JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
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
Click to expand...

Have your inept attempts to switch the burden of proof ever been successful????
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, the photographs came first.

1. Day dusted the rifle for prints in the Deps
2. Day photographed the triggerguard prints in the DPD crime lab
3. Day covered the prints with tape to protect them.
4. Day removed the tape (with most of the powder) and placed it on a separate evidence card.
5. The rifle was then sent to the FBI later that night, when they requested it. The fingerprint card with the prints was not requested, and not sent.
6. The lifting of the prints removed most of the fingerprint powder from the rifle; explaining why the FBI could not find sufficient points of identity to make a valid match.
7. Years later, Scalise examined those first generation photographs of the prints and identified the prints thereon as those of Lee Oswald.

Also, you just made up the part about Scalise refusing to make a sworn statement. There is no truth to that statement. Please cite your source for that. I will wager you cannot.

Hank
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
It seems to me that Wilson got the angle of the shot right, but the direction is 180 degrees off.
Click to expand...


90 degrees off. Wilson has the head shot coming from the right of the president's limo, whereas it came from behind the president's limo. Unless you think the shot came from across the street from the grassy knoll.

Addendum -- I think I see what you are saying, though. Wilson says there's an exit wound in the back of the head, and an entrance wound in the top right side of the head. Ignoring the source of the shot that Wilson names for the moment (the storm drain), the shot that struck Kennedy in the head did enter the back of the head and exit the right top side.

HSCA_trajectory.jpg


Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is it?

So you can provide 40 citations of medical witnesses explaining how they saw the photographs being faked in the method you describe? Because even if witness testemony was evidence, not a claim, evidence of what those witnesses claim to remember seeing, is not evidence of the process you claimed.

You stated the photos were faked with paint and wax. Do you actually want to try and prove that at some point? Or are you assuming the photos were faked based on your prefered narrative, and assuming those are methods that may have been used?
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Try again Robert.

You clearly have no clue what I am talking about.

You are citing Neutron Activation Analysis testing which was done, but that wasn't done to establish the shots came from that rifle.

There is a entirely different test that was performed that did match the fragments and the nearly whole bullet with the rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world - exactly as I said.

Do you even know what it was?

Hint: It is covered extensively in the Warren Commission Report, and is a standard forensic test for matching bullets to weapons. Has been for about a century. You are suffering from a lack of balance as your diet consists almost entirely of conspiracy books. I prescribe some more general reading, including books on ballistics and fingerprinting. You know, regular crime-solving stuff.

Of course you don't know about the test I'm talking about since conspiracy books avoid it like the plague, as it pretty much demolishes their case that the weapon was inadequate and the accused was not capable. Since it's a standard test, easily understood by most people, they have no rebuttal. Rather than try to rebut, they simply don't mention it. Hence your lack of familiarity with it.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Expert versus expert? Crackpot versus crackpot. Kindly provide me with some documented evidence that you, yourself are not a crackpot.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Logical Fallacy 101: Shifting the burden of proof.

You are the one citing Wilson's opinions as meaningful.

As such, it is up to you to document his expertise.

So far, you haven't come close.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Ad ignorantiam - "...in order to make a positive claim, however, positive evidence for the specific claim must be presented."

You made the claim that Wilson is an expert and he knows what he's talking about (if he doesn't, then he's giving an uninformed opinion only; and who cares about those? We get enough of those from you).

So provide the positive evidence that Wilson is an expert in photography and has been recognized as an photographic expert in court cases.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Expert versus expert? Crackpot versus crackpot. Kindly provide me with some documented evidence that you, yourself are not a crackpot.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Craig Lamson vrs Jack White, John Costella and David Percy

www.craiglamson.com/apollo,htm

Craig Lamson vrs Jack White, John Costella, Jim Fetzer, David Mantik and David Healy

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm
www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

Please refute my work, those smucks failed.


And

Craig Lamson, Joshia Thompson, Joe Durnavich, Ron Helper, Gary Mack and David Wimp vrs Jack White, David Mantik, and Jim Fetzer

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/index.html#contents

And of course my professional work is documented here

www.craiglamson.com

Btw,as I stated in my very first post on this forum, I'm not an expert, I'm just a guy how has made a living for 30+ years using a camera.

I also have developed into a decent photo analyst and am blessed with the means and inclination to be able to accurately test the claims of photographic fakery made by CT's

And of course you can find scads more of my work on both the Education forum and the JFK Assassination forum.

Now, if you think you can challenge any of this work, please start a new thread and I will be happy to destroy you there.
 
Last edited:
BTW Robert,

What was the date and time the BY photos were taken?

Why are you sidestepping this simple question?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Robert. Please supply:
Any physical evidence of gunmen in any location other than the TSBD.
Click to expand...
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Amazing, just amazing!

And in any case, 40+ is a lot of people, Robert. Seriously, how many of those 40+ people do you believe observed the head injuries to the extent that, even if they were very familiar with gun shot wounds to the head, they could form an informed opinion as to the nature of the trauma to the head? And by 'observed' I would suggest that we at least envisage examination of the entire skull to consider both the entry wound and exit wound in context.
 
Southwind17 said:
Amazing, just amazing!

And in any case, 40+ is a lot of people, Robert. Seriously, how many of those 40+ people do you believe observed the head injuries to the extent that, even if they were very familiar with gun shot wounds to the head, they could form an informed opinion as to the nature of the trauma to the head? And by 'observed' I would suggest that we at least envisage examination of the entire skull to consider both the entry wound and exit wound in context.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how much information Robert can discern from the statements. Things the witness do not even mention. When conflicting information is noted like the illustration showing a different wound to describe. A simple left right mistake Robert says, and some how discerns which is correct, and is able to discount any other possible axis of mistakes. Then to extrapolate further things it "proves".

How can it prove anything if it is flawed information? A left/right error means the possibilities of other errors.
 
infocusinc said:
Btw,as I stated in my very first post on this forum, I'm not an expert, I'm just a guy how has made a living for 30+ years using a camera.
Click to expand...

Well now you've got some pretty photos there, and it's nice to know that you are not really an "expert", but just what does being able to take a picture have to do with judging computer imagery expert Tom Wilson as a "crackpot."?????
 
Southwind17 said:
Amazing, just amazing!

And in any case, 40+ is a lot of people, Robert. Seriously, how many of those 40+ people do you believe observed the head injuries to the extent that, even if they were very familiar with gun shot wounds to the head, they could form an informed opinion as to the nature of the trauma to the head? And by 'observed' I would suggest that we at least envisage examination of the entire skull to consider both the entry wound and exit wound in context.
Click to expand...

You mean physical evidence as in persons seen or unseen like the persons unseen in the 6th Fl. TSBD?
 
Robert, have you yet managed to establish how the shot that you claim killed Kennedy came from the front when the grassy knoll was on Ks right?
 
Robert Prey said:
Well now you've got some pretty photos there, and it's nice to know that you are not really an "expert", but just what does being able to take a picture have to do with judging computer imagery expert Tom Wilson as a "crackpot."?????
Click to expand...

Trying to shift the burden of proof again?

How about proving Tom Wilson is not a crackpot by showing his knowledge in one field, computer imagery, has any relevence to the field he is commenting on, photogeometry?

His standing as a crackpot is simple: he claims to have used a technique that has no known application in photo analysis for photo analysis, offers no proof ofconcept, offers no peer review to validate the concept of application, and offers no way to validate his claims.

If somebody says they have discovered a new application of science, wont explain how the concept was proven and effectively states he is the only person in the world who can prove or disprove the results, he is a crackpot.
 
Robert Prey said:
Well now you've got some pretty photos there, and it's nice to know that you are not really an "expert", but just what does being able to take a picture have to do with judging computer imagery expert Tom Wilson as a "crackpot."?????
Click to expand...

He's a crackpot because he never told anyone HOW he did his work or let anyone else check it.

In other words he just said, "hey look, it works". A NON CRACKPOT would have zero problems detailing the process, doing real control testing and letting other do the same work to confirm the results.

But it gets even worse for you Robert.

Wilson sez his method revealed the iris and pupil on the alleged "badgeman".

Of course what it really revealed is that Wilson took a long walk off of the short pier called sanity.

How do I know? Because I understand and have researched the resolving power of the camera/film system used by Mary Moorman and KNOW the ability of this system to record detail is well below what would be required for the Wilson fantasy to be real.

He is a crackpot Robert.


And of course all of this brings us back to Robert Prey, who holds this guy and his work up as "expert"

So tell us Robert, how do you know the work is valid and done properly?

Or is it "hey it fits my fantasy worldview so it MUST be correct"?
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
...but just what does being able to take a picture have to do with judging computer imagery expert Tom Wilson as a "crackpot."?????
Click to expand...

You're the one asking us to accept Tom Wilson as a "computer imagery expert." We've tried in vain to get you to tell us why we should do that.

You tried to tell us he was some important witness for the government on the subject of gunshots. But you can't tell us what cases he testified in. The only source for that credential you've given us is Wilson's bio from a conspiracy theorist conference.

Wilson wrote a book describing what he did with the Kennedy photos. You apparently have not read it. Hence you're unfamiliar with what Wilson actually claims. And you're apparently unfamiliar with the claims he made subsequently, such as being able to rectify a man's eyeball from a photo with enough precision to prescribe him eyeglasses.

You say he is an expert in "computer imagery," but you don't define what you think that means. In his book Wilson describes a method we recognize variously as (sub)surface backscatter or differential photometry, but admits he didn't invent the subsequent image-processing algorithm; he got it from NASA. At the time of writing, he was hoping to introduce it into the production process of his employer, U.S. Steel, but had not yet been successful.

You decline to present any evidence that Wilson's image-processing method was actually used for anything successfully, and my research has failed to produce any. In fact the only recorded use of the Wilson method is its application to the Kennedy photos. You believe that Wilson was an expert on gunshots. How does working for a steel company make one an expert in gunshots? How does being a "computer imagery expert" make one an expert in gunshots? The reasons you give for the supposed validity of his testimony in the Kennedy case are non sequiturs.

Let us summarize. His magnum opus was borrowed from NASA, not invented by him. He may or may not have actually used it for anything useful. There is no record of its having been tested for suitability toward any purpose. He makes ludicrous claims about its abilities. Your claim that he is an expert federal witness remains unsubstantiated.

On what basis can you maintain that Tom Wilson is an expert? And please don't come back with some mumbo-jumbo about an ad hominem argument. I'm simply dissecting the points you raised in favor of his alleged expertise. If they're not ad hominem when you talk about them, they're not ad hominem when I talk about them.
 
If this Wilson fellow says he can diagnose Badgeman's eye troubles from the Moorman photo then really what more needs to be said? He's obviously a crazy person who likes attention. Saying Oswald killed JFK doesn't get you as much attention as gibbering on about gov't cover-ups.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom