JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Pathetic nonsense. I've already supplied plenty of "shreds", none of which meet your approval...
Click to expand...

That's correct, and my criteria have not changed since the last time you regurgiposted this material.

I asked for proof of your claim that White's findings were favorably peer-reviewed. Instead I get--

Major John Pickard ... Malcolm Thompson...
Click to expand...

...neither of whom mentions or endorses Jack White. They are not the peer-reviewers you were asked to produce, nor is there any indication they reached their conclusions based on White's findings or anything related to White. Therefore we shall reserve discussion of their findings for later. Here, in response to the peer-review question, they are distraction.

And then there is Brian Mee.
Click to expand...

...who commits exactly the same amateur errors as Jack White. His c.v. mentions considerable experience in the darkroom, but only vague references to "shadows." Since he takes the same wrong approach all the other amateurs do when examining shadows, i.e., reckoning the "lay" of them in image space, his endorsement means very little in the industry. Especially revealing is the comments Hank quotes regarding vanishing point. Mee seems unconcerned that the important property of the vanishing-point principle is that it shows how both their approaches (Mee and White) are based on erroneous conception of the problem of shadow analysis.

Keep in mind Mee's endorsement was solicited, so he spends a great deal of time, at the interviewer's request, trying to salvage White's dismal performance in front of HSCA. Peer-review is not largely concerned with defusing criticism against the subject. Mee is giving a defense, not a review.

On the other subjects Mee is essentially inconclusive and non-committal. He agrees that some of what White proposes "could be retouched," but allows that it could just as easily be other factors. His speculation is based on watching White's video on a 19-inch television, and looking an nth-generation copies of some of the photos provided by the interviewer. Although he assures us we'd need young-generation material to be sure, he's all too eager to give his opinion based on the 425-line video. Um, what? Maybe that's why he doesn't publish his review in any of the standard journals, but simply offers it to the nice conspiracy theorist who is interviewing him.

When you say "peer review" you know what we mean by that. Peer reivew is a rigorous process by which qualified experts examine the work of others to detect biases, errors, and lapses in logic. You want to make it sound like Jack White has survived such a review. But all you can provide is one guy who is just as clueless as White. None of your spin and handwaving negates the fact that White's methods and findings are a laughingstock among professional photo analysts -- and were so for decades prior to his death. When you've spewed as much horse-puckey as Jack White, it takes more that a little spritz of perfume to cover it up.
 
Robert, i've already told you that Major Pickard, while indeed the ex-CO of the CF Photo Unit, he had exactly 0(zero) qualifications in photo analysis. As an NCO he was trained as an airframe technician, meaning that he learned to fix aircraft. Later in his career he commissioned and was classified as an aerospace engineering officer. He spent several years as a staff officer at NDHQ and for his final posting was appointed to be CO of the Photo Unit. At the time, that meant he was an administrative leader - he was not involved in photo analysis, nor did he have any training that would allow him to offer any more of an educated analysis of the JFK photos than I can.
 
Robert Prey said:
But we do know that 40 plus medical witnesses have reported observing a large blow-out in the back of the head, indicating a shot from the front.
Click to expand...
Continuing to state your bank account contains one-million quatloos doesn't make them magically appear.







Oh, and I notice you won't (and I surmise can't) provide a definition of "blow-out" [sic]. It's just a little sad you apparently have no interest whatsoever in educating yourself. Well, it's your funeral.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
That's correct, and my criteria have not changed since the last time you regurgiposted this material.

I asked for proof of your claim that White's findings were favorably peer-reviewed. Instead I get--



...neither of whom mentions or endorses Jack White. They are not the peer-reviewers you were asked to produce, nor is there any indication they reached their conclusions based on White's findings or anything related to White. Therefore we shall reserve discussion of their findings for later. Here, in response to the peer-review question, they are distraction.



...who commits exactly the same amateur errors as Jack White. His c.v. mentions considerable experience in the darkroom, but only vague references to "shadows." Since he takes the same wrong approach all the other amateurs do when examining shadows, i.e., reckoning the "lay" of them in image space, his endorsement means very little in the industry. Especially revealing is the comments Hank quotes regarding vanishing point. Mee seems unconcerned that the important property of the vanishing-point principle is that it shows how both their approaches (Mee and White) are based on erroneous conception of the problem of shadow analysis.

Keep in mind Mee's endorsement was solicited, so he spends a great deal of time, at the interviewer's request, trying to salvage White's dismal performance in front of HSCA. Peer-review is not largely concerned with defusing criticism against the subject. Mee is giving a defense, not a review.

On the other subjects Mee is essentially inconclusive and non-committal. He agrees that some of what White proposes "could be retouched," but allows that it could just as easily be other factors. His speculation is based on watching White's video on a 19-inch television, and looking an nth-generation copies of some of the photos provided by the interviewer. Although he assures us we'd need young-generation material to be sure, he's all too eager to give his opinion based on the 425-line video. Um, what? Maybe that's why he doesn't publish his review in any of the standard journals, but simply offers it to the nice conspiracy theorist who is interviewing him.

When you say "peer review" you know what we mean by that. Peer reivew is a rigorous process by which qualified experts examine the work of others to detect biases, errors, and lapses in logic. You want to make it sound like Jack White has survived such a review. But all you can provide is one guy who is just as clueless as White. None of your spin and handwaving negates the fact that White's methods and findings are a laughingstock among professional photo analysts -- and were so for decades prior to his death. When you've spewed as much horse-puckey as Jack White, it takes more that a little spritz of perfume to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Peer review's "rigorous process"??? And just how much of a rigorous process have the conclusions of the HSCA been put to by "peers' who also have had access to the originals??(not that the HSCA even bothered to study all of the photo anomalies) And how can you, yourself make any judgments at all about the photos or the conclusions of others if you have not been privy to have seen the originals? Maj. Pickard, Malcomb Thompson and Brian Mee are all photo experts - peers of Jack White and have essentially supported White's conclusions that the photos are fake, whether mentioning White's name or not. And as to the matter of the photos being in possession of the FBI prior to them being "found" in the Paine garage, and the mysterious fact of a ghosted photo of Oswald in the backyard discovered decades later, you have no answer.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Did Mee or Thompson examine original materials or copies?
Click to expand...

They studied copies -- just like you and Jay and every other critic. If by your standards, no one can have an opinion if they have not studied the originals, then that qualification covers all of the critics including you. Nuff said.
 
Robert Prey said:
Peer review's "rigorous process"??? And just how much of a rigorous process have the conclusions of the HSCA been put to by "peers' who also have had access to the originals??(not that the HSCA even bothered to study all of the photo anomalies) And how can you, yourself make any judgments at all about the photos or the conclusions of others if you have not been privy to have seen the originals? Maj. Pickard, Malcomb Thompson and Brian Mee are all photo experts - peers of Jack White and have essentially supported White's conclusions that the photos are fake, whether mentioning White's name or not. And as to the matter of the photos being in possession of the FBI prior to them being "found" in the Paine garage, and the mysterious fact of a ghosted photo of Oswald in the backyard discovered decades later, you have no answer.
Click to expand...

And which journal of photographic analysis were their actual peer review studies published, to be formally peer reviewed? As opposed to the ersatz process described above?
 
HSienzant said:
Did you miss the point that Clark's statement that the bullet could have gone in the back of JFK's head is fully consistent with the Warren Commission conclusions?

Hank
Click to expand...

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head...":
Dr. Clark :

In or out is not what the WC concluded.

"The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." -- Dr. Clark
 
Tomtomkent said:
So you are better qualified to decide if the wound was one of entry or exit than your witness?

Unfortunately for you the wound as described does speak for itself. That description is of a wound through which a bullet either entered or exited the back of the head. You dearly wish that Clarks words "large and gaping" meant "blow out", but that is simply not quantified in his testemony.

.
Click to expand...

,"The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum."
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/enduri~1.htm
 
Tomtomkent said:
What is happening now is not what was asked for. You have not listed your forty witnesses with citations. If you intention is to discuss them one at a time, that is not a list with citations.

Can you provide a list or not?
Click to expand...


Already done that -- deleted by the moderator. By listing them one at a time, it limits the number of Pinocchio's you can create which by my estimation is already several just in the few sentences of Dr. Clark's witness. To list all 40 at once with citations would afford you the opportunity for hundreds of Pinocchios and create mass confusion and obfuscation -- your favorite tac.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Robert declares we can not discount the word out from Clarks testemony.
But your "blow out" theory discounts the word "in".

Why do you want us to only accept the words you cherry pick Robert?

Did Clark state the bullet could have gone "in" the back of the head. Yes he did. Ergo it is consistant with the WC findings.

A "blow out" is not consistant with a possible entry wound as Clark describes as a possibility.

I refer you back to the text you yourself posted on the nature of gunshot wounds. AN exitwound may be mistaken for an entry wound, but not of the blow out type. Ergo the wound was small enough to be either an In or an Out, so it can not have been the blow out from the drawings.

Ergo consistant with the known photographic record and the WC.
Click to expand...

There is no "known": photographic record. The Ryberg drawing reveals a tiny wound of entry in the back of the head, not a large blow-out.

picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
They studied copies -- just like you and Jay and every other critic. If by your standards, no one can have an opinion if they have not studied the originals, then that qualification covers all of the critics including you. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Nobody else has claimed to have made a conclusive study.

They have however stated that your "anaomalies" and "impossibilities" have far more likely explanations than tampering, are not indicative of tampering, and are not outside the realms of the probable.

Perhaps the subtle differentiation between those are beyond your ken.
 
Robert Prey said:
,"The lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum."
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/enduri~1.htm
Click to expand...

Do you happen to have the complete interview? I did some light Googling and can't find it, aside from the quote you provide. The guy who is alledged to have done the interview, David Naro, a steel salesman, seems to have appeared and disappeared over night, and has prompted some speculation over how truthful the encounter was...

Edit: And to show just how obscure Naro is, by the time I got to the fourth page of Google results, I had already come across my own post less than 20 minutes after posting it.
 
Last edited:
As to the known photographic record, I remind Robert he himself posted images from the autopsy.
"Tiny" remains an unquantified term. Robert has no way of knowing how big or small the "large and gaping" descriptor meant. Clark only described the wound he examined in that quote. He was not comparing it to any other wound.

If Robert believes he knows when a wound is "tiny" or "large" in Clarks opinion, why can he not furnish us with a measurement or scale.?

Again, it is Roberts dearest wish that his witness supported a blow out, but alas such information is not in his cherry picked quotes. Anticipating "the woman who took the photos says they are fake", i will remind him she said they were not the sanitised cleaned up photos she took, and they are thus the earlier, more accurate record of the wounds.
 
Robert Prey said:
Already done that -- deleted by the moderator. By listing them one at a time, it limits the number of Pinocchio's you can create which by my estimation is already several just in the few sentences of Dr. Clark's witness. To list all 40 at once with citations would afford you the opportunity for hundreds of Pinocchios and create mass confusion and obfuscation -- your favorite tac.
Click to expand...

Baloney. That was a list of names. No citations. Many of the names contradict your claim.

Try again:
Provide the list as asked for, instead of talking about a different list.

Remember, the revised list has to have 50 or 60 witness citations in a medical field,or you have lied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom