JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Looks like more burden of proof shifting to me. In any case, once you name who all is in your 40+ name list. I don't want to get tied up in any "Well, I wasn't including him / her".

Already named several of them. Search for Final Nail Addendum.

 

[Robert Prey]

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



I will refresh your memory.



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.

No. I only deny your claim that I ever touted Wilson's analysis of the B/Y photos. That was your invention. Nor did I ever claim that his years at US Steel or his acceptance as an expert witness in a murder trial was proof of his expertise. That is also your invention. I merely mentioned that such was a part of his BIO which was asserted from several diverse sources including Nigle's TMWKK, Amazon.com, Lancer and Barnes and Noble. No one in 20 years has questioned it except you. Fine. But I say it is irrelevant to the substance of his process and his findings, while you, on the other hand, would prefer to attack the man rather than his evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

EventHorizon wrote:

"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."

Comment:
I only post unaltered quotes. Like all quotes, whether from a LN or a CT, all are of necessity, taken out of context. Name one which isn't>


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.


Ad hominem attack duly noted.

 

[Robert Prey]

EventHorizon wrote:

"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."

Comment:
I only post unaltered quotes. Like all quotes, whether from a LN or a CT, all are of necessity, taken out of context. Name one which isn't>


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.


Ad hominem attack duly noted.

 

[JayUtah]

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???

You're baiting, Robert. Fallacy of converting the conditional. No, you don't get to beg the question conditionally of Wilson's expertise.

According to claims made by and about Wilson, he has testified as a computer image analysis expert in court. The existence and nature of that testimony is entirely unknown. This is why I ask for the identity of the case. As I told you before, and as I'm telling you again now, being able to examine the record of those cases would allow us to evaluate whether Wilson indeed testified, what the nature of the testimony was, and specifically whether Wilson's method was evaluated therein according to the customary rules of evidence discussing alleged scientific methods. Wouldn't that have been what Wilson intended?

You keep using the word "accepted as a expert." I don't think you know what you mean by that because you're just parroting what someone else has said.

One can testify as an expert by deposition, as an amicus of the court, or as oral testimony. Depositions simply provide background; if the opposing party does not object, the expert's deposition is simply entered into the record and there's no voir dire or oral examination. Amicus testimony can be expert, but does not necessarily have to weigh any of the facts at trial. Oral expert testimony is subject to voir dire, but voir dire doesn't always occur.

Examine, for instance, Perry v. Schwarzenegger for how expert witnesses are handled. The plaintiffs produced a number of witnesses who were well qualified in their field and whose expertise was not challenged by the defendants (although their testimony was challenged). The defendants produced one expert witness, David Blankenship, whom they styled as an expert. The plaintiffs exercised their right to voir dire and challenged his competence to testify as an expert. The court ruled that Blankenship could testify, but in its findings completely disregarded Blankenship's testimony on the grounds that it was not expert testimony. Why? Because his oral testimony itself (after having been "accepted") was shown by direct and cross examination not to have any relevance or acceptance in the field. That is, Blankenship's expertise was impeached not on voir dire, but by cross examination.

So that's why we must examine the record of Wilson's alleged testimony in those cases. To answer your question more simply, no -- one does not automatically receive a validation of one's allegedly expert method simply by being "accepted" as a witness. You're fishing for a concession along those lines, so stop.

Epistemologically here's now this works. If you cannot substantiate his claim to have testified, then that part of his claim to expertise is simply dead in the water. If, on the other hand, you can, then he may be considered an expert on that basis, depending on the nature of his testimony and how it was handled by the opposing party.

Then there's still the matter of the relevance of that testimony to what he did with the Kennedy photos. If, for example, he did something different with the Kennedy photos than he did at those other trials, or in other cases, then a validation of method in those cases would be immaterial to the Kennedy findings. In all cases we need to know what he said at those trials to know whether it applies and constitutes a significant establishment of expertise.

No free ride here, Robert. Either show us where he testified or drop the matter.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Comment:
The quote button is easy to use.

Further, on what basis do you claim the photos discussed by this witness are NOT the ones available to view? Especially as you have claimed before that the witness did NOT produce these photographs, and the quote clearly states the photos she did produce were AFTER reconstruction.

Are you now discrediting your own claim, or does your claim simply invert itself whenever the facts get in the way?

 

[JayUtah]

No. I only deny your claim that I ever touted Wilson's analysis of the B/Y photos. That was your invention.

"Touted?" You denied it. That was the point. Infocusinc challenged your claim that Wilson was an expert. He did so, in part, by citing Wilson's absurd claims regarding the backyard photos. You responded that Wilson didn't have anything to do with the backyard photos. You were wrong; he did.

Nor did I ever claim that his years at US Steel or his acceptance as an expert witness in a murder trial was proof of his expertise. That is also your invention.

Nonsense. Here's your post right here:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Computer expert Tom Wilson explains it all for you in Living Color in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."



Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections. He has been recognized as an expert witness in Federal Court murder cases involving gunshot wounds.

Infocsinc's definition of "crackpot" -- Anyone who has an opinion that differs from Infocsinc.

All your claims, no other sources cited.

I merely mentioned that such was a part of his BIO which was asserted from several diverse sources including Nigle's TMWKK, Amazon.com, Lancer and Barnes and Noble.

Nonsense. You made the post above entirely on your own. When asked to substantiate that claim, then and only then did you cite other sources. First you cited his bio for a convention. Then you cited other second-hand sources. Only then was your voir dire of his expertise revealed to be hearsay. Until then, they were claims you had made on your own.

Distributors don't validate book jackets, Robert. Despite your ludicrous claim that we should accept them as true on that basis, distributors simply put the books on their shelves. They aren't authorities on the contents or claims made by the authors.

No one in 20 years has questioned it except you. Fine.

First, despite your ridiculous belief, I don't have the burden of proof. What you should say is that in 20 years (used to be 30) no one has substantiated his claim. That people believed unchallenged it for years doesn't make it true or substantial.

Second, even your hero Jack White disavowed Wilson's work eventually, because Wilson refused to validate his methods. You still haven't dealt with that. Wilson can't even convince other conspiracy theorists that his expertise and methods are sound. What does that say about his credibility?

But I say it is irrelevant to the substance of his process and his findings, while you, on the other hand, would prefer to attack the man rather than his evidence.

Keep trying to sing the same song, Robert. Every single one of your so-called experts is easily shown not to be the expert you claim he is. And when that happens, you complain about "ad hominem" attacks, and that we should just accept the findings at face value anyway.

You really need to get a grip on what expertise really is, Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, Robert from the get go has been stating the photos Saundra Kay Spencer developed were NOT the ones in the archives, that we have all been discussing:

"A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination

Fact is, the official autopsy photos are still not open to the general public. But what is available to "approved" "experts" is, according to Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, not the autopsy photos she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.

So what does Ms Spencer herself say?

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.

Q: Ms. Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President Kennedy's autopsy that are not included in the set that you have just seen?
A: I could personally say that they are not included. The only thing I can determine is that because of the pristine condition of the body and the reverence that the body was shown, that—this is speculation on my part—that perhaps the family had the second set shot and developed as possible releases if autopsy pictures were demanded, because at that time, Mrs. Kennedy was attempting to keep all sensationalism out of the funeral and maintain the President's dignity and name.

Well that neatly establishes that the body was reconstructed, though not for the reasons Robert describes, as part of a conspiracy. But wait, the key detaiL:

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

So, we have established that the photographs Ms Spencer developed were AFTER the reconstruction of the body. AFTER the body had been tampered with.

So if Robert says the photos we have been discussing are NOT the ones Spenser developed, then they HAVE to be the original, unaltered body...

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.

Oh look everybody they aren't the ones after the body was reconstructed!

Except for when they are...

And just explain how such proof would alter your thinking regarding the one point I have alluded to, namely, the morticians wax and paint on the fake autopsy photos.

And...

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.

So they are NOT the ones that Saundra Kay Spencer took then? Because she said clearly hers were taken AFTER reconstruction....

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.

Oh! So now you were wrong to say that the ones in the public Domain were NOT the ones that Sarah Kay Spencer developed. Repeatedly. In that case feel free to appologise and retract you repeated claims.

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

So you are possitive they were the ones Saundra Kay Spencer took then? As her photos were taken AFTER reconstruction...

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

You are sure? I mean... I hate to repeat myself in this post but....

Fact is, the official autopsy photos are still not open to the general public. But what is available to "approved" "experts" is, according to Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, not the autopsy photos she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.

And she said herself:

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

So... Was Ms Spencer wrong about her photos being after reconstruction? Or can you put on your big boy pants and admit the witness made statements that directly, and with out doubt, run counter to your claims?

You simply can not have your cake and eat it. You can not claim these are the reconstructed photos AND that they are unreconstructed photos Spencer did NOT develope.

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

EventHorizon wrote:

"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."

Comment:
I only post unaltered quotes. Like all quotes, whether from a LN or a CT, all are of necessity, taken out of context. Name one which isn't>


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.


Ad hominem attack duly noted.

Your admission that these 40+ witnesses do not actually exist duly noted.

 

[LSSBB]

Already named several of them. Search for Final Nail Addendum.

No, I want your 40+ names that you swear by.

 

[EventHorizon]

Already named several of them. Search for Final Nail Addendum.

Hey, I found it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...127&highlight=final+nail+addendum#post8109127

Oddly enough I don't count 40. I count about 11 and none of them say what you think they are saying. Your grasp of anatomy is, like everything else, lacking.

But looking even further at this addendum lookie what else I found:

"This [wound] was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area."
"[There was]...a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Those would be some of those altered quotes you say you haven't posted.

I only post unaltered quotes.

Were you lying or mistaken when you made that statement?


So it appears I need to post this yet again:

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).

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I want your 40+ names that you swear by.

You mean 40>11?

Oh my!

 

[Robert Prey]

So, Robert from the get go has been stating the photos Saundra Kay Spencer developed were NOT the ones in the archives, that we have all been discussing:






So what does Ms Spencer herself say?





Well that neatly establishes that the body was reconstructed, though not for the reasons Robert describes, as part of a conspiracy. But wait, the key detaiL:



So, we have established that the photographs Ms Spencer developed were AFTER the reconstruction of the body. AFTER the body had been tampered with.

So if Robert says the photos we have been discussing are NOT the ones Spenser developed, then they HAVE to be the original, unaltered body...


Oh look everybody they aren't the ones after the body was reconstructed!

Except for when they are...


And...

So they are NOT the ones that Saundra Kay Spencer took then? Because she said clearly hers were taken AFTER reconstruction....

Oh! So now you were wrong to say that the ones in the public Domain were NOT the ones that Sarah Kay Spencer developed. Repeatedly. In that case feel free to appologise and retract you repeated claims.

So you are possitive they were the ones Saundra Kay Spencer took then? As her photos were taken AFTER reconstruction...

You are sure? I mean... I hate to repeat myself in this post but....


And she said herself:


So... Was Ms Spencer wrong about her photos being after reconstruction? Or can you put on your big boy pants and admit the witness made statements that directly, and with out doubt, run counter to your claims?

You simply can not have your cake and eat it. You can not claim these are the reconstructed photos AND that they are unreconstructed photos Spencer did NOT develope.

Having put on my "big boy" pants, I would challenge you to put on yours and to read the entire ARRB interview. The assertion that Spencer's assertion that the photos she developed were pristine, cleanup up versions is correct. But the conclusion that the autopsy photos in the public domain that we are all familiar with are the same photos that Spencer developed is incorrect, according to Spencer herself:

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in -- you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

Do you need any further translation?? In the intervews session Spencer was later shown what was described as the original autopsy photos from the achives. These photos, as Spencer described them, were very different from the ones she developed, showing among other things, dryed blood and "There was no -- the film that I seen or the prints that we printed did not have the massive head damages that is visible here....none of the heavy damage that shows in these photographs were visible in the photographs that we did...

Q: In terms of the locations of the wound, do you see any differences or similarities with those that you developed in Nov., 1963?
A: No, there is no similarity...

Q: Is there any doubt in your mind that the photographs that you saw in Nov. 1963 also were of President Kennedy?

A: No, that was President Kennedy, but between those photographs and the ones that we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done to the President's body.

So, you are correct in stating that the photos S developed were different and done after the wounds were altered, but you are incorrect in deducing that these are the very same photos in the public domain. Thus, there were at least two sets of autopsy photos, and taking into account what Doug Horne has asserted, more than two, because he asserts that the so-called originals in the archives are also fake.

 

[Robert Prey]

"Touted?" You denied it. That was the point. Infocusinc challenged your claim that Wilson was an expert. He did so, in part, by citing Wilson's absurd claims regarding the backyard photos. You responded that Wilson didn't have anything to do with the backyard photos. You were wrong; he did.



Nonsense. Here's your post right here:



All your claims, no other sources cited.



Nonsense. You made the post above entirely on your own. When asked to substantiate that claim, then and only then did you cite other sources. First you cited his bio for a convention. Then you cited other second-hand sources. Only then was your voir dire of his expertise revealed to be hearsay. Until then, they were claims you had made on your own.

Distributors don't validate book jackets, Robert. Despite your ludicrous claim that we should accept them as true on that basis, distributors simply put the books on their shelves. They aren't authorities on the contents or claims made by the authors.



First, despite your ridiculous belief, I don't have the burden of proof. What you should say is that in 20 years (used to be 30) no one has substantiated his claim. That people believed unchallenged it for years doesn't make it true or substantial.

Second, even your hero Jack White disavowed Wilson's work eventually, because Wilson refused to validate his methods. You still haven't dealt with that. Wilson can't even convince other conspiracy theorists that his expertise and methods are sound. What does that say about his credibility?



Keep trying to sing the same song, Robert. Every single one of your so-called experts is easily shown not to be the expert you claim he is. And when that happens, you complain about "ad hominem" attacks, and that we should just accept the findings at face value anyway.

You really need to get a grip on what expertise really is, Robert.

All of that is baloney squared. Mentioning a bio does not claim anything but the fact that the bio exists and from diverse sources. Wilson's evidence has been around a long time, some question it, some believe it to be rational. But no one but you and your alter ego has questioned the bio: 30 years with US steel, Vice Presdent of US Steel, Accepted as expert witness in Federal court, worked with other assassination experts such as Cyril Wecht. You you and your alter ego can stamp your feet, and scream about expertise, but reasonable people will simply accept his process and conclusions as interesting and even possible, but absolutely not necessary in proving that the autopsy photos are fake, a conclusion that was beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever came on the scene.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Having put on my "big boy" pants, I would challenge you to put on yours and to read the entire ARRB interview. The assertion that Spencer's assertion that the photos she developed were pristine, cleanup up versions is correct. But the conclusion that the autopsy photos in the public domain that we are all familiar with are the same photos that Spencer developed is incorrect.

So you agree, the photos in the public domain are the ones Spencer did NOT produce? They are NOT the reconstructed body?

So you retract your previous claims that the autopsy photos were fake BECAUSE they were not the ones Spencer developed?

Q: Is there any doubt in your mind that the photographs that you saw in Nov. 1963 also were of President Kennedy?

A: No, that was President Kennedy, but between those photographs and the ones that we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done to the President's body.So, you are correct in stating that the photos S developed were different and done after the wounds were altered,

So the photos we have are the unaltered ones?

but you are incorrect in deducing that these are the very same photos in the public domain. Thus, there were at least two sets of autopsy photos, and taking into account what Doug Horne has asserted, more than two, because he asserts that the so-called originals in the archives are also fake.

And how will you prove these phots are not the ones from the autopsy?
Oh goody! Because you have more assertions!

Sorry, but NO Robert. Your original claim was clear:
These photos could not be the originals because they were NOT the ones that Spencer produced. You claimed these were faked with morticians wax, based on her interview.

Now it has been shown to you the ones she produced WERE the altered image, you somehow divine these too were faked? And assert more and more fakes?
Assert away, you remain wrong. These photographs are genuine and unaltered until you put on the bigboy pants and supply some evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

You're baiting, Robert. Fallacy of converting the conditional. No, you don't get to beg the question conditionally of Wilson's expertise.

According to claims made by and about Wilson, he has testified as a computer image analysis expert in court. The existence and nature of that testimony is entirely unknown. This is why I ask for the identity of the case. As I told you before, and as I'm telling you again now, being able to examine the record of those cases would allow us to evaluate whether Wilson indeed testified, what the nature of the testimony was, and specifically whether Wilson's method was evaluated therein according to the customary rules of evidence discussing alleged scientific methods. Wouldn't that have been what Wilson intended?

You keep using the word "accepted as a expert." I don't think you know what you mean by that because you're just parroting what someone else has said.

One can testify as an expert by deposition, as an amicus of the court, or as oral testimony. Depositions simply provide background; if the opposing party does not object, the expert's deposition is simply entered into the record and there's no voir dire or oral examination. Amicus testimony can be expert, but does not necessarily have to weigh any of the facts at trial. Oral expert testimony is subject to voir dire, but voir dire doesn't always occur.

Examine, for instance, Perry v. Schwarzenegger for how expert witnesses are handled. The plaintiffs produced a number of witnesses who were well qualified in their field and whose expertise was not challenged by the defendants (although their testimony was challenged). The defendants produced one expert witness, David Blankenship, whom they styled as an expert. The plaintiffs exercised their right to voir dire and challenged his competence to testify as an expert. The court ruled that Blankenship could testify, but in its findings completely disregarded Blankenship's testimony on the grounds that it was not expert testimony. Why? Because his oral testimony itself (after having been "accepted") was shown by direct and cross examination not to have any relevance or acceptance in the field. That is, Blankenship's expertise was impeached not on voir dire, but by cross examination.

So that's why we must examine the record of Wilson's alleged testimony in those cases. To answer your question more simply, no -- one does not automatically receive a validation of one's allegedly expert method simply by being "accepted" as a witness. You're fishing for a concession along those lines, so stop.

Epistemologically here's now this works. If you cannot substantiate his claim to have testified, then that part of his claim to expertise is simply dead in the water. If, on the other hand, you can, then he may be considered an expert on that basis, depending on the nature of his testimony and how it was handled by the opposing party.

Then there's still the matter of the relevance of that testimony to what he did with the Kennedy photos. If, for example, he did something different with the Kennedy photos than he did at those other trials, or in other cases, then a validation of method in those cases would be immaterial to the Kennedy findings. In all cases we need to know what he said at those trials to know whether it applies and constitutes a significant establishment of expertise.

No free ride here, Robert. Either show us where he testified or drop the matter.

I do not need to "drop" what I never picked up. That the autopsy photos are fake was established beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever examined them. If you want to question Wilson's bio or his expertise, then knock yourself out.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And does it not seem odd, that the asserted "Altering of the wound to make a shot from the front look like the rear" does not fall into the category of "Massive Cosmetic Things". Robert is letting his assetions down by not proposing Spencer reconstructed the wounds to frame Oswald.

As it happens reasonable objective reading of the evidence suggests that if we only know of two sets of photographs to have been taken of JFK, and these are not the sanitised ones Spencer produced, and Robert has yet to supply any evidence of any other photographs having been taken, and can't show us any evidence in this photograph of cosmetic reconstruction of wounds, modelwork, or fakery... These are the unaltered set.

No doubt Robert will continue to assert they aren't because his annonymous witnesses didn't describe it that way. Tough. That isn't evedince these photos were altered or faked.






Maybe those unnamed witnesses were disproven by the photos. Uh-oh!

 

[JayUtah]

Wilson's evidence has been around a long time, some question it, some believe it to be rational.

It's expert testimony. It's worthless unless it derives from expertise. That's why the claims to expertise are given; without them there is no evidence -- just uneducated guesses. The people advocating Wilson's claims understand this. That's why they try to establish Wilson as an expert by citing his alleged work at U.S. Steel and his alleged federal testimony; they know that such things, if true, would cast favorable light on the claim that Wilson is an expert and that his conclusions regarding the Kennedy photos derive from properly applied expertise.

...but reasonable people will simply accept his process and conclusions as interesting and even possible

No. That's not at all how expertise works.

...beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever came on the scene.

You invoked Wilson when the rest of that argument failed. Now you're backpedaling away from your salvation. That means we're done here.

 

[JayUtah]

...long before Wilson ever examined them. If you want to question Wilson's bio or his expertise, then knock yourself out.

I have, and you are utterly unequipped to answer my questions.

If Wilson's expert testimony is so irrelevant to believe in faked photos, why do you have such a problem conceding that Wilson is not an expert, and therefore that his findings should not be considered expert testimony?

Try it, Robert. Say, "I don't believe Tom Wilson is the expert he claims to be." Jack White did it. Your turn.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do not need to "drop" what I never picked up.

Fair enough, just admit you are not familiar enough with Wilsons work and assertions to make a fair statement of their validation.

That the autopsy photos are fake was established beyond any reasonable doubt long before Wilson ever examined them.

No they weren't. There are some very reasonable doubts about the claims they are faked. Not least of which is that you have yet to show any evidence that they were faked. Only that they disprove your chosen narrative.

What a kind offer. Thankyou so much... The questions have been posted many times over. Untill you offer satisfactory answers, why should we give credence to YOUR claims he has any expertise?