JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
You're the one trying to limit the examination of Wilson's alleged expertise to bios and editorial blurbs. I'm opening the field wide up, and I've even presented information from sources other than book jackets. What have you done, except to consistently pass the buck to your conspiracy theorist pals?



I'm taking them up with the man who touted those credentials -- namely you. There was no mention of Turner, Amazon.com, or anyone else until you were pressed to substantiate your claims. Then and only then did you mention these other people, revealing your hype to be nothing more than hearsay. If you don't check your sources, that's not our fault.



You may assume whatever you want. But don't try to pass off your assumption as proof when asked for it. I don't accept your assumptions, therefore I don't accept your claim that Wilson is an expert.

Asked and answered.
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Your challenge is on its face, frivolous and an attempt to divert attention away from the evidence.
 
Robert Prey said:
The facts proving the autopsy photos are fake have not been refuted. Only in your dreams. Those who took and developed them have dis-owned them and the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, refute them.
Click to expand...

No FACTS that PROVE the photos faked have not been established. You have given us stories unsuspported by physical evidence. That makes them "claims" not "fact".


Except in your "dreams". You don't get the "minimum standard of evidence" do you? If you do, then why are you gibbering about dreams? You have a story you can't prove and peoplearen't convinced by it? Thats the null hypothosis, not a dream. Wishing things from claim to fact? Thats a dream.
 
JayUtah said:
Give me the name of someone who has replicated Tom Wilson's work.
Click to expand...

Wilson offered the government the opportunity to replicate if they would only supply the needed documentation:

"In 1991, I visited the Archives and looked at some of the material. I asked for a request for authenticity on several things, and I will just go through a few articles here. On July 2nd, 1991, I wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration. After conferring with people there, and during my visit to the Archives in June, I viewed two three-quarter inch beta films that were the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. During my viewing, I requested an established authenticity of where these films came from, where they were copied, who copied them, and the process in which they were copied...

Now I am going to bring hard scientific proof, chain of evidence photographs, data of everything I have done, all of the protocol that I have used which can be reproduced by any agency of the government anywhere, and I am going to bring that in the next few months. It is going to prove three things positively."

Testimony of Thomas Wilson

Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index68.htm
 
Robert Prey said:
Your challenge is on its face, frivolous and an attempt to divert attention away from the evidence.
Click to expand...

Who do I think is trying to divert attention from the "evidence". Let's see... There is Jay who is trying to validate the authenticity of the claimed expertise and process on which the "evidence" relies, thus drawing MORE attention to it...

Or you, who is avoiding scrutiny of evidence by making claims the other guy is diverting.


You know what would crush such "diversions" rob? How about validating the statements you made in support of the evidence. Just think, explaining the process, showing us where it was peer reviewed and repeated, giving us some indication of the court case where he was an expert witness (and can thus gauge the relevence of his evidence and process), that would shut us up AND prove your claims right....


Oh wait. You were diverting attention? No!
 
JayUtah said:
The only reason to believe that the autopsy photos are doctored is because this guy's Magic Mortician Wax and Paint Detecting Machine said so, only when the results are "properly" interpreted by him -- the whacko who says he can even use it to see into Badge Man's eyeball.

Why should we believe such a machine exists and that it works? Because this guy Tom Wilson said so. And why should we accept his claim? Because he allegedly built such machines for U.S. Steel and he allegedly used that machine successfully in a federal criminal court case. Or so he says.

The only credibility for any of the claims in the first paragraph comes from first proving the claims in the second paragraph. Since you can't prove any of the claims in the second paragraph, and won't address any of the evidence showing that those second-paragraph claims probably aren't true, then we dismiss your claims in the first paragraph because they depend on it.

Got it?
Click to expand...

Tom Wilson's "machine" is not needed to prove the photos are fake. That has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
Robert Prey said:
Wilson offered the government the opportunity to replicate if they would only supply the needed documentation:

"In 1991, I visited the Archives and looked at some of the material. I asked for a request for authenticity on several things, and I will just go through a few articles here. On July 2nd, 1991, I wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration. After conferring with people there, and during my visit to the Archives in June, I viewed two three-quarter inch beta films that were the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. During my viewing, I requested an established authenticity of where these films came from, where they were copied, who copied them, and the process in which they were copied...

Now I am going to bring hard scientific proof, chain of evidence photographs, data of everything I have done, all of the protocol that I have used which can be reproduced by any agency of the government anywhere, and I am going to bring that in the next few months. It is going to prove three things positively."

Testimony of Thomas Wilson

Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index68.htm
Click to expand...

Ok... so when are you going to answer the question about who HAS replicated the process?
 
Robert Prey said:
Tom Wilson's "machine" is not needed to prove the photos are fake. That has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

No, as there are considerable AND reasonable doubts. Why not show us the photo-artefacts that prove the image was composited and / or painted? You keep claiming there is no doubt, but you offer no evidence that withstands any form of scrutiny.
 
infocusinc said:
How in the world have YOU decided that? Tests show just the opposite. How can you reconcile that tidbit Robert? Wanna call Wilson?
Click to expand...

Sesame Street Geometry, 101

Now boys and girls, have a look at these two angles. Are they the same, or different???


picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
No. I only claim what Nigle Turner, Amazon.com and Lancer have claimed. Only the desperation of Lone Nutters in a panic would be concerned about such nonsense.
Click to expand...

You aren't concerned with validating the "expertise" and process you think proves the photos are faked? So you accept what he (and presumably other "experts" and "witnessess"…) says, and think that actually showing it to be true is desperate and nonsense?



This explains so much... have you applied such rigorous standards to all your sources?
 
Robert Prey said:
Sesame Street Geometry, 101

Now boys and girls, have a look at these two angles. Are they the same, or different???


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=5834[/qimg]
Click to expand...

What other variables did you account for? How? Using what methods?
 
Tomtomkent said:
No, as there are considerable AND reasonable doubts. Why not show us the photo-artefacts that prove the image was composited and / or painted? You keep claiming there is no doubt, but you offer no evidence that withstands any form of scrutiny.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the 40 plus on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, and all of the photographers and developers who have disowned the autopsy photos in the archives.
 
Robert Prey said:
Fallacious appeal to authority. "Expert" is in the mind of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Er... You just confirmed what Jay said (and you are still wrong!). If you are failing to convince jay of your "expert" having expertise in the field under discussion then on what grounds should Jay accept his "expert" knowledge?

Putting aside the delusion that expertise is subjective and that here on Planet Earth we have good, objective scales by which to judge expertise, such as academic, professional and peer review, (the bit you are wrong about), you have failed to substantiate any of the reasonsyou claimed Wilson was an expert. You have failed to show he has any expertise, or his claimed method is accurate. If you fail to do that,why should Jay, or anybody, consider him an"expert" and deffer to his judgement?
 
Robert Prey said:
The evidence is in the 40 plus on the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head, and all of the photographers and developers who have disowned the autopsy photos in the archives.
Click to expand...

Nope those are claimants. You need to validate their claims with physical evidence or they are proved to be wrong by the photographs.

It was true on page 1, it's true now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom