While Maj. Pickard, Malcomb Thompson and Brian Mee do not have any published background in the analysis of backyard photos, I have noted that neither do any of the members of the House photo panel. So, they are all equal -- Peers.
Irrelevant. The question is not whether something is equal to something else, but whether you have evidence for this claim:
On the contrary, that's your opinion. Others disagree. In fact White has shown considerable expertise in pointing out anomalies in the B/Y photos and his work has been positively peer reviewed by other photo experts. But focusing on the word "expert" instead of on the subject matter is a way of evading the truth and in fact is fallacious reasoning of which you and Jay are indeed "expert."
Kindly stop trying to convert the question into another spate of you bashing your critics. You have been patiently asked whether you have evidence for this claim. You are getting close to admitting you do not, but it seems quite difficult to get you state that admission in plain language.
You cited three people. Two of them did not review White's findings are are immediately disqualified. That they also have no published expertise in photo analysis is additionally damaging to your claim, but since Pickard and Thompson didn't review White's findings, you may not cite them as having peer-reviewed his work.
The remaining person, Mee, is cited as a "photo lab technician," and his c.v. lacks any formal training in photographic analysis and I find no references to him in the literature, or indeed in any context other than his solicited defense of Jack White. In contrast, I can look up Jim Hoerricks, a professional analyst I have worked with before, and see any number of references to courses he has taken or taught and cases or other examples in which he has been considered an expert. He has also published books on the subject that are considered general references in the industry.
Further, as I have explained before, his approach to photogrammetry is the same wrong layman's approach that White uses. And Mee demonstrates that he does not understand how a more proper analysis undermine's White's findings.
For those reasons I do not accept Brian Mee as a photo expert within the meaning of your statement.
We are left with your claim that Jack White's findings have been "positively reviewed by other photo experts," a claim which you now seem to admit has no evidentiary foundation. You're reduced to trying to cast blame elsewhere rather than retract a failed argument. You are so deeply entrenched in your beliefs that you cannot suffer even the least setback.
"
