• 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:
What's hilarious is that I covered this situation in one of my posts that Robert dismissed with "Baloney." There are any number of configurations in the affine world that project to the same image in the projective world. That's the mathematical nature of projection, the non-orthonormal reality of the projective world photographs live, and the bane of photographic analysts who must endeavor to reconstruct the affine relationships using only a photograph.

Given that many-to-one mapping, it is utterly irrelevant if some affine configuration can be found that does not rightly project. To prove fraudulence by means of the implausibility of the projection, one must provably exhaust the solutions. Conversely, to validate the projection it is sufficient to find only one affine solution.

I find it further hilarious than none of the self-proclaimed photo analysts knows the first thing about proper examination of shadows. There are methods for proving the coherence of illumination by means of shadow information. They derive simply from projective geometry, and are easily applied. If you have knowledge of projective geometry, you can see easily how the method derives and is provably correct. But all the amateurs use the same wrong method, derived from uninformed intuition. Once again it's the triumph of real science over amateurish "common sense." Not once do these individuals show how their methods were tested and validated -- because they never were. We know that the method used by conspiracy theorists to estimate phase angles from shadow is provably wrong.
Click to expand...

But with all that "science," you still won't take a stand as to whether the pic is authentic or not.
 
JayUtah said:
I find it further hilarious than none of the self-proclaimed photo analysts knows the first thing about proper examination of shadows.
Click to expand...

The trouble with self-proclaimed "experts" is that one always proclaims his expertise trumps all others.

From: "Oswald Tallked, by Mary and Ray LaFontaine:

Hershel Womack, a photo expert and major researcher of the Waggoner Carr Collection of Kennedy materials at Texas Tech University, told Mary in a 1992 interview for the Houston Post. "The fact that the matte photograph was worked up from the precise back yard photo that was withheld from the Warren Commission makes me suspect that the 'ghost' photo, the withheld 133-C photo, and Brown's demonstration photo may all have been part of the same trial series. Once the 'practice' was over and the actual forgery completed, the incriminating materials were discarded—or so they thought."
Womack added: "The photographic panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations should be reconvened. The question of whether Oswald was framed by faked photographs needs to be asked one more time."

Berkeley's Paul Hoch, though previously convinced by the House Select Committee that the Oswald backyard photos were genuine, has reached a similar conclusion:."The discoveries in Dallas comprise a message to the press that there are surprises in the files, contrary to the claims of [HSCA counsel] Robert Blakey and others. The complexity of the photograph issue points out the need for an ongoing investigative capability at least on the level of the FBI, and if the FBI is not interested, the need to get the major media interested."
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The trouble with self-proclaimed "experts" is that one always proclaims his expertise trumps all others.
Click to expand...

Not all experts are self-proclaimed. I provided a suitable and widely-used definition of expertise that precludes your complaint. You dismissed it without comment and neglected to provide a better one.

Your experts are self-proclaimed, and their lack of appropriate knowledge and judgment has been demonstrated. It's not a matter of accusation, but a matter of fact. We can point to things in the field that are known by real experts and ignored by your pseudo-experts. It's very straightforward, actually. And that lack of expertise makes them unable to formulate a convincing argument according to the best practices that typically apply.
 
Maybe we should report his "One question at a time, please." and "boloney" responses. I find them to be disruptive, especially when he quotes a longer post.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. It is you how has refused to prove any of your assertions beginning with the authenticity of the photo itself. Here's another chance to stand up for what you believe in: Does the photo contain the true chin of LHO or does it not???
Click to expand...
I know this is not addressed to me, but I'll chime in.

Photos are taken every day. Normal photos. Being normal, they are the norm. Regular. Everyday. If you say, "This photo is not normal, it has been tampered with" then, again, it is up to you to prove so.

You are making an extraordinary claim. Being extraordinary, it is not ordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So...YES.
 
Robert Prey said:
The angles appear the same, but the depth is not. Each time he says "there it is" your drawing obscures the fact that he drops the pipe forward. He also twists the body to his right. A cheap illusion that would make Randi blush. Not an authentic replication.
Click to expand...


He turns his body to look at the shadow, to ensure he is doing it correctly. The issue is not the body whatsover and that is simply a diversionary tactic by you. The issue is the angle of the rifle to the angle of the shadow. The claim by you (and other conspiracists) was that holding the rifle at that angle means it is impossible to get a horizontal shadow in the photo. But you just agreed that the angles appear the same.

Which was what you said was impossible to duplicate originally. It has been duplicated. You just admitted to it - "the angles appear the same".

Robert Prey said:
...And then there are the numerous anomalies. My favorite is 133B, where the rifle is pointed at 11 o'clock, but in the shadow, it clearly points to 9 o'clock. Just try it sometime.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent .... The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...

compare2.jpg



Claiming the "depth" is not correct is another meaningless claim by you, since you don't show that the "depth" (presumably you mean the tilt of the rifle / pipe toward the camera) is different in any way between the duplication photo and the Oswald backyard photo.

It's just another empty claim by you without any supporting evidence. We've seen plenty of that.


Hank
 
Last edited:
I'm Craig Lamson, and I'm new here. I noticed hits to my website coming from this thread so I thought I would check it out. You guys are hitting my pages on John Costella and his problem understanding how parallax works, and Jack White failing to understand how the sun works.

I'm not an "expert". I'm just a guy with 30 plus years experience creating advertising photography.

I enjoy researching the photographic claims of CT's and putting their theories to the test of basic photographic principles. As a general rule they fail.

The Oswald chin is a perfect example and the solution to the problem is really quite simple once you understand the specifics of how the images were produced.

While shadow plays a part, the biggest reason the chin seems to go from pointed to square is just camera angle. The backyard images were taken from below the level of Oswald's chin, making it look square. The mug shots used as comparisons were taken at eye level making the chin look pointed. Photo 101....

I can't post links yet but I have a number of easy to understand examples which illustrate this quite nicely. When I'm allowed I'll post those links.
 
infocusinc said:
I'm Craig Lamson, and I'm new here. I noticed hits to my website coming from this thread so I thought I would check it out. You guys are hitting my pages on John Costella and his problem understanding how parallax works, and Jack White failing to understand how the sun works.

I'm not an "expert". I'm just a guy with 30 plus years experience creating advertising photography.

I enjoy researching the photographic claims of CT's and putting their theories to the test of basic photographic principles. As a general rule they fail.

The Oswald chin is a perfect example and the solution to the problem is really quite simple once you understand the specifics of how the images were produced.

While shadow plays a part, the biggest reason the chin seems to go from pointed to square is just camera angle. The backyard images were taken from below the level of Oswald's chin, making it look square. The mug shots used as comparisons were taken at eye level making the chin look pointed. Photo 101....

I can't post links yet but I have a number of easy to understand examples which illustrate this quite nicely. When I'm allowed I'll post those links.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board, pm me the link to those photos along with a description of what needs be said and I'll be more than happy to post them for you.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
As has been pointed out, the shadow of the rifle on 133B is inconsistent and the example of your Dartmath "expert" has nothing to do with 133B. The only way to disprove it, is to duplicate it. Go for it, or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...
By any chance were you also once known as Rouser2 in this forum? If so, you and I had this discussion and I, with only minimum effort, duplicated the shadow. As it was many years ago I don't recall what Rouser2's response was.

In any event, I duplicated the shadow for someone, you or somebody else, so it can be done. Easily.
 
Robert Prey said:
Every time he says 'There, I just did it again" he drops the pipe substantially unlike the rifle angle of Oswald.
Click to expand...

Oh the angle matters?

Are you going to restage your photo , this time informing Guy Fawks to check if the angle of his stick should be towards or away from the camera?

Are you going to ask Guy Fawks to accurately angle his body too?

And check his depth?

As you claimed Guy, despite being wrong in all these areas was "exact enough", yet criticiseothers. Is there a double standard to your evidence? Maybe a little confirmation bias?
 
JayUtah said:
Not all experts are self-proclaimed. I provided a suitable and widely-used definition of expertise that precludes your complaint. You dismissed it without comment and neglected to provide a better one.

Your experts are self-proclaimed, and their lack of appropriate knowledge and judgment has been demonstrated. It's not a matter of accusation, but a matter of fact. We can point to things in the field that are known by real experts and ignored by your pseudo-experts. It's very straightforward, actually. And that lack of expertise makes them unable to formulate a convincing argument according to the best practices that typically apply.
Click to expand...

I would also take issue with the idea you have claimed more expertise than anybody else. You have claimed you can quantify your expertise. In one field. But I can't find a post where you claim superior understanding to any other professional in that field. Only over laymen, whose expertise lay elsewhere. Clearly Roberts claims are based on a misunderstanding.
 
JayUtah said:
Not all experts are self-proclaimed. I provided a suitable and widely-used definition of expertise that precludes your complaint. You dismissed it without comment and neglected to provide a better one.

Your experts are self-proclaimed, and their lack of appropriate knowledge and judgment has been demonstrated. It's not a matter of accusation, but a matter of fact. We can point to things in the field that are known by real experts and ignored by your pseudo-experts. It's very straightforward, actually. And that lack of expertise makes them unable to formulate a convincing argument according to the best practices that typically apply.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom