JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[infocusinc]

Because it's a ridiculous question.

ROFLMAO! Robert, you are a laugh a second when you are cornered. You make a lousy CT.

You have claimed time and time again that certain BY photo demonstrations of shadows fail because they have the angle of the sun wrong.

But since you can't tell us date and time the BY photos were taken you can't tell us what the correct sun angle really is.

In other words Robert your claims are based on malarkey. Pure fantasy.

So I'll ask again and if you can't answer you need to retract your complaints about sun angles. At least that is what an intellectually honest person would do.

What is the date and time the backyard photos were taken?

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

I remember when I started reading Best Evidence and Lifton started out by finding all these people in that grainy polaroid, I just shook my head in disbelief that anyone could take this seriously.

 

[HSienzant]

Because it's a ridiculous question.

Translation: Robert doesn't have a clue.

 

[Robert Prey]

ROFLMAO! Robert, you are a laugh a second when you are cornered. You make a lousy CT.

You have claimed time and time again that certain BY photo demonstrations of shadows fail because they have the angle of the sun wrong.

But since you can't tell us date and time the BY photos were taken you can't tell us what the correct sun angle really is.

In other words Robert your claims are based on malarkey. Pure fantasy.

So I'll ask again and if you can't answer you need to retract your complaints about sun angles. At least that is what an intellectually honest person would do.

What is the date and time the backyard photos were taken?

It's a ridiculous question for two reasons: One, nobody really knows the exact date or time of day the pics were taken and 2. It is not necessary to know the exact day or time if one makes a reasonable approximation as to the shadow as it falls from the body of the fake Oswald and simply replicates it.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

What superior qualifications do you have to sit in judgement of Tom Wilson???

 

[Robert Prey]

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"

US Steel. The Dept. of Justice and Federal Courts where he has appeared as an expert witness. Note, discussing Badgman and Mary Moorman, you are off topic which is Wilson's analysis of the fake autopsy photos.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Wilson explains his method in "The Men who Killed Kennedy." The other stuff you claim is just hot air.

 

[Mudcat]

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.

I'd like to see that actually, but I strongly suspect that would be like taking a chain gun to a knife fight or in other words:

 

[Robert Prey]

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

It is an claim that is made at the introduction to his book at Amazon.com and is also a claim that is made as an introduction by the Nigel Turner in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Neither you nor any of the "experts" on this board have been able to refute those claims but are reduced to merely pooh-poohing them without a scintilla of evidence.

 

[infocusinc]

It's a ridiculous question for two reasons: One, nobody really knows the exact date or time of day the pics were taken and 2. It is not necessary to know the exact day or time if one makes a reasonable approximation as to the shadow as it falls from the body of the fake Oswald and simply replicates it.

You are correct, no one knows the date and time thus NO ONE KNOWS THE ANGLE OF THE SUN!


So now you are the judge of what is reasonable when it comes to shadows and the backyard photos/

How do you reconcile the degrees of freedom problem when attempting to "judge" these shadows?

Answer, you don't. You just complain about the results that destroy you.

What a loon!

 

[infocusinc]

US Steel. The Dept. of Justice and Federal Courts where he has appeared as an expert witness. Note, discussing Badgman and Mary Moorman, you are off topic which is Wilson's analysis of the fake autopsy photos.

No the topic is Wilsons credibility and "expert" status on photo analysis. Oh and if he qualifies as as a crackpot.

His claims about the Moorman qualifies him as a crackpot.

You simply lose once again Robert. I remind you of the first rule of holes....

 

[JayUtah]

What superior qualifications do you have to sit in judgement of Tom Wilson???

Do not shift the burden of proof. You presented Tom Wilson as an expert. You presented reasons why he should be considered an expert, however upon inspection those reasons amount to mere claims, with no verifiable substance. Your options at this point are to provide the required substantiation, to present additional reasons why he should be considered an expert along with appropriate substance, or withdraw the claim to expertise. Trying to make your critics cough up something is not a substitute for your inability to qualify your expert.

 

[JayUtah]

It is not necessary to know the exact day or time if one makes a reasonable approximation as to the shadow as it falls from the body of the fake Oswald and simply replicates it.

What have you done to validate this claim scientifically?

 

[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.)

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.

Hank

Hank, your nose is growing. There were no "fresh" fingerprints found on the rifle.

 

[infocusinc]

Wilson explains his method in "The Men who Killed Kennedy." The other stuff you claim is just hot air.

Really? Please point out to us the details of his computer programing he explains in the video.

And show us were he explains how he can "see" more detail than what can be recorded by a camera/film system? Inquiring minds really want to know.

Nope he explains nothing. And quite frankly the many in the CT community regards his work as crackpot too Robert. Why? Because no one can test it.

But hey, Robert knows best! ROFLMAO!

 

[HSienzant]

Wilson explains his method in "The Men who Killed Kennedy." The other stuff you claim is just hot air.

He explained nothing.

Can you replicate his methodology and duplicate his results?

Can anyone?

It's hocus-pocus, Robert. Flim-flam. A con game.

And you fell for it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It is an claim that is made at the introduction to his book at Amazon.com and is also a claim that is made as an introduction by the Nigel Turner in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Neither you nor any of the "experts" on this board have been able to refute those claims but are reduced to merely pooh-poohing them without a scintilla of evidence.

lol. Shift the burden of proof much?

We don't have to refute them. You have to prove them.

So far you are going down in flames.

And you trust everything you read in a book?

Here:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Copypasted from http://jfklancer.com/dallas00/Dallas00spea.html . I asked you for case numbers in which he testified as an expert. Where are they?

You do have a talent for ridiculous questions. I'm certain that if the bio as entered on Lancer and on Amazon.com and in TMWKK you surely would have found some legit source to refute it. But you have not.

 

[Mudcat]

You do have a talent for ridiculous questions. I'm certain that if the bio as entered on Lancer and on Amazon.com and in TMWKK you surely would have found some legit source to refute it. But you have not.

The more telling thing is they found nothing to back it up. The absence of evidence, it is exactly the evidence of absence.

You fail at failing, but thanks for playing anyhow.

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5814[/qimg]


Hank, your nose is growing. There were no "fresh" fingerprints found on the rifle.

Sure there were. As noted in the below;

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.)

But that is a decidedly secondary issue for now. You've been saying Oswald's fingerprints aren't on the rifle, but they were. On the trigger guard. As photographed there by J.C.Day of the Dallas Crime Lab on the afternoon of the assassination, and as identified on those photographs by Vincent Scalise.

Are you going to admit that Oswald's fingerprints were on the trigger guard or change the subject to something else?

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