• 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:
Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Computer expert Tom Wilson explains it all for you in Living Color in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."



Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections. He has been recognized as an expert witness in Federal Court murder cases involving gunshot wounds.

Infocsinc's definition of "crackpot" -- Anyone who has an opinion that differs from Infocsinc.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what and who he is Robert. Please show us his skillset has any bearing the the validity of the backyard photos.

Wilson the crackpot tells us his "expert" analysis of the backyard photos show 9:12 am as a timestamp....

You do know that means back lighting don't you?

Sheesh Robert, any port in a storm for you when cornered.

BTW, you still have not given us the date and time for the BY photos? Or are you in the 9:12 AM timeslot too? LOL!

Tom Wilson on the badgeman, allegedly found in a ASA 3000 Polaroid image.

"I can zoom into his eye, and from the 3D image I could prescribe eyeglasses."

Can anyone here say "crackpot"
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections.
Click to expand...

My company produces a similar product. Wilson's early work was good at determining the composition of steel from penetrative imaging results, but it has never been recognized as a valid method of forensic photographic analysis. Nor did he permit it to be peer reviewed for validity toward that purpose.

Wilson cannot demonstrate any training or expertise in photogrammetry, which means he is not an expert witness for things such as bullet trajectories.

He has been recognized as an expert witness in Federal Court murder cases involving gunshot wounds.
Click to expand...

Case citation, please?

Infocsinc's definition of "crackpot" -- Anyone who has an opinion that differs from Infocsinc.
Click to expand...

No, he and I have consistently applied roughly the same definition of "expert," and it's the one I posted and you dismissed without comment. I have now described how Wilson fails to satisfy that definition. You were asked to provide a more suitable definition of expert. Why have you failed to do so? Why are you so busy putting words in other people's mouths?
 
SpitfireIX said:
Cool. We'll have to have lunch sometime, if you're free. Maybe after I'm done with my classes for this semester.

We've got some other Hoosiers around here, too, though some of them have moved out of state.
Click to expand...


That would be neat. My schedule changes almost daily, give me a shout when you have time.
 
Tom Wilson in TMWKK.

Starts at the 4 min mark.

This is Roberts definition of an "expert"
Click to expand...

I loved his method of viewing the assassination in the style of "the Predator".
And the choking up when he mentioned the shot from the front deserves an Oscar.
 
Robert Prey said:
No. The arm stretched forward betrays a dropping of the stick to make the shadow "work". A 2-dimensional analysis of the angle does not account for the dip in the stick. And of course the angle of the sun is completely different from 133B.
Click to expand...


Moving the goal post! AGAIN!

The original claim was simply that a rifle held at 11 o'clock couldn't produce a horizontal shadow, and therefore the backyard photo of Oswald was faked. That claim has been disproven.

Now, you simply pile on additional conditions you want met, saying it's not a true replication.

You're claiming the shadow of the man isn't replicated; the angle of the stick isn't identical to the angle of the rifle, and the angle of the sun isn't the same.

None of that was in your original post.

You're moving the goalpost. But that is simply because you don't want to admit your original claim was wrong. But it was, and the image below proves it:

compare3.jpg


Please tell us how you determined the dip in the stick compared to the dip in the rifle, and what it should be...

Thanks,
Hank
 
Last edited:
infocusinc said:
Spend a bit of time with Tom and his work...the excerpts are enlightening.
Click to expand...

Oh I already have. I looked at his book at your recommendation, back when you consulted me on the Zapruder film claims several years ago. Absolutely non-scientific. Absolutely ad hoc. This guy doesn't even apply a control! That's the most basic step. He doesn't have the faintest clue what's involved in real forensic image analysis.

BTW our system is based on laser diffraction patterns and subsurface scattering of x-rays. We use a proprietary parallel algorithm to determine the characteristics of materials. We provide it to manufacturing companies that have a need for precisely finished surfaces.
 
infocusinc said:
Tom Wilson on the badgeman, allegedly found in a ASA 3000 Polaroid image.

"I can zoom into his eye, and from the 3D image I could prescribe eyeglasses."

Can anyone here say "crackpot"
Click to expand...

Crackpot of the first order.

