• 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:
Cop-Out.
Click to expand...

No, an appropriate deflection of evasion.

You have said, in effect, "This picture is fake for the following reasons." We have examined those reasons and found them to be inadequate or outright wrong. We are attempting to elicit from you a discussion about why you still consider those reasons valid despite evidence to the contrary. But you won't cooperate; instead you're trying to shift the argument into, "Oh yeah? Tell me why you think it's real?" You are the one copping out. There is no requirement that a person who disputes your claim must provide some counterclaim of his own.

As I said, there is an historical convention for the burden of proof on questions of authenticity. Perhaps you'd like to explain to the group what that convention is, and why it holds.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Translation: You don't know if the photos are legit or not. Thank you.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:

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

So I take it you don't know how to use quote tabs? Using them would make reading your post easier to read.

Robert Prey said:
Comment:
You mean the people on the house panel who tested nothing but did work for the government at one time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the fact that these people worked for the government makes them suspicious in any way. And do you have any citation for them having "tested nothing"?

Robert Prey said:
But there are other photo "experts" who say the B/Y photos are not genuine. They include Malcom Thompson and Maj. John Pickard and John Rowley.
Click to expand...

Going to need a citation for that, too.

Robert Prey said:
Moreover, Robert and Patricia Hester worked at the NPS photo lab where the FBI had a tranparency 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.
Click to expand...
I would ask if you had a citation for the claim about the transparency, but it's very likely they did have that transparency. They suspected Oswald so probably taken a photo of the back yard as part of research (something foreign to you, obviously) before acting.

If you were to compare the two photos, however, I'm sure you'd find several discrepancies that leave no reasonable doubt that they really are two different photos.

Robert Prey said:
But what is your opinion??? Are the B/Y photos legit or not?????
Click to expand...
Without any evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the photos, I'd say that they are legit.
 
Deleted, for some reason I thought JayUtah's post was one of Roberts, should have realized it was way too technical and was actually supporting my point. My apologies, a mix of a long day and reading too quickly.:)
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Describe in detail how you determined this.
Click to expand...

I would like to know this as well. Pro-tip: light and shadows can play tricks with any kind of features, something already known before photography was invented.
 
Robert Prey said:
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?????
Click to expand...


The photos have been determined to be unaltered by legitimate experts who examined the first generation materials (not copies) and determined by a number of different means that no tampering of any sort was done on the extant photos and negative. It is more than the HSCA panel; as I noted previously, and you continue to ignore, the FBI did validate those first-gen photos and the extant negative back in 1964.

None of the experts you cite studied the extant first-generation material; they looked at copies of unknown generation (2nd, 3rd, 4th generation, who knows?). As far as I know, they did no studies on the materials either, just eyeballed them before reaching their conclusion. If you can cite some published material that any of the thre above provide on how they reached their conclusions, I'd love to read it and would greatly appreciate it. I've never seen any, and I believe Thompson (the one you quoted) said he just eyeballed it in a followup interview.

I raised the point about them not studying first-gen material before and you ignored it then. Ignore it again. It won't make it go away.

You quoted Malcolm Thompson before, but ran away from your own witness when I asked you what he said about studying first-gen materials, and why it was important (instead of quoting him; you told us what you thought. I asked you what he said, because he, not you, is the expert. You avoided responding on that point entirely).

When did those people (the Hesters) first come forward with the story you now tell of the photos? I believe it was more than a decade after the event. How reliable is memory and in the absence of evidence establishing their story, how much credibility can we put in their story? You don't know because you evinced no interest in reading the material I cited on memory previously.

How come all these people you cite have a differing recollection but no evidence? It's like alien abductees - they always come back without any proof. Me, I get abducted, I'm secreting something on my person so I can prove I was abducted. But none of the people with those claims ever bring anything back of alien origin. And none of the 'witnesses' you cite can ever prove a damn thing. None of them.

Why is that?

I also note you failed to respond on several other points. Why is that Robert? Here's the post again. I bold-faced everything you avoided responding to.

HSienzant said:
Good thing you put "science" in quotes above. Because it's not.

However, there are people with expertise in the relevant area of photo analysis, and they say the photo is unaltered. All you got is your impression of what the photo should show, and the opinion of an man with no expertise in photographic analysis, rather than anything of substance. And your impression, as has been pointed out to you, doesn't take into account the different lighting in the two photos, nor does it take into account one is a sharp focus head shot, and the other is a blurred blowup from a much smaller picture. The negative of the photo in question has been studied and it turns out there is no change in the silver grain pattern even under high magnification, revealing the photo hasn't been tampered with. Both the FBI (in 1964) and the HSCA Photographic panel (in 1978) made that determination, independent of each other.

On the other hand, what do you got?

"It looks wrong to me."

Sorry, that's just another in a long line of logical fallacies by you:

Argument from Personal Incredulity - I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

And this despite the fact it has been explained to you. Repeatedly.

Hank
Click to expand...


Hank
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
So I take it you don't know how to use quote tabs? Using them would make reading your post easier to read.
Click to expand...


He screwed them up several times when trying to quote just a small portion of the post, so now he resorts to quoting indirectly. It also makes finding the original points harder to find, so it's a win for Robert unless you want to dig back through 110 pages to find what he's quoting from. Sometimes it's not worth the effort.

So for example, you could make five valid points to rebut his claim, he will quote only one of those five and ignore the other four, and the other four go unaddressed in subsequent posts unless you dig them up and keep bringing them to the forefront.

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


It's pretty much as I remembered it. The Hesters didn't come forward with this story for nearly two decades and offer no proof it happened as they claim.

Here's the link, scroll to the bottom of the page, where it starts out
"Faked Photos?
Conspiracy author Jim Marrs, in trying to impeach the Backyard Photos of Oswald holding the rifle that killed JFK, quotes the following two witnesses: "

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scenario.htm

Robert continues to think finding witnesses who came forward two decades after the fact overturns the legitimate evidence in this case.

It doesn't.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
And here is the cryptic Pic 133c with very much less shadow but the same square chin.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994f6a2c896d0de.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Robert, there are three different poses of Oswald in that backyard, correct?

I think what you need to explain is why conspirators would go to the trouble of creating three separate images when one would suffice to 'frame Oswald in the eyes of the American public'.

Three are harder to create than one, and by creating three, the conspirators might overlook something in one photo that would reveal the conspiracy, correct (you, in fact, claim that things like the apparent different chin shape are indeed evidence of things they overlooked).

But why create three? Couldn't they do a better job on just one, and couldn't one image create the necessary frame-up?

Can you explain this?

And elsewhere, you alleged Marina did take photos of Oswald in the backyard, just NOT THESE PHOTOS. So now you have the conspirators destroying legitimate photos of Oswald, with his rifle, taken by Marina, and substituting not one, not two, BUT THREE DIFFERENT FAKES.

And this makes sense to you? Please explain why they would do all this unnecessary work, when one legitimate image (which you earlier claimed existed) would accomplish the same end.

Thanks,

Hank
 
Robert, you still haven't pointed out any artefact of tampering in the image. No evidence of cutting or painting the negatives or developed image.

Also, painting the shadows white to look like a neck is how i would make LHO look like he had a square chin. Not how an analyst establishes the shape of the object obscured by shadow. Are you aware of the difference?
 
Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Robert - lest this goes unresolved in deference to LHO's chinney chin chin, just wondering how your definition's coming along. Are you ready to post something yet? Or do you intend to continue to play for time, in the hope that it'll just go away, saving you severe embarrassment? What's YOUR definition of an 'expert', Robert?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
But still the same Hitler mustache!
Click to expand...
Look, RK, I've already indicated to you that it's an exit wound, not a moustache. Isn't it obvious to you simply by looking at the photo? It's an area of plain blackness, hence there's surely nothing there. Wouldn't a moutache be ... well ... hairy?! :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom