As to the autopsy photos, Wilson's conclusions, interesting, and perhaps true. As to the backyard photos, White's conclusions, interesting, and perhaps true.
This commits to absolutely nothing, Robert, nor does it advance the debate. I do not accept this answer.
Regarding Tom Wilson, you
originally stated that he was an expert in the digital analysis of photographs. You further insinuated that his findings, based on his expert digital analysis of the autopsy photographs, were that Kennedy's head as depicted had been altered with paint and mortician's wax. You cited this as evidence that the autopsy photos were faked.
You were unable to establish Wilson as an expert according to any standard. Do you you concede that he should not be considered an expert?
You were unwilling to discuss an evaluation of Wilson's purported method by verifiable experts according to principles of the relevant science. Do you concede that qualified experts are likely to disagree with Wilson's methods and findings, and can cite reasons from the relevant science to support their disagreement?
You state that Wilson's conclusions are "interesting." That says nothing about whether you now consider them scientifically rigorous. Do you concede that you are unable to determine or establish whether Wilson's conclusions have the scientific basis they purport to have?
You state that Wilson's conclusions are "perhaps true." That says nothing about whether you believe them as you once did. Do you concede that you have failed to prove they are true?
Regarding Jack White, he has claimed to be a "photographic analyst," and indeed has claimed to be so highly skilled in that area that he is rightly feared by "the government." He has claimed, based on a photogrammetric analysis of the backyard photos, that they are composites. You cited this as evidence that the photos are fake.
You were unable to establish Jack White as an expert according to any standard, and you were further unwilling to name a standard that might accept White as an expert. You have been asked several times to explain Whites on-record statement that he is unfamiliar with the science that governs the methods he used and the explicit correction of his method by others on the same record.
Finally, you say that you accept some of White's claims and reject his others. This would place the onus on you, not on White, to explain which of White's "expert" conclusions you consider valid which other of his "expert" conclusions you reject, and on what grounds. Accepting him as an expert, but selectively rejecting his expert testimony undermines your claim to his expertise.
Do you concede that Jack White should not be considered an expert?
You were unwilling to discuss White's analytical method and an evaluation of it by a verifiable expert; you dismissed it as off topic. Do you concede that White's methods and findings are likely not to be accepted as valid by the body of relevant experts?
You continually dismissed evaluations of White's purported experts as "ad hominem attacks," but you were unwilling to discuss blatant personal attacks made by White upon his critics. Do you concede that White makes habitual use of personal attacks upon his critics?
You say White's conclusions regarding the backyard photos are "interesting," but this does not describe whether they are rigorous or valid. Do you concede that you are unable to show that White reached his conclusion by any sort of scientifically valid method?
You say White's conclusions are "perhaps true," but this does not tell us whether you continue to believe in White's findings as you once did. Do you concede that you have failed to prove White's conclusions are true?
And I will consider your typical "One question at a time" evasion to be a deliberate refusal to answer the questions regarding your prior claims.
