JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

When you have evidence that the criminal is in fact the government, what would you expect?

There is no such thing as "the government." There is a loose and intentionally adversarial, squabbling bunch of petty-minded politicians and bureaucrats.

Would you expect the government to indict itself?????

Yes. It happens all the time.

You just can't face up to the fact that your evidence simply isn't convincing. So you have to invent some other reason.

 

[JayUtah]

Crackpot is just another one of your tiresome ad hominem attacks on people who have contrary opinions.

You wish.

It's not his "contrary opinion" I object to, but rather the manner in which he formed it. He took a subsurface backscatter algorithm from someone else and adapted it for use in metallurgy, not an uncommon practice. He didn't invent subsurface backscatter methods, nor was he the first or even the most important person who found a good use for it.

But then he asserted that this mechanism could be used in the forensic analysis of photography. But he applied it only to Kennedy photos, and did so without showing that the method could do what he said it could do. He refused to let anyone else review his work. He simply got a certain result and interpreted that without validation or control as proof of what he desired.

His further published claims about the strength and validity of his method are simply absurd. They have no basis in the science of the field he is attempting to practice.

That, not some imaginary "ad hominem" attack, is the basis of my rejection of his expertise.

I find it extremely telling that you are trying to cite his alleged acceptance as an expert witness in federal court, yet you reject my definition of an expert, which is based on that standard. I dispute that he has ever testified as an expert witness, and I dispute that he meets the standard of expertise commonly used. You provide nothing more than hearsay and wishful thinking in favor of his alleged expertise. I have examined his findings and claims and I find them to be entirely unscientific.

Nor was Wilson mentioned as having anything to do with [backyard] photos...

His treatment of the backyard photos comprises the entirety of chapter 7 of his book, which you've obviously never read.

I submit that you are unable to determine whether Wilson is an expert, based on the following points:

1. You claim he is an expert witness in U.S. federal court, yet you are unable to cite any cases in which he has so testified; you can produce only hearsay for his qualifications.

2. You yourself have no qualifications in image analysis or photogrammetry, nor any in computer science. You are therefore unqualified to determine whether anyone else is so qualified.

3. You have patently never read his magnum opus on the subject, which is the basis of our opinion that he is not an expert.

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, but you are assuming there was only one fatal shot to the head from only one location. I am open to more than one shot from different locations.

I beleive your open to just about anything, Robert, regardless of how tall or far, provided it doesn't support the lone assassin theory.

Tom Wilson, an expert on computer analysis with image processing on dynamic and static images ...

... and there's the rub!

has qualified as an expert witness ...

Please describe the qualification process to us would you, Robert.

He is also listed as an expert witness with the Department of Justice.

"He is also listed ..."

 

[EventHorizon]

More Sour Grapes.

Tom Wilson, an expert on computer analysis with image processing on dynamic and static images, has qualified as an expert witness in U.S. federal court in relation to the analysis of entrance and exit wounds of deceased in fatality scene photographs. He is also listed as an expert witness with the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice huh. The same Department of Justice that's a part of this government that you say has been covering up the crime for almost 50 years now? I guess we can dismiss him then.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert. Please supply:
Any evidence you have that the autopsy photos were faked with paint and/or morticians wax as you assert.

Any evidence of any frames of the Z film having been altered, painted, or edited.

Any physical evidence of gunmen in any location other than the TSBD.

 

[JayUtah]

The Department of Justice huh.

I dispute the "expert witness" claim because that's not how the Dept. of Justice works, nor how expert testimony works in general. Here is an example of expert witness discovery: http://www.nefafoundation.org/file/FeaturedDocs/US_v_Delaema_EK.pdf

It's for an unrelated case. But in every case, the parties who intend to call expert witnesses must give the name of the witness and the subject matter of alleged expertise, and often a summary of the facts to which that expert will be asked to testify. There is no "magic" list of witnesses that is somehow "approved" to testify in federal court. Every expert witness is subject to voir dire every time he testifies, although for most appearances voir dire is waived by opposing counsel. (You never win a case by cross-examining your adversary's expert witness.)

So Wilson either testified for the DOJ in an actual case, or he did not. There's no middle ground where you're "accepted" or "approved" to testify, but then do not. One either passes voir dire in an actual case, or one isn't an expert witness. The glaring misconception in that c.v. about the nature of legal expert testimony is a huge clue to me that the claim isn't likely to be true.

Taking off my engineer hat and putting on my pseudo-lawyer hat (I help lawyers prepare cases involving engineering incidents -- insurance, etc.), I can confidently say that I'd have no problem impeaching Wilson as an expert witness on the basis of the disclosures in his book. His lack of stature in the field of forensic photographic analysis, his complete and utter lack of scientific method in his investigation, and his complete lack of independent verification would all work very much against him. Only the greatest fool of a prosecutor would put him on the stand as an expert witness. He'd be torn to shreds by opposing counsel.

 

[Southwind17]

"Well, Robert, Rude?" IS only one question, Robert. Please answer it lest we all think it rude of you.

Waiting, Robert ...

Robert ... helloooooooooooooooo?

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, but you are assuming there was only one fatal shot to the head from only one location. I am open to more than one shot from different locations.

No, Robert.

That's not what the man you cited [Tom Wilson] says. He says the fatal shot came from the storm drain, and only the storm drain. You are now disagreeing with your own [supposedly expert] witness. You do that a lot. What's the point of citing him if you yourself disagree with his findings?

I also asked you to put your scenario down in writiing, and took a stab at guessing what it was, based on your prior postings.

I put a question mark after the "missed", denoting I was unsure of your scenario. I didn't assume a miss. That's another lie right there.

Here it is again. You've said 4 to 7 shots in the recent past, so I'd like a clarification of what you see hitting where. So if you believe two fatal shots, list them. If you unsure of anything, note that.

Here's my best guess as to your scenario, once again (based on your prior postings).

1. First missed shot
2. Shot to JFK's back
3. Shot to JFK's neck
4. Shot to Connally
5. Shot to JFK's head from Sewer Drain
6. Shot to JFK's head (missed?) from Grassy Knoll
7. Shot to James Tague
8. Shot to windshield

I'd appreciate a posting telling us your actual scenario.

Thanks,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Inadvertent duplicate posting

 

[Southwind17]

That's not what the man you cited [Tom Wilson] says. He says the fatal shot came from the storm drain, and only the storm drain.

You can picture the headline right there:

[SIZE=+4]WILSON'S JFK ASSASSINATION THEORY GOES DOWN THE DRAIN[/SIZE]

 

[HSienzant]

You can picture the headline right there:

WILSON'S JFK ASSASSINATION THEORY GOES DOWN THE DRAIN

The original storm drain theory was first advanced by Jack Brazil (to my knowledge) back in the 1980's. I met him in Dallas in 1992 or 1993, when I was there for a Kennedy Assassination Conference. He is given some credit in the video cited by Robert.

Jack has two spots for two shooters.

One spot is the one pictured in the video, at the base of the stairs leading to the grassy knoll, and it's Jack climbing down into that opening in the video.

The other is at the southwest corner of the overpass, just behind the grassy knoll fence. Brazil's theory was that a shooter from this location could just pry the bottom of one fence board off the fence, slide it out of the way, and shoot the President from that location. I'm not sure if Jack still believes a shot emanated from this second location as well (it wasn't mentioned in the video). I got down in that second storm drain when I met Jack that year and it was my conclusion a shooter from that location would not have had a clear shot at the President until AFTER the head shot.

Not sure if Robert believes in one storm drain shooter or two. If two, he's now up to nine shots for his four-to-seven-shot assassination sequence, by my count. And who knows, maybe THREE fatal shots to the head.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"Latent fingerprint recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5 millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.... It is of no value for identificationpurposes."

HSCA Appendix to Hearings - Volume VIII

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0126b.htm

Yep, that was the conclusion of the HSCA fingerprint panel who did not examine ALL the photographs of the fingerprint. Scalise (who served on the HSCA panel you cite above) got a later opportunity to examine all four of the extant first generation images and his conclusion, quoted prior and reproduced below, was that having all four of the photos aided immeasurably in being able to make the ID of Oswald's prints. Did you not see that?

Footnote 11:
11. "Initially, only Oswald's partial palm print was identified under the barrel of the rifle (10 points of identification are usually required for a positive ID). In 1992, I met with Rusty Livingston, a former Dallas policeman assigned to the crime lab at the time of the assassination. Livingston had saved high contrast photo prints of the rifle, taken before it was shipped to FBI headquarters in Washington. The photos contained evidence that had gone unnoticed, and when Frontline had them analyzed, Oswald's guilt seemed even more certain. Vincent Scalice, a renowned fingerprint expert and HSCA consultant, was engaged by Frontline and expressed astonishment at what he saw -- three fingers from Oswald's right hand had left their mark just inches from the trigger.

"Scalice, in fact, had located a whopping 18 points of identification. After the production aired, he continued his work and increased the total to 24 points. "If I had seen these four photographs in 1978," says Scalice, "I would have been able to make an identification at that point in time. After this reexamination, I definitely conclude these are Oswald's prints. There is no doubt about it." Other experts pointed out that the prints were "fresh" because they would not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard housing." (Gus Russo, Live by the Sword [Baltimore, Maryland: Bancroft Press, 1998] p. 462.)

Scalise is a legitimate fingerprint expert. You have no reason to toss out his ID of Oswald's prints, other than you don't like it.

But face it: Oswald's fresh prints were found on the rifle. Just after the assassination. The rifle was found in the building. From where numerous witnesses saw a shooter or a rifle. The two large fragments found in the limo are ballistically traceable to that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The nearly whole bullet found at Parkland was ballistically traceable to that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

The evidence in this case implicates Oswald. It has from day one. That's the fact.

On the other hand, your supposed other shooter(s) were never seen, left nothing behind, no weapons were found, no shells traceable to their weapons were ever found, and no damage to the head consistent with a shot from the right side is found in the autopsy report, the autopsy x-rays, or the autopsy photographs.

It's almost like they never existed.

Wait - it's exactly like they never existed!

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Yep, that was the conclusion of the HSCA fingerprint panel who did not examine ALL the photographs of the fingerprint. Scalise (who served on the HSCA panel you cite above) got a later opportunity to examine all four of the extant first generation images and his conclusion, quoted prior and reproduced below, was that having all four of the photos aided immeasurably in being able to make the ID of Oswald's prints. Did you not see that?

Footnote 11:
11. "Initially, only Oswald's partial palm print was identified under the barrel of the rifle (10 points of identification are usually required for a positive ID). In 1992, I met with Rusty Livingston, a former Dallas policeman assigned to the crime lab at the time of the assassination. Livingston had saved high contrast photo prints of the rifle, taken before it was shipped to FBI headquarters in Washington. The photos contained evidence that had gone unnoticed, and when Frontline had them analyzed, Oswald's guilt seemed even more certain. Vincent Scalice, a renowned fingerprint expert and HSCA consultant, was engaged by Frontline and expressed astonishment at what he saw -- three fingers from Oswald's right hand had left their mark just inches from the trigger.

"Scalice, in fact, had located a whopping 18 points of identification. After the production aired, he continued his work and increased the total to 24 points. "If I had seen these four photographs in 1978," says Scalice, "I would have been able to make an identification at that point in time. After this reexamination, I definitely conclude these are Oswald's prints. There is no doubt about it." Other experts pointed out that the prints were "fresh" because they would not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the trigger guard housing." (Gus Russo, Live by the Sword [Baltimore, Maryland: Bancroft Press, 1998] p. 462.)

To accept that conclusion one must believe photographs of the fingerprints were clearer than the faintly visible real prints that the FBI's Latona dismissed 30 years prior. Moreover, Scalise refused to make a sworn statement regarding his interpretation of the prints.

 

[Robert Prey]

YThe two large fragments found in the limo are ballistically traceable to that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The nearly whole bullet found at Parkland was ballistically traceable to that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Hank

Baloney. In referring to the NAA analysis J. Edgar wrote:
"While minor variations in composition were found...these were not considered to be sufficient to permit positively differentiating among the large bullet fragments and thus positively determining from which of the larger bullet fragments any given small fragment may have come."

Not satisfied, the HSCA tried again with D. V. P. Guinn to conduct the tests. But these were also flawed for several reasons. For example, it was learend that the wrist fragments originally tested in 1964 were missing. And Guinn admitted publicly that the fragments he tested were not the originals from the Natiaonl Archives. And there were other problems dealing with the type of ammunition. That line "to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world" is 24 carat brainwash.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert. Please supply:
Any evidence you have that the autopsy photos were faked with paint and/or morticians wax as you assert.

Any evidence of any frames of the Z film having been altered, painted, or edited.

Any physical evidence of gunmen in any location other than the TSBD.

The evidence is the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head.

 

[CORed]

Where did the fatal shot come from, Robert?

Tom Wilson says, in the video you cite, that the head shot came not from the grassy knoll, but from the storm drain on the street.

He says the shooter seen in the Badgeman photo didn't fire the fatal shot. Neither did it come from behind the fence.

According to Wilson, starting at 12:34:
"...President Kennedy's wound, in his right temporal area, is at an angle like this [pointing], it's coming out of the ground ... President Kennedy was assassinated by a man firing a missile from inside the manhole cover at the bottom of the steps in Dealey Plaza."

He says there's no doubt in his mind that's where the shot came from.

So you've just introduced another shooter!

Where did the fatal shot come from, Robert?

You previously cited deaf mute Ed Hoffman as seeing the grassy knoll shooter. Your latest witness - Tom Wilson - disputes that entirely.

So where did the fatal shot come from, Robert?
Do you even have a clue?

Remember you have to get all these shots in within your four to seven shot scenario:

1. First missed shot
2. Shot to JFK's back
3. Shot to JFK's neck
4. Shot to Connally
5. Shot to JFK's head from Sewer Drain
6. Shot to JFK's head (missed?) from Grassy Knoll
7. Shot to James Tague
8. Shot to windshield

Am I missing anything?
Please provide your scenario.

Hank

It seems to me that Wilson got the angle of the shot right, but the direction is 180 degrees off.

 

[Robert Prey]

You wish.

It's not his "contrary opinion" I object to, but rather the manner in which he formed it. He took a subsurface backscatter algorithm from someone else and adapted it for use in metallurgy, not an uncommon practice. He didn't invent subsurface backscatter methods, nor was he the first or even the most important person who found a good use for it.

But then he asserted that this mechanism could be used in the forensic analysis of photography. But he applied it only to Kennedy photos, and did so without showing that the method could do what he said it could do. He refused to let anyone else review his work. He simply got a certain result and interpreted that without validation or control as proof of what he desired.

His further published claims about the strength and validity of his method are simply absurd. They have no basis in the science of the field he is attempting to practice.

That, not some imaginary "ad hominem" attack, is the basis of my rejection of his expertise.

I find it extremely telling that you are trying to cite his alleged acceptance as an expert witness in federal court, yet you reject my definition of an expert, which is based on that standard. I dispute that he has ever testified as an expert witness, and I dispute that he meets the standard of expertise commonly used. You provide nothing more than hearsay and wishful thinking in favor of his alleged expertise. I have examined his findings and claims and I find them to be entirely unscientific.



His treatment of the backyard photos comprises the entirety of chapter 7 of his book, which you've obviously never read.

I submit that you are unable to determine whether Wilson is an expert, based on the following points:

1. You claim he is an expert witness in U.S. federal court, yet you are unable to cite any cases in which he has so testified; you can produce only hearsay for his qualifications.

2. You yourself have no qualifications in image analysis or photogrammetry, nor any in computer science. You are therefore unqualified to determine whether anyone else is so qualified.

3. You have patently never read his magnum opus on the subject, which is the basis of our opinion that he is not an expert.

Kindly provide to me some documented cases where you have been accepted as an expert witness in gunshot wounds in a criminal trial. Also list your qualifications in photogrammetry and sources where it can be verified.

Thanks

 

[Robert Prey]

Cat got your tongue again on the exact date and time of the backyard photos?

Sorry Robert. Wilson IS a crackpot. I've no problem with contrary opinion provided they are not based on crackpottery.

You on the other hand only seem to believe crackpots.

You are really funny when you are getting your butt kicked!

Expert versus expert? Crackpot versus crackpot. Kindly provide me with some documented evidence that you, yourself are not a crackpot.

Thanks.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The evidence is the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head.

There are more witnesses than that to the large blow-outs on the bottom of your feet.



LOL.

 

[JayUtah]

Kindly provide...

Why? How will those establish Tom Wilson as the expert you say he is?