JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

And you, and your Amen chorus of Lone Nutter Photo "Experts" on this board?

You do not need to belabor your well-established disdain for real-world expertise. Just because you choose not inform yourself about the sciences that affect your beliefs doesn't mean the rest of us must be similarly hobbled. Many have chosen to educate themselves on how this sort of science is accomplished. A few of us have gone so far as to obtain credentials in the field. We do this so that we can be sure of our knowledge. You seem to think the only reason we would apply as much expertise as we could obtain is to buttress some Establishment cover story.

You may deny all you want that there exists such a thing as expertise on this subject, but it will ensure that only the very delusional and predisposed will listen to you.

Are you in possession of superior knowledge because you are working from the originals?

Your own attempt at image manipulation here ran up against problems arising from the poor copy of the photo you used. Yet you did not take that into account in your "analysis." Are you working from faithful copies? If not, why are you taking others to task for properly considering the limitations of their data?

 

[Border Reiver]

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????

No, I'm not. But the experts who have established their expertise did, and until a similarly qualified individual expresses a contrary position, I am willing to defer to the experts.

This is why we use experts Bobby - because what some people see as "common sense" - isn't.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

But you can???? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit. It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine. It's not a difficult question. If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know????

 

[Tomtomkent]

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?????

You don't get the burden of proof thing yet do you?

 

[Tomtomkent]

But you can???? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit. It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine. It's not a difficult question. If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know????

Shouldn't you only be asking one question at a time? Or is that only a rule you apply to others?

 

[Robert Prey]

You have any evidence the Oswald Ghost transparency existed before 1980 or thereabouts? I'm unaware of any.

The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd. The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA.

 

[Border Reiver]

But you can???? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit. It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine. It's not a difficult question. If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know????

Unless Jay has the originals he is forced to work with copies, or scans or reproductions and would be in the same boat as the pseudo-experts you keep bringing forth.

What we are doing is trying to demonstrate why their analysis is flawed and the science behind it so as to educate you and others. Just because someone has looked at a copy of a copy of a copy and said - "look there's something not right here!" doesn't mean that the same flaw, distortion or whatever is there in the original.

 

[Robert Prey]

Unless Jay has the originals he is forced to work with copies, or scans or reproductions and would be in the same boat as the pseudo-experts you keep bringing forth.

What we are doing is trying to demonstrate why their analysis is flawed and the science behind it so as to educate you and others. Just because someone has looked at a copy of a copy of a copy and said - "look there's something not right here!" doesn't mean that the same flaw, distortion or whatever is there in the original.

It means that in the view of a self-appointed "expert," the same principles of evidence he applies to others, do not apply to him.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd. The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6b6233d267d.jpg[/qimg]

And 1993 is the first time we can see it to have existed. Robert, how would you prove that the Back Yard photo was built from this, and not vice versa?

More importantly why do you offer this, when I asked you to indicate a photographic atefact that suggests the back yard photo had the negatives or emulsion tampered with. That means an artefact in the photograph, and even gave examples of what was clearly meant so there could be no confusion: Artefacts in the photograph like tampered emulsion, signs of the negatives being tampered with or cut, etc. An artefact in the photograph.

Instead you have offered something entirely different. A different photograph you claim to be part of the fakery process. Please, feel free to explain this, but how do you think the "ghost" was used in the construction of a fake, and how do you think it proves the existing photo was tampered with?

How do you think we might deduce that is in fact a copy of the back yard photo with LHO taken out not a copy before LHO was put in it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip>???? <snip>????

One question at a time please. Be a man, put on your big boy pants and answer some questions.

 

[JayUtah]

But you can? You can't even offer an opinion whether the photo is legit.

My opinion about whether the photograph is authentic has absolutely nothing to do with investigating your reasons for asserting that it is false.

It makes no sense to pass judgement on a photo that a critic won't even pass his own judgement upon as being genuine or not genuine.

I'm not passing judgment on the photo. I'm passing judgment on your claim that it is fake. You're clearly unwilling and unable to defend your claim, so either stop trying to change the subject or concede that you cannot support your assertion.

