• 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:
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...


It's been done. Several times; by several different people; in several different ways.

You've ignored each and every one, not responding with any substantive rebuttals of any sort at any time. Instead, you continue to pretend it has not been refuted, as your first sentence above states outright.

That, sir, is nonsense.

Hank
 
JayUtah said:
How can you talk about objective reality while at the same time just asking people to look at two photos and render an opinion? How does that achieve objectivity? You're thinking purely subjectively.

As stated by others, we're looking at the same chin, lit differently in each case. Human perception of contour is based entirely on shading. Perception of edge is based almost solely on differences in luminance. Thus without properly considering illumination, one cannot directly compare two photographs purportedly of the same object.

There are techniques for edge and contour extraction that are objective and rely on the optical density of the photograph, not only some person's perception. Both objective and subjective methods are affected by luminance quantization and density response factors. One of your photos has been quantized using a Floyd-Steinberg error diffusion method. The other has a polarized density response, rendering shade and shadow indistinct. This is a significant effect, as we infer from various cues that the illumination is strong, directional, and at a significant phase angle.

Where spatial coherence is the desired measure, spatial resolution and quantization comes into play. One of your photographs has very poor spatial resolution, but appears to have a uniform pixel distribution function. This makes it a candidate for various deconvolution methods.

Since you have made no demonstrated attempt to apply the available objective methods to the question of whether these photos depict the same individual, I'm going to conclude that you are either unaware of those standard techniques, or that -- contrary to your statement -- an objective evaluation is something you don't really want.
Click to expand...

So, I take it that your view regarding backyard photo 133A is that you are absolutely certain it is genuine, eh?

Let's take it to a hypothetical expert of your choice who has even more expertise, degrees, background and peer reviewed articles than you (if that could be possible). Let's call this superior expert Mr. Xpert. Now you take this photo to Mr. Xpert and ask him if he thinks it is genuine or in the alternative, a composite forgery. He studies the photo and responds that in his Expert opinion, there are numerous anomalies in the photo, and his view, it is a composite fraud. Now what is your position? You have already concluded the photo to be genuine, but now a superior expert of your choice, says its a forgery. Do you go with your own judgement, or do you bow to Mr. Xpert in view of his superior expertise and qualifications????? It's a simple question. Where do you stand?? With your own judgement or that of Mr. Xpert????????
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
There are several. But there is no point in going into all of them...
Click to expand...

Backpedaling noted.

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.
Click to expand...

Of course I can refute it, and by the method you suggest. The finding of "anomaly" in this photo is based on the assertion that observation violates expectation. The expectation that two photographs taken of the same man under vastly different photographic and illumination conditions should exhibit the same apparent contour, is a layman's assumption, not supported by the facts. Experts know how contour is perceived. Experts know how demarcation is perceived. Experts know how the processes involved with photography can affect the cues that factor into that perception. Hence the experts' expectations are properly informed according to all the known, studied, and validated physical factors that apply.

Your "simple observation" ignores all those factors and indeed tries to write them off as mere sophistry. You don't attempt to show that the factors we name are irrelevant. You don't address the empirical demonstrations of them. In fact, you do absolutely nothing but continue to assert that your oversimplified, subjective opinion is somehow irrefutable.

Objective reality is taken over by Ad Homienm attack and a fallacious Appeal to Authority.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated that you don't know what any of those words mean.

What you call "objective" is really just your subjective opinion.
What you call an ad hominem attack is really just the ordinary voir dire of someone claiming -- and claimed by others -- to be an expert.
What you call an appeal to authority is really just the proper application of expertise.

Sour grapes: people who know more than you about the relevant topics disagree with your beliefs. Deal with it.
 
Robert Prey said:
So, I take it that your view regarding backyard photo 133A is that you are absolutely certain it is genuine, eh?

Let's take it to a hypothetical expert of your choice who has even more expertise, degrees, background and peer reviewed articles than you (if that could be possible). Let's call this superior expert Mr. Xpert. Now you take this photo to Mr. Xpert and ask him if he thinks it is genuine or in the alternative, a composite forgery. He studies the photo and responds that in his Expert opinion, there are numerous anomalies in the photo, and his view, it is a composite fraud. Now what is your position? You have already concluded the photo to be genuine, but now a superior expert of your choice, says its a forgery. Do you go with your own judgement, or do you bow to Mr. Xpert in view of his superior expertise and qualifications????? It's a simple question. Where do you stand?? With your own judgement or that of Mr. Xpert????????
Click to expand...

One question mark at a time or no dialogue.
 
Originally Posted by Robert Prey
So, I take it that your view regarding backyard photo 133A is that you are absolutely certain it is genuine, eh?
Do not put words in my mouth.


JayUtah said:
Do not put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...


Whoa!! You mean you concede that the photo just might NOT be genuine????Now who's backpedaling????
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
It's been done. Several times; by several different people; in several different ways.

You've ignored each and every one, not responding with any substantive rebuttals of any sort at any time. Instead, you continue to pretend it has not been refuted, as your first sentence above states outright.

That, sir, is nonsense.

Hank
Click to expand...

And here is the cryptic Pic 133c with very much less shadow but the same square chin.


 
JayUtah said:
How can you talk about objective reality while at the same time just asking people to look at two photos and render an opinion? How does that achieve objectivity? You're thinking purely subjectively.

As stated by others, we're looking at the same chin, lit differently in each case. Human perception of contour is based entirely on shading. Perception of edge is based almost solely on differences in luminance. Thus without properly considering illumination, one cannot directly compare two photographs purportedly of the same object.

There are techniques for edge and contour extraction that are objective and rely on the optical density of the photograph, not only some person's perception. Both objective and subjective methods are affected by luminance quantization and density response factors. One of your photos has been quantized using a Floyd-Steinberg error diffusion method. The other has a polarized density response, rendering shade and shadow indistinct. This is a significant effect, as we infer from various cues that the illumination is strong, directional, and at a significant phase angle.

Where spatial coherence is the desired measure, spatial resolution and quantization comes into play. One of your photographs has very poor spatial resolution, but appears to have a uniform pixel distribution function. This makes it a candidate for various deconvolution methods.

Since you have made no demonstrated attempt to apply the available objective methods to the question of whether these photos depict the same individual, I'm going to conclude that you are either unaware of those standard techniques, or that -- contrary to your statement -- an objective evaluation is something you don't really want.
Click to expand...

So is the B/Y photo 133A (the one used on the cover of Life to brainwash America) genuine or not???? Or do you take the "fifth"????????
 
JayUtah wrote:

"The problem is that you don't see how "the evidence" is inextricable from Jack White's opinion. "The evidence" is not the photo. The question is the authenticity of the photo, the evidence for which are the things said about the photo. What White says about the photo is based on his assumptions, which have been proven wrong."

So what is your opinion???Is the photo legit or not????
 
Robert Prey said:
So is the B/Y photo 133A (the one used on the cover of Life to brainwash America) genuine or not???? Or do you take the "fifth"????????
Click to expand...

I have made no representation either way. There is a convention in historical research that applies to this situation, but I'll leave it to you to research and report on.

You, on the other hand, assert that the photo is provably fake, based on work done by Jack White. We are investigating White's argument, and I have posted my disputation and the reasons for it.

It seems you are presently evading a discussion of your (White's) claims by attempting to shift the burden of proof. I have given you several substantive posts. Please address them and quit stalling.
 
Last edited:
Hank wrote:

"However, there are people with expertise in the relevant area of photo analysis, and they say the photo is unaltered."

Comment:
You mean the people on the house panel who tested nothing but did work for the government at one time.
But there are other photo "experts" who say the B/Y photos are not genuine. They include Malcom Thompson, Jeffrey Crowley and Maj. John Pickard. Moreover, Robert and Patricia Hester worked at the NPS photo lab where the FBI had a transparency of the Back Yard, the night of Nov. 22nd, but the pic had no Oswald image in it and the photos were not "discovered" in the Paine Garage till the next day.
Oh, but that can easily be explained, eh? Two more lying witnesses???

But what is your opinion??? Are the B/Y photos legit or not?????
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
Without seeing the whole picture I would say that the picture was taken in prime daylight hours, which is a fairly typical thing in outdoor photography to use natural lighting. I fail to see anything remotely suspicious about it.

Care to share what you find suspicious about it?
Click to expand...

Nothing at all. Except the man is wearing someone else's chin.
 
Garrison said:
Lightening the shadow will not alter that.
Click to expand...

Or rather, biasing and expanding the density, as an approximator of luminance. The whole point is that we can't deterministically tell what is shade and what is shadow because that distinction is lost in the original. Yes, luminance bias and expansion is one of several techniques to correct for indeterminate contour and edge extraction, but you have to apply controls to determine whether you can attribute variance to contour or to confounding effects such as quantization. Simply wiggling the slider until you like what you see isn't objective, reproducible, or scientific.

Here also the lossy DCT artifacts have become salient, wrecking any possibility of reliable contour extraction from this digital image. The effect of DCT emergence is to make things appear more "square" than they otherwise would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom