JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[EventHorizon]

Nonsense. Already done that, several times.

See this is why I specifically pointed out the specific words in my post that you would ignore. This way everyone can easily see that you are a liar. And of course I was right. You completely ignored those words. Does it bother you that you are so predictably dishonest?


Once again, here is what I said:

One would think that since you've claimed this so often that you would have listed all 40+ witnesses and supplied at least one unaltered quote taken in context from each of them to show that they really do claim to have seen what you say they claim to have seen. But that's OK Robert, we know why you haven't done that.


(Since you often seem to have trouble reading all of the words of a post, I've taken the liberty of putting in bold the words in this post that you are likely to skip and which would change the entire meaning of my post).

Now if you really had done that you could have just linked to where you posted it already and then I would owe you an apology which I would gladly give. However you haven't linked it because you haven't done it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So in your "mind" Wilson would be proved to be an expert, how???

That has been repeated ad nauseum, but never mind Robert. Can't speak for others, but a generalisation would likely be:

By showing his professional credentials, in a field that directly touches the subject he is claiming expertise in. This should be validated by a track record, and preferably by peer reviewed submissions showing that he has not just a working knowledge of photo geometry, but photographic theory in general. The CV you have offered does not support this. Computer Imagary are not photographs, and the process is not recognised by photo-analysts.

By validating his expertise in the alleged court case. The nature, and relevence of the evidence given there to the subjects being discussed here.

But most of all: Showing his "process" has been tried, tested, validated and found to be both accurate and effective by peers in the field, supported by peer review journal and repeated and repeatable experiments on a broad range of subjects to show that the interpretation of the results can be supported.

 

[JayUtah]

So in your "mind" Wilson would be proved to be an expert, how???

Asked and answered.

I referred you lately to the appropriate section of the federal rules of evidence and alluded to court cases that expanded upon them. I stated that those would appropriate tests for expertise in Wilson's case. Please do your own homework.

And if you wanted me to spoon-feed it to you, you should have paid attention to the same discussion as it regarded Jack White. I gave you a complete and annotated definition for what I consider an expert, and noted that it was abstracted from the sources I cited. You dismissed that answer as "subjective nonsense" and refuse to discuss it further, and then failed to provide your own better definition when asked.

Kindly do not continue asking the same questions hoping to get a more favorable answer. Go back and deal with what I already said.

 

[JayUtah]

Nonsense. I only referred to Wilson pertaining to the autopsy photos. If he also found the B/Y photos fake, then surprise, surprise.

Straw man. You told us he didn't examine the backyard photos. You were wrong, but you refuse now to admit your error. You were familiar only with his discussion of the autopsy photos, which makes you a poor reporter of Wilson's work.

 

[infocusinc]

Apparently, the data he asked the Feds to provide was not provided. So, he sued the Feds.

ROFLMAO! So he cant' tell or show anyone how his system works without getting data from the feds?

Clearly Robert, you have now jumped the shark..

LMAO!

 

[infocusinc]

Which proves what??????

Did you READ her statement and compare to to the claim YOU posted?

Sheesh you are so full of baloney!

 

[infocusinc]

There were obviously at least two sets of autopsy photos taken, the real and the fake.

Learn to READ Robert and then NOT apply your CT filter the the data. You fantasy world is crumbling down around your ears.

You best best would to be just give it up, you are really looking quite foolish.

 

[Robert Prey]

Straw man. You told us he didn't examine the backyard photos. .

Baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

That has been repeated ad nauseum, but never mind Robert. Can't speak for others, but a generalisation would likely be:

By showing his professional credentials, in a field that directly touches the subject he is claiming expertise in. This should be validated by a track record, and preferably by peer reviewed submissions showing that he has not just a working knowledge of photo geometry, but photographic theory in general. The CV you have offered does not support this. Computer Imagary are not photographs, and the process is not recognised by photo-analysts.

By validating his expertise in the alleged court case. The nature, and relevence of the evidence given there to the subjects being discussed here.

But most of all: Showing his "process" has been tried, tested, validated and found to be both accurate and effective by peers in the field, supported by peer review journal and repeated and repeatable experiments on a broad range of subjects to show that the interpretation of the results can be supported.

And if Wilson met that standard, the would mean his process and his findings were correct????

 

[Robert Prey]

Learn to READ Robert and then NOT apply your CT filter the the data. You fantasy world is crumbling down around your ears.

You best best would to be just give it up, you are really looking quite foolish.

Foolish are those who attack the person instead of the argument -- tiresome, mindless and fallacious.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Foolish are those who attack the person instead of the argument -- tiresome, mindless and fallacious.

I wouldn't have added tiresome but you know yourself best.

What do you call someone who ineptly attempts to shift the burden of proof??????????????????????????



LOL.

 

[Robert Prey]

Asked and answered.

I referred you lately to the appropriate section of the federal rules of evidence and alluded to court cases that expanded upon them. I stated that those would appropriate tests for expertise in Wilson's case. Please do your own homework.

And if you wanted me to spoon-feed it to you, you should have paid attention to the same discussion as it regarded Jack White. I gave you a complete and annotated definition for what I consider an expert, and noted that it was abstracted from the sources I cited. You dismissed that answer as "subjective nonsense" and refuse to discuss it further, and then failed to provide your own better definition when asked.

Kindly do not continue asking the same questions hoping to get a more favorable answer. Go back and deal with what I already said.

It's a pointless argument. Even is Wilson met all of those criteria, that would still not prove of disprove his methods nor his findings.

 

[Robert Prey]

See this is why I specifically pointed out the specific words in my post that you would ignore. This way everyone can easily see that you are a liar. And of course I was right. You completely ignored those words. Does it bother you that you are so predictably dishonest?


Once again, here is what I said:





Now if you really had done that you could have just linked to where you posted it already and then I would owe you an apology which I would gladly give. However you haven't linked it because you haven't done it.

In order to discover what the devil you are talking about, why don't you point out just ONE ALTERED quote??? Whatever that means.

 

[Robert Prey]

Asked and answered.

I referred you lately to the appropriate section of the federal rules of evidence and alluded to court cases that expanded upon them. I stated that those would appropriate tests for expertise in Wilson's case. Please do your own homework.

And if you wanted me to spoon-feed it to you, you should have paid attention to the same discussion as it regarded Jack White. I gave you a complete and annotated definition for what I consider an expert, and noted that it was abstracted from the sources I cited. You dismissed that answer as "subjective nonsense" and refuse to discuss it further, and then failed to provide your own better definition when asked.

Kindly do not continue asking the same questions hoping to get a more favorable answer. Go back and deal with what I already said.

If the man had been accepted as an expert in a murder trail, involving computer imaging of gunshot wounds, that would or would not be sufficient???

 

[EventHorizon]

In order to discover what the devil you are talking about, why don't you point out just ONE ALTERED quote??? Whatever that means.

I guess I'm right in thinking that English is not your first language.

alter - v. 1. To change or make different; modify


Now, did I ever say you posted an altered quote from any of the witnesses? Of course not. I simply asked you to post unaltered quotes that are not taken out of context. I'm not saying you HAVE posted altered quotes it's just that with your track record of dishonesty I wouldn't put it past you. You've already posted plenty of quotes taken out of context so why shouldn't I expect you to post altered quotes as well?


Now, one more time:

One would think that since you've claimed this so often that you would have listed all 40+ witnesses and supplied at least one unaltered quote taken in context from each of them to show that they really do claim to have seen what you say they claim to have seen. But that's OK Robert, we know why you haven't done that.



(Since you often seem to have trouble reading all of the words of a post, I've taken the liberty of putting in bold the words in this post that you are likely to skip and which would change the entire meaning of my post).

Now if you really had done that you could have just linked to where you posted it already and then I would owe you an apology which I would gladly give. However you haven't linked it because you haven't done it.

Stop being intentionally obtuse and respond to this with the information. I will take your failure to do so as an admission that these 40+ witnesses do not actually exist.

 

[JayUtah]

Re: Robert's denial that Wilson had examined the backyard photos

Baloney.

I will refresh your memory.

Crackpot is just another one of your tiresome ad hominem attacks on people who have contrary opinions. Nor was Wilson mentioned as having anything to do with B/Y photos, but his computer imagery of morticians wax and paint on the fake autopsy photos.

As I said, you limited your evaluation of Wilson to his appearance in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. You were unaware until I mentioned it that there was an entire book about Wilson's study, an entire chapter of which was devoted to the backyard photos. I'm basing my evaluation of his credibility on his entire work on the JFK photos, not a few cherry-picked claims in a single film.

You want to disavow that examination likely because then you'd have to deal with Wilson's claim to be able to resolve "Badge Man" with such fidelity that he could prescribe the man eyeglasses. That patently absurd claim undermines Wilson's credibility.

 

[infocusinc]

Foolish are those who attack the person instead of the argument -- tiresome, mindless and fallacious.

The arguments are BEYOND your ken Robert. You don't understand them.

 

[Robert Prey]

TomTom wrote:

But the witness states the ones she remembered taking were AFTER reconstruction....

Quote:
Q: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all of the colored images, both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives related to the autopsy of President Kennedy. Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy that are not included in those views that we saw?
A: The views that we produced at the Photographic Center are not included.
Quote:

Q: So you would think that the photographs that you developed were taken after reconstruction of the body?
A: Yes.

So the photos that are missing that you claim were destroyed because they were part of some conspiracy were made AFTER the body had been altered and reconstructed.


Comment:
NO. You are you are confused. The photos that are not in the public domain are the originals, before the reconstruction of the body took place.

TomTom:
So the ones we have are made BEFORE the body was altered and reconstructed.

Comment:
No, again. The ones in the public domain were made after the body was reconstructed

TomTom:
That makes the autopsy photos we have the genuine, unaltered, unreconstructed, accurate record.

Comment
Exactly upside down backwards and wrong. The photos in the public domain are the fake photos.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a pointless argument.

Because you asking the same question over and over again, hoping to get the answer you wanted. I'm not going to fall into your clumsily laid trap, so deal with the answer I give or concede the point.

Even is Wilson met all of those criteria, that would still not prove of disprove his methods nor his findings.

His findings are simply, "I have a magical machine whose results, when properly interpreted by me, tell me things about photographs that cannot be known any other way or by any other person; and they tell me that the fatal bullet came from this certain angle."

You told us this was a strong finding for two reasons: Wilson had spent 30 years developing this system and method for U.S. Steel (where it had allegedly been proven), and that Wilson and his system had been "accepted" as expert testimony in federal court. But you can't substantiate either of these two claims.

The criteria I mentioned discuss whether the method employed by the expert is generally known and endorsed in the field, whether it has been correctly employed in the matter under discussion, and -- most importantly -- whether it has any validity outside the matter under discussion. So yes, the status of Wilson's work under those criteria has quite a lot to say about whether his expertise is valid.

 

[Robert Prey]

Which has what baring on this discussion? Are we a court of law Robert? You keep trying to change our standard of evidence to somebody elses. No dice.

Oh, and if the finger prints aren't to your liking (well, there goes your Mac Wallace claim!) let's stick to the palm print. Though those on the shell casings were more than adequate to be admitted as evidence.

On the other hand, if it's the Scalice fingerprints that you claim are valid (first 5 points of ID, then much later for a TV show, suddenly jumps to 12 points and more), then the 34 points of ID should be more that enough proof that LBJ's soldier and convicted murderer Malcomb Wallace was on that 6th Floor window's sniper's nest.