It's not a difficult question.

The difficulty of the question is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are now suddenly insisting on asking it as a distraction from having to defend your claims.

If you don't know the answer, then why not man up and say you just don't know????

Insult noted and reported.

If you cannot support the claims you made by addressing the expert disputation of your analysis, then why not simply say, "I don't know enough about the science to address your objections?"

You're the one making this difficult, not me. But I assure you that I am fairly immune to the common tactics of trying to change the subject and shirk one's burden of proof when it becomes clear one cannot sustain it.

 

[Mudcat]

The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd.

Citation needed. For the entire claim. When did Hester 'assert' this? How do you know the house was searched twice and in what way is that suspicious (Pro-tip: It's not, that's fairly typical of any criminal investigation)?

The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA.

What makes you think that the 'ghosted pic' of Oswald existed prior to the nineties? What makes you think that it was used to frame Oswald? Do you have a source for it 'not having been seen by the Commission or the HSCA'? If it was used to frame Oswald why wasn't it burned along with any other potentially condemning evidence?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6b6233d267d.jpg[/qimg]

Yeah, that's not legit there Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It means that in the view of a self-appointed "expert," the same principles of evidence he applies to others, do not apply to him.

Now where have I heard about self appointed qualifications before...

You are exactly wrong by the way. He is arguing that the same levels of control and ratification are applied to actual "self appointed" experts like you and Jack White, as would be expected from experts with professional, academic and quantifiable expertise.

Correct me if I'm wrong Robet, but did you not calim your qualifications were "self given" based on "common sense" and entitled you to a "professional" medical opinion? Why are you now arguing against experts you see as "self appointed", in the face of valid qualifications and working knowledge?


ETA: By the way, Robert, you do realise that you argued before that statements questioning the validity of expertise were Ad Hom attacks against Jack White. Do you now concede they were no such thing, or do you intend to appologise to Jay?

 

[JimBenArm]

One question at a time, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did this overload your mental capacities?

There. That's one question. Of course, it's purely rhetorical, since we already know the answer to it. No need to reply. Not that you would, since you don't answer any questions. At least not in any way that makes a lick of sense.

 

[JayUtah]

Unless Jay has the originals he is forced to work with copies, or scans or reproductions and would be in the same boat as the pseudo-experts you keep bringing forth.

Not exactly. You are presuming what kind of case I would be making from the point of view of someone trained in photographic analysis and interpretation. I have specifically left that off, obviously because Robert is trying to bait me down that road in order to shift the burden of proof. And further, a discussion of the proper method of examination in this case (and indeed of all cases of questionable authenticity in an historical document) would involve the conventions and standards of proof that I alluded to earlier. Since I've asked Robert to say what those are and discuss them, I cannot really do so now without giving him the answers to questions I've asked him.

The portions of the backyard photo that Robert has posted here are extremely poor quality, and certainly not the best that exist. I have already shown in two ways how the quality of the photo would prohibit him from being able to conclusively state that the chin on the face in the photo cannot be Oswald's.

That is, I have shown two ways in which the condition of the data does not allow conclusive or deterministic extraction of 3D information from the photos that were posted, such that the true shape of the chin in the photo can be reconstructed from information contained solely in the photo. That may be possible from better copies of them, or from the original. We know that the originals, optical copies, or losslessly compressed digital copies would not suffer from the well-evidenced DCT boundary artifacts. But I'm skeptical that better copies would distinguish shade from shadow.

This is important. Robert's affirmative claim relies on him being able to conclusively and deterministically extract accurate shape information from the photo. That is, he cannot affirm that it's not Oswald's actual chin without also claiming he can determine the shape of the depicted chin faithfully from the photo, preparatory to comparing it to an authentic reference.

There are known sources of error in such a determination. A defensible approach to producing a useful extraction requires attention to those errors and controls for them. Robert simply sidestepped them. Therefore he has no basis to claim that the difference in appearance of the chin must be due to it being a different chin. He has not controlled for the other effects that might make the chin appear different.

Therefore the data we have in hand -- presuming they are the data that Robert has used -- are quite sufficient to determine that Robert's affirmative claim is unsupported. It is unsupported precisely because the data are too poor to control for intervening variables, therefore the variable that is identified as the determiner of authenticity cannot be resolved.

Are the data in hand sufficient to rule out all claims that may be made? Hm, unknown. I haven't seen all the claims, and it's been a long time since I had a high-quality copy of the backyard image. I can say that the claims made by Robert in this thread can be ruled out.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Ok, as I recall it, the issue here is the Hesters came forward to Jim Marrs (yeah, that Jim Marrs) to tell him they saw a image of the Neely street backyard MINUS the Oswald figure. They claimed they saw this on the night of the assassination. But the Oswald backyard photos weren't found among the Paines' possessions in the Paine garage until the following morning. So if the Hesters' story is true (first told about 18 years after the assassination, to my recollection), then there was a image of the backyard with a whited-out figure (what Robert calls "the Ghost Oswald") pre-existing the discovery of the backyard photos.

But of course, this is all just a story with nothing to support it. And a rather late arriving one at that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Shouldn't you only be asking one question at a time? Or is that only a rule you apply to others?

He falls back on that subterfuge only when he can't answer the questions. It's a delaying mechanism.

I simply repost everything he can't answer.

 

[HSienzant]

The Ghost of Oswald is not the same thing as the transparency of the backyard that the Hester's assert existed on the night of Nov. 22nd, after the Paine garage had already been searched on that day, and before it was searched again on Nov. 23rd. The Ghosted pic of Oswald was discovered in a Dallas evidence locker in 1993 by a Houston Post reporter. It was never seen by the Warren Commission nor the HSCA.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f6b6233d267d.jpg[/qimg]

The Hesters *assert* the transparency existed on 11/22/63?

That's it? That's what I thought. There's no evidence for the claim, other than somebody's story - as you so aptly put it, just an assertion by the Hesters. Wow.

[sarcasm mode]I am truly surprised you have no evidence.[/sarcasm mode]

Put it with the Ed Hoffman story. Call me when you get some evidence for either story.

 

[HSienzant]

It means that in the view of a self-appointed "expert," the same principles of evidence he applies to others, do not apply to him.

Nope, he's not seen the originals, so he's declined to state his view, as I read it.
You want him to render a view, when he's asking you to state what evidence you have for your view.

We all know the correct response by you is simply, "I have no evidence, it's my opinion only." We also know why you are reticient to admit to that, which is why you are attempting to turn it around and ask for his view.

But you are the only one here stressing the importance of the backyard photos. You are the only one here claiming they are forgeries. You are the only one here claiming they are *obvious* forgeries. Yet you avoid entirely telling us what evidence you have that your claims are true.

What is that? I think the answer is obvious - you have no evidence; just your opinion.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Citation needed. For the entire claim. When did Hester 'assert' this? How do you know the house was searched twice and in what way is that suspicious (Pro-tip: It's not, that's fairly typical of any criminal investigation)?

There was a rudimentary search on the afternoon of the 22nd, and then a follow-up, much more thorough search on the morning of the 23rd. The photographs were discovered on the morning of the 23rd, and Oswald was confronted with them (after telling officers during his interrogation he never owned a rifle) later that day.

What could Oswald say? His wife had led them to his rifle in the garage on the afternoon of the assassination (where it had typically been wrapped in a blanket for storage). Only the blanket was empty, and the rifle was found at the Depository.

And now they had photos of Oswald WITH THAT RIFLE. What could he say?
1. Yeah, it's my rifle. I lied before.
2. The photos you have are forgeries. That's my head; but somebody put it on the body.

He chose option 2. And critics have been trying to prove him right ever since. It's a key litmus test of the assassination.

Until one can admit Oswald lied in custory about numerous things (like having a large sack on the morning of the assassination, about having told Wesley Frazier the sack contained curtain rods, about not owning a rifle; etc. etc.) CTs are stuck trying to prove that Oswald told the truth in custody - so they inherited this problem and can't get away from it.

To admit Oswald lied in custody is to admit he shot the President.

Hank