• 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.
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

The logic goes like this: Is the photo we are discussing legit or not? It's a simple question and does not require a treatise. If you cannot determine if the photo is legit or not, then say so.
 
Robert Prey said:
Mudcat wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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.

"Going to need a citation for that, too."

Comment:
Citation: "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKVFgXPi-Gw&NR=1
Click to expand...

Robert - Major Pickard was an Aerospace Engineer who happened to have been assigned the job of CO of the CF Photo Unit jsut prior to his retirement. He had no training in photo analysis.

Additionally, he didn't look at the originals, but at a copy of the photos. His analysis cannot be relied on any more than yours
 
Robert Prey said:
Then why don't you put some words in your own mouth??? Take a stand, man. Are the photos legit or not????
Click to expand...

Robert. Why are you trying to bully somebody like this? You refuse to answer generalities like this yourself. For example you wont name a single "liar" who worked on the "whitewash" autopsy. You expect to be asked if each person was a liar in turn. Now you want a generalisation and refuse each of your alleged anomolies to be discussed in turn?


Hypocritical.
 
Robert Prey said:
Have you forgotten about Oswald's Ghost???
Click to expand...

How does that prove the emulsion or negative were tampered with. What photo artefact has it left in the image?

I dont think this proves what i asked for, and i dont think you understand why that is.
 
Robert Prey said:
Square versus rounded. Geometry 101.
Click to expand...

Appearance of square compared to appearance of shaded. Logic 101.

Robert this is the second issue with the photo you have listed where shadows seem to confound you.

Do you think the moon physically changes shape each night? That sometimes it is a circle, but then little bits break away so it becomes a sickle, then vanishes?

Is the shape of the moon concave or convex? Why does part of the moon seem to dissapear while other bits, sticking out closer to us, vanish?

In short, does the moon have a "square chin"? (Or did you miss all this in Geometry 101?)
 
Robert Prey said:
Then why don't you put some words in your own mouth?
Click to expand...

I have, and you ignore them because you don't have answers for them. You're dishonestly distracting from an examination of your claims by trying to shift the focus onto someone else.

Nice try, but I'm onto you. I've given you several substantial points to consider, and your only response is to wave them away. What a cop-out.
 
Robert Prey said:
Mudcat wrote:

"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."

Comment:
Very likely they had the transparency the night before they "found" the photos in the Paine Garage?????
Click to expand...

You have any evidence the Oswald Ghost transparency existed before 1980 or thereabouts? I'm unaware of any.
 
Robert Prey said:
The logic goes like this: Is the photo we are discussing legit or not? It's a simple question and does not require a treatise. If you cannot determine if the photo is legit or not, then say so.
Click to expand...

No. You have asserted that it is fake. We have asked you upon what grounds you can make that assertion, and your answers are unsatiisfying along with your willingness to discuss those answers. You clearly don't understand the science of analyzing photographs. You desperately want it to be a simple question because that's all you can answer. You desperately want it to eshew a detailed and careful analysis, because you know you can't do it.

There is a historical convention regarding the authenticity of artifacts. You are obviously unaware of it, which makes you unqualified to carry on this discussion. That convention is based in part on the epistemology of investigation and in part upon the nature of physical proof in general. I have asked you to describe it. Why have you resisted?

Since you have already proffered your conclusion, the question at hand is not whether I can determine if the photo is fake, but whether you can. The answer -- quite obviously -- is that you cannot.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote:


"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,"

Comment: Evidence to establish their story???
Have you also forgotten about Oswald's Ghost
Click to expand...


You have any evidence the Oswald Ghost transparency existed before 1980 or thereabouts? I'm unaware of any. You avoided answering my question entirely. When did this story first surface? How reliable is it? Why didn't they come forward when Oswald was alive and they could help establish he was being framed? Instead, they wait 20 years to tell their story? I'm not buying it.

You left out the rest of my points, Robert. Why is that?
I put them back in and bold-faced everything you avoided.

HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Square versus rounded. Geometry 101.
Click to expand...

Cop-out.

You may be stuck on Geometry 101. But in case you haven't noticed, real photographic analysis uses considerably more advanced geometry, and considerably more advanced methods. This is because we've discovered through long and hard-won experience that simple methods do not produce usable or reliable results. There are factors at play that are not accounted for in Geometry 101.

I explained to you the cues that people use to determine contour and edge. I'm not making those up; you can look them up. I also explained to you some of the factors that occur in photography (and in normal observation) to interfere with those cues: illumination, film response, digital compression. There are more, but those are the ones I mentioned.

I also outlined a few methods sometimes used to control for those interfering factors where possible. It's dishonest of you to say no "lengthy treatise" is necessary, but then to have attempted one of those methods yourself. You clearly recognize that better methods may yield better results, but you are unwilling to listen to people who have considerable knowledge of and experience in those methods. In fact you treat those people with clear disdain. Utterly failed, you've now retreated back to a "I don't need no science" approach.

I pointed to where Jack White thought a "simple" answer was right. He was shown his error, which was his failure to accommodate certain factors of which he was unaware. His conclusion that the control network failed to align because the photo had been faked was essentially demolished by his failure to discover, understand, and account for factors that also properly explained the alignment of the control network.

Your sin is much greater. You've been given insight into the factors. You've been shown examples of them. You've even acknowledge through your own attempts and image manipulation that you believe those factors can be controlled for. Unlike Jack White, you've been given knowledge. Your sin is greater because you explicitly refuse to employ it. The head-in-the-sand photo is very aptly applied to you. You are willfully ignorant of what you need to determine whether your claim is true.

The best answer is not that everyone else is wrong and your "simple" answer is right. The best answer is that you are being fooled (in predictable and well studied ways) by "tricks" of light and shadow. And you refuse to take any steps to avoid being fooled. The fact that you cannot elaborate any method beyond "I looked at the photo and formed an opinion" speaks volumes about where your beliefs really come from. You are clueless and irrelevant.
 
Robert, it was brave of you to admit to having your head in the sand.


When do you think you'll put on your big boy pants and start answering questions?

When will you answer the question about why you put so much credence in Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?" White despite his glaring (Logic 101) errors?

Will you be offering any evidence to support your delusional beliefs?
 
HSienzant said:
You have any evidence the Oswald Ghost transparency existed before 1980 or thereabouts? I'm unaware of any.
Click to expand...

I have to admit I misunderstood what Robert meant when he said transparency. I thought he meant a picture of his back yard that the investigators may have taken and made into a transparency for research purposes.

I am being honest on this because I have never given any weight to JFK assassination CTs so I don't know all the CT claims. That Robert is suggesting they had a transparency of Oswald's photograph (except that it apparently wasn't because "He's wearing someone else's chin") to frame Oswald tells me one thing: Robert doesn't know the first thing about photography.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
Robert - Major Pickard was an Aerospace Engineer who happened to have been assigned the job of CO of the CF Photo Unit jsut prior to his retirement. He had no training in photo analysis.

Additionally, he didn't look at the originals, but at a copy of the photos. His analysis cannot be relied on any more than yours
Click to expand...


And you, and your Amen chorus of Lone Nutter Photo "Experts" on this board???
Are you in possession of superior knowledge because you are working from the originals????
 
JayUtah said:
Cop-out.

You may be stuck on Geometry 101. But in case you haven't noticed, real photographic analysis uses considerably more advanced geometry, and considerably more advanced methods. This is because we've discovered through long and hard-won experience that simple methods do not produce usable or reliable results. There are factors at play that are not accounted for in Geometry 101.

I explained to you the cues that people use to determine contour and edge. I'm not making those up; you can look them up. I also explained to you some of the factors that occur in photography (and in normal observation) to interfere with those cues: illumination, film response, digital compression. There are more, but those are the ones I mentioned.

I also outlined a few methods sometimes used to control for those interfering factors where possible. It's dishonest of you to say no "lengthy treatise" is necessary, but then to have attempted one of those methods yourself. You clearly recognize that better methods may yield better results, but you are unwilling to listen to people who have considerable knowledge of and experience in those methods. In fact you treat those people with clear disdain. Utterly failed, you've now retreated back to a "I don't need no science" approach.

I pointed to where Jack White thought a "simple" answer was right. He was shown his error, which was his failure to accommodate certain factors of which he was unaware. His conclusion that the control network failed to align because the photo had been faked was essentially demolished by his failure to discover, understand, and account for factors that also properly explained the alignment of the control network.

Your sin is much greater. You've been given insight into the factors. You've been shown examples of them. You've even acknowledge through your own attempts and image manipulation that you believe those factors can be controlled for. Unlike Jack White, you've been given knowledge. Your sin is greater because you explicitly refuse to employ it. The head-in-the-sand photo is very aptly applied to you. You are willfully ignorant of what you need to determine whether your claim is true.

The best answer is not that everyone else is wrong and your "simple" answer is right. The best answer is that you are being fooled (in predictable and well studied ways) by "tricks" of light and shadow. And you refuse to take any steps to avoid being fooled. The fact that you cannot elaborate any method beyond "I looked at the photo and formed an opinion" speaks volumes about where your beliefs really come from. You are clueless and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So, you, of superior knowledge and superior expertise, are not clueless nor irrelevant. That being the case, kindly give a clue. Be a man. Take a stand. Are the photos in your expert opinion legit or not?????
 
HSienzant said:
You have any evidence the Oswald Ghost transparency existed before 1980 or thereabouts? I'm unaware of any. You avoided answering my question entirely. When did this story first surface? How reliable is it? Why didn't they come forward when Oswald was alive and they could help establish he was being framed? Instead, they wait 20 years to tell their story? I'm not buying it.

You left out the rest of my points, Robert. Why is that?
I put them back in and bold-faced everything you avoided.
Click to expand...

One question at a time, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom