
Please explain what 'evidence', exactly, you are alluding to that does not simply constitute a view or opinion of Jack White. Please identify to us exactly what anomalies you consider Jack White has demonstrated that you believe are irrefutable, and why. The more specific you are in your response the more meaningful the ensuing discussion will be, hopefully.

BTW - I'm not sure 'simple observation' can validly be described as a 'science'.
 
Robert Prey said:
I do not place faith in Jack White or any other alleged "expert" but in the Evidence itself, a difficult concept for those who worship at the feet of Authority and "expert" assertions.. Nor do I subscribe to all of what Jack White professes concerning the B/Y photo anomalies. But some of what he has has demonstrated is irrefutable by the "science" of simple observation.
Click to expand...

So you havent validated his claims, and defended his expertise despite this view?


Flip flop.
 
Southwind17 said:
Please explain what 'evidence', exactly, you are alluding to that does not simply constitute a view or opinion of Jack White. Please identify to us exactly what anomalies you consider Jack White has demonstrated that you believe are irrefutable, and why. The more specific you are in your response the more meaningful the ensuing discussion will be, hopefully.

BTW - I'm not sure 'simple observation' can validly be described as a 'science'.
Click to expand...

There are several. But there is no point in going into all of them when the one already alluded to has not been refuted -- that would be the square chin in the b/y photos as compared to the rounded chin in his mugshot. If you can refute that simple observation by claiming that the person who points out this anomaly is not an "expert" then there is no need to go any further. Objective reality is taken over by Ad Homienm attack and a fallacious Appeal to Authority.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I do not place faith in Jack White or any other alleged "expert" but in the Evidence itself, a difficult concept for those who worship at the feet of Authority and "expert" assertions.. Nor do I subscribe to all of what Jack White professes concerning the B/Y photo anomalies. But some of what he has has demonstrated is irrefutable by the "science" of simple observation.
Click to expand...

Fine, then you can tells us:

a. What these anomalies are;
b. What the anomalies demonstrate;
c. How you know this;
d. How they affect the presently accepted narrative.
 
Robert Prey said:
There are several. But there is no point in going into all of them when the one already alluded to has not been refuted -- that would be the square chin in the b/y photos as compared to the rounded chin in his mugshot. If you can refute that simple observation by claiming that the person who points out this anomaly is not an "expert" then there is no need to go any further. Objective reality is taken over by Ad Homienm attack and a fallacious Appeal to Authority.
Click to expand...
Robert - the shadow effect that gives the impression of a square chin is plainly observable by anybody looking at the photo. This is not an apparent anomaly revealed to us all by the great Jack White. Please tell me there's something of greater revelation that you can ascribe to Jack, that's not readily apparent to the lay observer.

Perfectly logical, and indeed demonstrable, explanations of the impression of a square chin have been provided to you. Please explain, and demonstrate, that these are invalid, rather than continuing to simply claim that the apparent square chin is an anomaly. I'm still offering to provide a line diagram by way of elucidation, if you're struggling to understand what has been very plainly explained to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom