JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

Then, of course you would try to explain this shadow anomaly...

Straw man. The "anomaly" is caused by your improper (but commonly attempted by amateurs) reckoning of shadow coherence.

 

[HSienzant]

When a book, or a video, or a book seller or other publisher makes a statment about the author's background it stands unless refuted. You have not been able to refute it, nor has anyone else. Your challenge is infantile.

So you are admitting you have no evidence to substantiate the claims? No case number to substantiate the claiim that Wilson was ever an expert witness? No list from the Dept of Justice showing him listed as an expert? Nothing except the original claims themselves?

So you are attempting to shift the burden of proof, and are now asking us to refute the claims?

All you have are the claims themselves, which might be nothing more than a self-prepared (by Tom Wilson) publicity blurb for inclusion in the book or other material.

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.

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.

Hank

 

[Mudcat]

Straw man. The "anomaly" is caused by your improper (but commonly attempted by amateurs) reckoning of shadow coherence.

This particular amateur hobbyist photographer is not fooled by such things, nor would it fool a majority of said amateur hobbyist photographers. It takes a certain bias and a weak mind to fall for such shoddy Jedi mind tricks.

 

[infocusinc]

Then, of course you would try to explain this shadow anomaly comparing 133A and 133B supposedly taken at the same time, as a different stance. But the stance is the same in both pics, or very close to it.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5819[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5818[/qimg]

The stance is the same but very close? You know that how? LOL!

It appears the "stance" of these two broom handles is "very close" as well.

But gee, look at the shadows?

Now I suppose you will attempt to tell us its NOT the change in position of the broom handle that changes the cast shadows? The sun did not move. The camera did not move, the only thing that moved was the broom handle...



You are truly unprepared to deal in this arena Robert

 

[infocusinc]

In relation to the autopsy photos, his method was explained and clear.

Great, cite the timestamp of this "explanation".

 

[Walter Ego]

We've gone over this in the past.

You are ignoring what was proven a month ago, Robert.

That is dishonesty. But I expect nothing less than that from conspiracy theorists, as they have nothing else to offer. As all the evidence points to Oswald.

Do you not remember the fact that multiple people saw the sixth floor Texas School shooter in the window, during or just before the shooting?

For example, both the below men saw a young slender white male fitting Oswald's description in the sniper's nest window just a half-minute or so before the shooting. They even discussed him. You are going to argue they saw no gun. But you are saying above no persons were seen in the sixth floor window, and your statement above is therefore absolutely FALSE.

Your earlier statement, that the shooter was not seen, is likewise untrue. He was seen by Fischer and Edwards, as I pointed out earlier, but not in the act of shooting. But others saw the gun, and I pointed that out too.

Learn to use the search thread function. It will save you some typing. I pointed all this out in November of LAST YEAR.

Although only Brennan positively ID'd Oswald as the shooter, other witnesses in Dealey Plaza saw the shooter, a man fitting Oswald's description, or the rifle on the 6th floor window of the TSBD.

Robert Jackson, a Dallas Times Herald reporter, and Michael Couch, a cameraman, were riding in the presidential motorcade in an open convertible one block behind JFK's limousine.

Jackson: "I saw the rifle... approximately half of the weapon... and just as I looked at it, it was drawn slowly back into the building." (WC Vol. 2 p. 159)

After the third shot, Couch saw "about a foot of rifle being-- brought [back] into the window." (WC Vol 2 pp. 156-157)

Mrs. Earle Cabell, the wife of the Dallas mayor, four cars behind the president saw "a projection out of those windows... on the sixth floor." (WC Vol 2 p. 486)

James Worrell, a nineteen-year-old student standing on the sidewalk in front of the TSBD, saw "the rifle, about six inches of it. I saw about about four inches of the barrel... but it had a long stock," a description exactly matching Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. Worrel also saw the gun actually being fired. (WC Vol 2 p.193 & p. 200)

Fifteen-year-old Amos Euins saw "what I thought was a pipe" and he saw "the rifle laying across [the sniper's] hand,and I could see his hand on the trigger." After the third shot, Euins remembered the sniper "pulled the gun back into the window." (WC Vol. 2 page 204)

Euins recalling what he saw on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza:

Robert's reply, again LAST YEAR.

There is no dispute that someone had a rifle and was shooting from the TSBD. A number of witnesses attesting to that hardly is an ID of the shooter. Obviously.

He was only disputing Brennan's positive I.D. of Oswald as the shooter. If he is now saying no one saw Oswald (or, to be more accurate, a man closely matching Oswald's description) in the window, he is forgetting his previous admission or hoping no one will remember it.

 

[EventHorizon]

Walter NOOOOO. You've been drawn back in. STOP! You were able to get out, just stay out. Get back out; save yourself! We'll go down with the ship!

 

[Walter Ego]

You Only Live Once

Walter NOOOOO. You've been drawn back in. STOP! You were able to get out, just stay out. Get back out; save yourself! We'll go down with the ship!

My irritation with this thread is that it has become circular. I haven't paid any serious attention to it since the first of the year. The last thing "new" posted was that ridiculous dufus with a broomstick picture and that was MONTHS ago.

In about two weeks this insanity will have been going on for SIX MONTHS. HALF A YEAR! The OP was posted last FALL. It's SPRING already!

LIFE IS SHORT PEOPLE! GET OUTSIDE AND SMELL THE DAISIES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

 

[Mudcat]

LIFE IS SHORT PEOPLE! GET OUTSIDE AND SMELL THE DAISIES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Way ahead of you and got my trustee camera ready for my next hiking trip, just need to get some food set aside and I'm good to go.

 

[Southwind17]

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".

Yes, it certainly is a rare form of 'expertise' that Robert possesses!

 

[Southwind17]

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.

You mean physical evidence as in persons seen or unseen like the persons unseen in the 6th Fl. TSBD?

No, I mean exactly what my question patently asked you. Why do you seem to be finding it so challenging answering simple, straight-forward, questions? Allow me to paraphrase with a little emphasis:

How many of those 40+ people do you believe observed the head injuries to the extent that they could form an informed opinion as to the nature of the trauma to the head?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Except that if anybody else makes a 'reasonable approximation' of something to demonstrate a point then it's flawed, right?

Then, of course you would try to explain this shadow anomaly comparing 133A and 133B supposedly taken at the same time, as a different stance. But the stance is the same in both pics, or very close to it.

The stance is the same but very close? You know that how? LOL!

It appears the "stance" of these two broom handles is "very close" as well.
But gee, look at the shadows?
Now I suppose you will attempt to tell us its NOT the change in position of the broom handle that changes the cast shadows? The sun did not move. The camera did not move, the only thing that moved was the broom handle...

Notwithstanding that Robert, in his naivety, actually blows his own claim out of the water by highlighting how his drawn angles actually support the change in the shadow, your work here, infocusinc, is truly excellent, in that the simple 'animation' effect intuitively all looks perfectly normal, thereby removing even the question of a potential anomaly. Well done (BTW how did you do that?!)

 

[Mudcat]

(BTW how did you do that?!)

Either two identical tiles or one moveable one. They position the broom far enough away from original position that it casts a different shadow.

No, wait. Info also said camera didn't move. Hmm, it's tougher than it first looks.

 

[Southwind17]

Robert - don't you think it's rude of you to completely ignore many of the questions that people are asking you here - questions which, if answered satisfactorily by you, would either support your claims or otherwise show them to be unfounded?

Robert, your refusal to answer this question in particular (putting aside the innumerable additional questions that you've clearly chosen to simply ignore) leaves me with no option but to assume a tacit acceptance on your part, thereby leading me to proceed to refer to you hereafter as 'rude Robert'. I presume you will concur that that is not unreasonable, rude Robert.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Either two identical tiles or one moveable one. They position the broom far enough away from original position that it casts a different shadow.

No, wait. Info also said camera didn't move. Hmm, it's tougher than it first looks.

I think the angle of the broom was changed in the Z direction, that is, they angled the top more away from the camera. If the adjustment was slight enough, the image would still appear to be identical - especially at that zoom level - but the shadow would most definitely change.

 

[infocusinc]

Either two identical tiles or one moveable one. They position the broom far enough away from original position that it casts a different shadow.

No, wait. Info also said camera didn't move. Hmm, it's tougher than it first looks.

I simply changed the angle of the broom handle in relation to the sun.

The idea here is to illustrate that you can't always visualize the change in "stance" of an object or person and intuitively understand how the shadow might change.

People really do suck at visualizing things in 3d when viewing a 2d photograph. I'm no different and I do 3d to 2d photographic conversions daily. I'm just more aware and I tend to view the changes in more detail than a lot of people.


In the case of the broom handle, I simply leaned it directly towards the camera in one image and directly away from the camera in the other.

Visually they look almost the same but the 3d reality is quite different.

If you you know how shadows work, the first thing you would do to analyze these image and figure out the problem is to look for clues. I made this one a bit difficult but the important clue is still there....perspective. The width of the broom handle changes width from top to bottom as the top is moved closer or farther away from the camera. That is how you solve the problem.

Jay is correct, analyzing photos take a different way of thinking and it requires a good understanding of the basics of photography.

I sucked when I first started.

Sure I though I knew why someone like Jack White had it wrong (and thanks Jack for inspiring me to do the work to get better at this) I just had no Idea how to prove it, And sometimes I found myself agreeing with him and was forced to really test to find out why we were both wrong. So test I did. And I learned so many things its not even funny.

Today you learned a good lesson too.

 

[infocusinc]

Except that if anybody else makes a 'reasonable approximation' of something to demonstrate a point then it's flawed, right?



Notwithstanding that Robert, in his naivety, actually blows his own claim out of the water by highlighting how his drawn angles actually support the change in the shadow, your work here, infocusinc, is truly excellent, in that the simple 'animation' effect intuitively all looks perfectly normal, thereby removing even the question of a potential anomaly. Well done (BTW how did you do that?!)

Its a simple photoshop gif.

I rotated both images to vertical, did a perspective transformation to bring all verticals into alignment and then did a rough resize, but both images will mot match completely because of difference camera positions.

This eliminates keystoning differences so it is easier to compare the items within the images ( each image was originally taken with the camera tilted different amounts)

But since Robert is sure to complain, lets use his images and simply rotate them both the vertical....the result stays the same.

 

[Robert Prey]

The stance is the same but very close? You know that how? LOL!

[qimg]http://www.craiglamson.com/sillyoldray.gif[/qimg]

It appears the "stance" of these two broom handles is "very close" as well.

But gee, look at the shadows?

[qimg]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/shadow2.jpg[/qimg]

Now I suppose you will attempt to tell us its NOT the change in position of the broom handle that changes the cast shadows? The sun did not move. The camera did not move, the only thing that moved was the broom handle...



You are truly unprepared to deal in this arena Robert

Proves absolutely nothing. The stance (leaning on right foot) is the same. The position is slightly different. Brilliant deduction. But the shadows -- they are still an anomaly if taken at the same time of day.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nonsense -- appeal to authority.



No one has been able to supply a case number for Tom Wilson's alleged expert testimony in federal court. Or even a case citation. Or even a district and year. All there is on this point is an unsubstantiated claim that's been passed around among conspiracy theorists.

I discussed his U.S. Steel claim at length. You ignored it.

And in ten years time, no one has been able to refute anything regarding his bio or credits, including you. Asking for a case number is your way of avoiding his evidence, and I can see why Tom Wilson scares the holy b'jesus out of Lone Nutter's dogma.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, clearly they weren't taken at the same time. As they are separate exposures with the same camera.

And there is no anomaly, as the HSCA vanishing point analysis proves. The shadows are right where they are supposed to be.

They may look wrong to you, but that's only because you don't know what you're looking at.

You are stuck at logical fallacy 101:

Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true.

Has any photo expert who's done a proper study of the first generation evidence found a problem with the shadows?

Hank

Has any photo expert who has a problem with the shadows been allowed to view first generation photos???????