The badgeman doesn't exist; it's a figment of Jack White's imagination. The badgeman would have to be firing at JFK from a 23-feet-tall ladder behind the grassy knoll fence if he had a normal sized head. He could be at the fence line only if he had an abnormally small head.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Crackpot of the first order.

The badgeman doesn't exist; it's a figment of Jack White's imagination. The badgeman would have to be firing at JFK from a 23-feet-tall ladder behind the grassy knoll fence if he had a normal sized head. He could be at the fence line only if he had an abnormally small head.

Hank
Click to expand...

Also not enough resolving power from the camera/lens/filmstock/fstop/shutter speed/camara stability combination to produce the detail White and company says is there in the "badgeman" enlargement.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Oh I already have. I looked at his book at your recommendation, back when you consulted me on the Zapruder film claims several years ago. Absolutely non-scientific. Absolutely ad hoc. This guy doesn't even apply a control! That's the most basic step. He doesn't have the faintest clue what's involved in real forensic image analysis.

BTW our system is based on laser diffraction patterns and subsurface scattering of x-rays. We use a proprietary parallel algorithm to determine the characteristics of materials. We provide it to manufacturing companies that have a need for precisely finished surfaces.
Click to expand...

Yet Robert and others find the work to be superb...
 
Robert Prey said:

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham
May 2003

In the case of the House Select Committee, what is most striking is the conflicted nature of the conclusions: while the committee reached the stunning conclusion that there had indeed been a conspiracy to kill JFK, the HSCA’s forensic subpanel concluded there was no evidence for one in Kennedy’s medical and autopsy evidence ...

Besides the President’s brain and tissue slides, the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished, as have the HSCA tests that revealed that the camera failed a test to match them with the official photographs. The skull fragments that ostensibly proved the bullet’s direction by their supposed beveling characteristics have disappeared. Original autopsy notes were vaporized by JFK’s chief pathologist, who followed that up by signing false affidavits about them, and then by giving the Warren Commission misleading testimony. Also, multiple lines of evidence suggest that crucial – what might fairly be described as “diagnostic” – autopsy photographs are also missing, if not falsified...

Declassified files prove that, by both word and diagram, autopsy witnesses had refuted the pictures, not endorsed them. What did the HSCA do? In addition to misreporting on them, it suppressed the witness interviews and the explicit autopsy diagrams they’d prepared. [As with its treatment of Dr. Burkley, not even the HSCA’s own autopsy experts were allowed to see the HSCA’s interviews with the autopsy witnesses.] Thus, witnesses who had actually challenged Oswald’s guilt were cited as corroborating it.
--

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

In other words, the HSCA lied.
Click to expand...


Gary Aguilar gave a presentation back in the early 1990's at an ASK conference. He spoke about the Sylvia Odio incident. It was his conclusion it wasn't Oswald but an Oswald double who visited Odio.

I had one question for Gary and he failed miserably.

I asked (paraphrasing) "If I understand you correctly, the people who Odio saw in the company of the Oswald-double were Anti-Castro Cubans, and you believe this is evidence that conspirators were trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. If that is true, why did they put Oswald in the COMPANY OF ANTI-CASTRO CUBANS, if they were trying to frame him as a PRO-CASTRO LONE NUT?"

Aguilar's brilliant response: "I don't know, but it worked!"

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG

Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham
May 2003

...Besides the President’s brain and tissue slides, the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished, as have the HSCA tests that revealed that the camera failed a test to match them with the official photographs. The skull fragments that ostensibly proved the bullet’s direction by their supposed beveling characteristics have disappeared. Original autopsy notes were vaporized by JFK’s chief pathologist, who followed that up by signing false affidavits about them, and then by giving the Warren Commission misleading testimony. Also, multiple lines of evidence suggest that crucial – what might fairly be described as “diagnostic” – autopsy photographs are also missing, if not falsified...

Declassified files prove that, by both word and diagram, autopsy witnesses had refuted the pictures, not endorsed them. What did the HSCA do? In addition to misreporting on them, it suppressed the witness interviews and the explicit autopsy diagrams they’d prepared. [As with its treatment of Dr. Burkley, not even the HSCA’s own autopsy experts were allowed to see the HSCA’s interviews with the autopsy witnesses.] Thus, witnesses who had actually challenged Oswald’s guilt were cited as corroborating it.
--

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

In other words, the HSCA lied.
Click to expand...


I recall you chiding me when I sent you a link to John McAdams site. I thought we had reached a tacit agreement that you wouldn't site conspiracy theorist articles and I wouldn't cite McAdams articles.

Do you remember this exchange:

Robert Prey said:
I would like to have you cite the actual source for where he remembered only a small entry hole in the back of the head and not some irrelevant McAdams junk.
HSienzant said:
Classic Robert! How come you want me to cite primary sources even when you don't hold yourself to the same standard?

I remind you that my response was in regards to your post, where you cited only Michael Giffith's article - which offers no citations to primary sources whatsoever:

Robert Prey said:
More old ground:

"Floyd Riebe, one of the two autopsy photographers, has stated that did NOT take ANY of the photos in evidence. The other photographer, James Stringer, stated in a taped interview that he did NOT take the photos of the back of the head, which show that area intact, contrary to the testimony of literally dozens of credible witnesses."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_X-rays_and_photos.html
Click to expand...


I also note that you failed to respond to any of the points I made, instead merely asking me to stick with a standard you yourself don't adhere to.

Now, please hold yourself to the same standard you ask of me, which means you cannot cite Michael Griffith's material (where he cites only secondary sources) as evidence of anything in the future. Only primary sources.

My points were three:

1: Stringer signed a statement in 1966 saying he took the photos in the archives.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jf...ml/Image10.htm
He signed this after viewing the archival photos. The document he signed has an extensive listing of the materials viewed and signed for. You merely have to page back from his signature (using the 'previous' button) to view the rest of the document cited above.
2. His signed statement is 30 years earlier than the recollection you cited in the Griffith article.
3. He mentions no large blowout in the back of the head in the 33-year-after-the-event recollection; agreeing that there was only a small entry wound in the back of the head (this is in the testimony you cited; aren't you familar with it?)

Ok, I'll relent - here it is. Please see the pages 87-92 or thereabouts.
He is pretty clear, I think, he saw no large blowout in the occipital region, putting only a small entrance wound there.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You never did rebut any of those points, of course, although you brought up Stringer to begin with.

The article you cite is meaningless. I can see at least a couple of false and/or misleading claims easily enough:

1. "As with its treatment of Dr. Burkley, not even the HSCA’s own autopsy experts were allowed to see the HSCA’s interviews with the autopsy witnesses."
I would think that is the right way to go - the HSCA autopsy experts were supposed to determine the validity of the autopsy materials from the materials themselves, and then draw conclusions from the materials. They weren't supposed to be basing their conclusions on what the witnesses recalled, as the witnesses recollections could color their assessment of the materials. So Aguilar's "criticism" of the HSCA methodology falls flat on its face here.

Let's attack it another way: Do you understand what a double-blind test is, and why those are utilized in tests of various kinds?​


2. "the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished..."

Vanished? The camera was utilized in 1963 for the autopsy photos. It was looked for by the AARB, in 1996 or thereabouts - more than 30 years after the fact. A third of a century. No doubt the camera was either no longer in working order and tossed in the trash, or replaced with a better model, including possibly (by that time) a camera that saved the images to a chip, rather than using film. This is the kind of 'evidence' that conspiracy addicts must resort to, to make a case for conspiracy. Do you still have your 33-year old camera? Does Aguilar? Of course not. And given the number of corpsman who passed through the Bethesda Naval Hospital over that 33-year period, I am not surprised that somewhere along the line, the camera was tossed out and replaced once it ceased working. But conspiracy theorists like Aguilar paint this as suspicious, and you post it here as if it is relevant. Absurd.​

Hank
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
Cool. We'll have to have lunch sometime, if you're free. Maybe after I'm done with my classes for this semester.

We've got some other Hoosiers around here, too, though some of them have moved out of state.
Click to expand...

I'm from South Bend mysellf and have a brother in Antwerp and another in Syracuse that bracket you. I live in the Chicago South Suburbs right up US 30 from ya, plus 2-3 hrs and lots of cornfields.
 
infocusinc said:
Yet Robert and others find the work to be superb...
Click to expand...

My recollection is that Jack White backed away from Wilson in the ensuing years, mostly because Wilson never let anyone review or verify his methods. But I haven't followed it in many years, so my memory may be faulty.

But yes, Robert does seem to be particularly susceptible to pseudoscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom