• 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:
That [ghosted] photo is a fact, a fact which you cannot explain.
Click to expand...

That photo is a fact that you have attempted to explain in terms of a conspiracy to falsify evidence. We have shown how your explanation simply flies in the face of the facts. You are unable to reconcile your theory with the facts, but are unwilling to abandon it. That is entirely irrelevant to whether someone else has any speculation about how the photo came to be.

You really don't understand how proof works in the real world, do you?
 
Robert Prey said:
Your repeated claims that there are seasonal differences in the two photos is a waste of time and space. Of course there are seasonal differences.
Click to expand...

That means the photo was not taken when you say it had to have been taken. Do you understand what refutation is?

So why was the ghosted photo created in the first place?
Click to expand...

I am aware of no evidence establishing its provenance or purpose. Hence I do not speculate, because that would be irresponsible.. You and your cronies, on the other hand, speculate wildly and ignore all the facts that contradict your speculation. How does your approach better serve the truth?
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. You have offered nothing but theories.
Click to expand...

You say that only because you assiduously ignore the demonstrations. Further, when I do speak according to the scientific foundations of the science, you simply admit you don't understand it. Fine, if you don't understand how the science works. Lots of people don't. But your ignorance is not a vindication of your theories.

On the other hand, I have offered proof via replication, a very scientific word...
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You don't understand what reproducibility means in science. Your demonstrations are not replicable because you do not provide controls on, e.g., your subjective placement of the stand-in.

Yes, you claim to replicate the backyard shadow in a way that "proves" it can't have been a real photo. But because you are ignorant of the underlying scientific principles, you don't understand why your demonstration is insufficient.

Again we return to the degrees-of-freedom question you keep dodging. It's now time to explain what you could not answer. Naturally there are more degrees of freedom in the affine space than in image space because it has an additional spatial dimension. The mapping of affine space to image space is the projection, and undoing the projection is the job of the photogrammetrist.

But because of the additional degree of freedom, several points in affine space map to the same point in image space. Determining from image space where they originated in affine space is highly problematic, and requires great training, skill, and perseverence. None of your heroes, by the way, can demonstrate the slightest understanding even of what is required, much less of how to execute the solution. But the practical take-away from this is that several "solutions" in affine space are supported by the image-space data. Determining which is the correct one is the art of photogrammetry.

What this means for your alleged replication is that there are several wrong answers that will nevertheless fit some (or at times, even all) the data. This is how "forced perspective" works, for example, in filmmaking and photography. Happening across one of those wrong answers is not proof that no correct solution exists. But that is exactly what you have offered. Instead, happening across the one solution that does fit is sufficient proof of coherence. This is what your critics have done. In the trade this is known as having "rectified" the photo. A defensible rectification exists for the background photos, and this has been verified by several methods both practical and analytical. So at this point your hammering of one of the non-rectifiable solutions is entirely irrelevant.

Really Robert, if you're going to dabble in a science, at least learn it. You're denying what is the central tenet of an entire useful science. People use these principles all the time to do useful work. It's not something made up just to confound conspiracy theorists.

...your "expertise" is apparently too "expert" to recognize or implement.
Click to expand...

Your infamous disdain for real expertise doesn't permit you to make personal attacks.
 
Robert Prey said:
Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the British Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators.
Click to expand...

Odd that such a prominent man should only show up in a search on a few CT sites and no where else. It's almost like some one made him up.
Surely not.

Edit. In fact a lot of R.P's "work" seems to be lifted straight from an article by Jim Fetzer. http://scienceblog.com/27507/the-dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco-by-dr-james-fetzer-with-comments/
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
There is no "false" expert that invented the ghosted photo. That photo is a fact, a fact which you cannot explain.
Click to expand...


You already quoted the man who said he created it.
You said you didn't believe it.

Your perogative.

But we've already shown the backyard photos pre-date the creation of the ghosted image by months. And that therefore there is nothing suspicious about the backyard photos.

Now you want to talk instead about a photo you previously admitted was created after the assassination, and well after the backyard photos.

How does that have anything to do with anything?

Hank
 
SanityGap said:
Odd that such a prominent man should only show up in a search on a few CT sites and no where else. It's almost like some one made him up.
Surely not.

Edit. In fact a lot of R.P's "work" seems to be lifted straight from an article by Jim Fetzer. http://scienceblog.com/27507/the-dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco-by-dr-james-fetzer-with-comments/
Click to expand...


My suspicion is what happened was a bit of venue shopping. Somebody went to various experts and finally got someone to comment negatively. That was what was quoted, and that is what was forever quoted in conspiracy books and by folks like Robert.

And in fact, Thompson deferred to the conclusions of the HSCA panel experts who actually examined the first generation materials.

Hank
 
I really do not see how this 'ghost' image is of any use in creating a fake version of the backyard photo. It features a large white cut out in place of a figure, why? If you were going to fake up a photo by adding Oswald's head to someone else's body, as Robert Prey has suggested, why not have the someone else stand in the backyard and photograph them there? That way the shadows work and you minimize the edits and alterations needed. The ghost photograph would be a ludicrous way to go about creating a fake, and that's without bringing up the foliage issue and the fact that Oswald's wife stated she took the backyard photos exactly as seen, and the lack of evidence for any alterations in the photos.
 
JayUtah said:
You say that only because you assiduously ignore the demonstrations. Further, when I do speak according to the scientific foundations of the science, you simply admit you don't understand it. Fine, if you don't understand how the science works. Lots of people don't. But your ignorance is not a vindication of your theories.



Nonsense. You don't understand what reproducibility means in science. Your demonstrations are not replicable because you do not provide controls on, e.g., your subjective placement of the stand-in.

Yes, you claim to replicate the backyard shadow in a way that "proves" it can't have been a real photo. But because you are ignorant of the underlying scientific principles, you don't understand why your demonstration is insufficient.

Again we return to the degrees-of-freedom question you keep dodging. It's now time to explain what you could not answer. Naturally there are more degrees of freedom in the affine space than in image space because it has an additional spatial dimension. The mapping of affine space to image space is the projection, and undoing the projection is the job of the photogrammetrist.

But because of the additional degree of freedom, several points in affine space map to the same point in image space. Determining from image space where they originated in affine space is highly problematic, and requires great training, skill, and perseverence. None of your heroes, by the way, can demonstrate the slightest understanding even of what is required, much less of how to execute the solution. But the practical take-away from this is that several "solutions" in affine space are supported by the image-space data. Determining which is the correct one is the art of photogrammetry.

What this means for your alleged replication is that there are several wrong answers that will nevertheless fit some (or at times, even all) the data. This is how "forced perspective" works, for example, in filmmaking and photography. Happening across one of those wrong answers is not proof that no correct solution exists. But that is exactly what you have offered. Instead, happening across the one solution that does fit is sufficient proof of coherence. This is what your critics have done. In the trade this is known as having "rectified" the photo. A defensible rectification exists for the background photos, and this has been verified by several methods both practical and analytical. So at this point your hammering of one of the non-rectifiable solutions is entirely irrelevant.

Really Robert, if you're going to dabble in a science, at least learn it. You're denying what is the central tenet of an entire useful science. People use these principles all the time to do useful work. It's not something made up just to confound conspiracy theorists.



Your infamous disdain for real expertise doesn't permit you to make personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Nothing replaces replication except for self-proclaimed "experts" who substitute theory and hubris.
 
JayUtah said:
That means the photo was not taken when you say it had to have been taken. Do you understand what refutation is?



I am aware of no evidence establishing its provenance or purpose. Hence I do not speculate, because that would be irresponsible.. You and your cronies, on the other hand, speculate wildly and ignore all the facts that contradict your speculation. How does your approach better serve the truth?
Click to expand...

Because what cannot be explained must raise suspicion, except, of course, for the hopelessly brainwashed, authority worshipping Nutters.
 
JayUtah said:
That photo is a fact that you have attempted to explain in terms of a conspiracy to falsify evidence. We have shown how your explanation simply flies in the face of the facts. You are unable to reconcile your theory with the facts, but are unwilling to abandon it. That is entirely irrelevant to whether someone else has any speculation about how the photo came to be.

You really don't understand how proof works in the real world, do you?
Click to expand...

I understand close minded arrogance when I see it.
 
jargon buster said:
Thats the direction I was taking him southwind17.
The only people who can make any judgement on the backyard photos are the people who have studied the originals.
Theres no point cutting and pasting photos from various websites and pointing out anomilies, its silly to think they havent been manipulated to suit an agenda.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The self-proclaimed "experts" on this board have proclaimed that the copies of these photos are accurate renditions of the originals. If they are not, then their opinions have no merit.
 
Robert Prey said:
Nothing replaces replication except for self-proclaimed "experts" who substitute theory and hubris.
Click to expand...

You didn't address a single point of my post. What you call "replication" is not what science means by the reproducibility of its results.

Further, it is not hubristic to bring one's legitimate expertise to bear. I have explained the underlying science, which you expressly ignored previously. I have shown how your alleged "replication" fails to account for the properties of the science underlying photographic analysis, and you continue to ignore it.

Be that way, if you wish. But you cannot then subsequently argue that disagreement with your claims is motivated by some ideological bias. You're simply ignorant of the science you profess to dabble in, and you aren't interested in correcting that ignorance. And everyone can see this.
 
Southwind17 said:
There's no 'theory', Robert, only physics. Please explain, in your own words, why you consider the explanation doubtful.


Robert, this quotation has absolutely no relevance to my explanation as to how the characteristics of the two photos demonstrates a difference in camera distance. Why, exactly, have you posted this?
Click to expand...

Of course is does.
 
HSienzant said:
When and where did he insist on that, Robert, as you've previously alleged and never cited. Can you cite it now?

You've now got your witness mis-remembering how many shots there were.

You've got the one that missed the limo
Then the shot that hits JFK
Then the shot that hits Connally, but Connally said he was hit by the second shot
Then the shot that strikes JFK
And a shot in there somewhere that strikes Tague

Minimum of five, but Nellie AND JOHN both only heard three. And John says he was hit by the second of those three.
Click to expand...


By my count, I've cited it about ten times from several sources. That's enough. A little more honesty would be appreciated.
 
Robert Prey said:
I understand close minded arrogance when I see it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing closed-minded about the approach taken toward your claims. Your claims were listened to at face value, were not prejudicially dismissed, were considered on their merits, and upon their merits were disputed -- with the disputation clearly spelled out. You are simply unable to deal with the facts underlying that disputation, and are now simply lashing out personally at your critics for not accepting your claim blindly.

There is nothing arrogant about expertise legitimately acquired and practiced. If you lack that expertise, then you are at a disadvantage. But open-mindedness does not include accepting ignorance in place of knowledge. You have been shown why your claims lack merit. Many people have attempted to educate you in the sciences that pertain to your claims. Many people have attempted to demonstrate those scientific principles at work.

You simply want none of it. You were told what to believe by your non-experts, and because it matches some ideologcial predisposition, you do not question it. I'm sorry that you feel animosity toward legitimate expertise. But it will not go away, and your home-grown, untested methods do not trump it by any means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom