Jay Utah's definition of an "amateur" as evidence by Brain Mee's resume"
Already dealt with, but we'll go through it again for your benefit. Photography and photographic analysis are not the same thing. In the field of photographic analysis, Mee is clearly an amateur. He can substantiate no training in the field, and his demonstration makes classic amateur mistakes.
Depart of Defense (DOD) photographer and photo lab
technician.
A photographer is not a photo analyst. A lab technician is not a photo analyst. Forensic analysis of photographs requires additional specialized training.
worked in photography for 18 years...
Vague. By the same reckoning I've "worked in photography" for close to 30 years. Hence if this criterion is significant in Mee's case, you will have to admit that I have more than half again as much expertise as Mee.
DOD photographer and technician for 10 years...
A photographer is not a photo analyst. A technician is not a photo analyst. Forensic analysis of photographs requires additional specialized training.
Where? When? Under what instruction? Was this adjudicated training? Or did he merely read a book?
...and had on-the-job training
Where? From whom? With what company? According to what certification criteria?
...in negative retouching, print development...
All to be expected for someone who is a lab technician. However, forensic analysis of photographs requires different specialized training.
shadows, and negative analysis...
Vague. How does one receive "on the job training" in "shadows?" What exactly is "negative analysis" in this context?
I should add that this resume appears
only in conjunction with Mee's solicited defense of Jack White. I can find no other reference to Mee's expertise or his work elsewhere in photographic analysis, or his recognition as an expert by any other functionary in the field of photographic analysis. Hence it is more likely that this and other vague claims have been added for this interview to make Mee's irrelevant lab technician experience seem more specifically applicable to Jack White's claims.
A more credible explanation for Mee's defense is that he was solicited by conspiracy theorists as someone who was both willing to defend White and whose resume could be spun to make it seem as if he had relevant expertise.
had technical courses in color print development and color negative development at the Winona School of Photography...
Also to be expected from a lab technician. However the forensic analysis of photographs requires additional specialized training.
The Winona School of Photography has a part-time
ad hoc faculty of approximately half a dozen and teaches courses in studio lighting, portraiture, business practice, and artistic darkroom techniques. According to Judy Roberts, the present executive director, the school has never taught any techniques in the forensic analysis of photographs.
...which is affiliated with the Professional Photographers of America School.
...which teaches no courses in forensic photographic analysis.
...courses in automatic printing
Also to be expected from a lab technician, but irrelevant in this context.
...and in using computer video analyzers at the KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York.
"Computer video analyzer" is vague. Explain what this machine is and what it does.
The Kodak School of Photography taught a course in forensic photography: the application of photography to the collection of evidence, such as crime-scene photography. However it has never taught any courses in the forensic analysis of photographs
as evidence.
You may be interested to know that I was contracted as a digital image specialist by Kodak in 1994 in the development of multispectral, variable-resolution digital image formats. I was present with them when they presented their findings at a professional conference in San Francisco. Kodak considers me a suitable expert in the field.
Utah's problem is, Mee's background cannot be challenged...
I just did. Your problem is that even padded as it is with vague claims, Mee's resume contains no training or experience in the forensic analysis of photographs.
None whatsoever.
But in case Mee's vaguely-padded resume left any doubt as to his ability, training, and knowledge, I have pointed out that Mee makes exactly the same amateur mistakes as White does when discussing the claims in photogrammetry. One simply cannot fake one's way through a science without ultimately getting caught, especially when one (or two, in this case) fall into the classic pattern of amateur error suggested by intuition rather than education and practice.
Mee's background can certainly be challeged, because it does not describe a forensic analyst of photos, but merely someone who takes photographs and makes prints in a darkroom. Further, Mee's
demonstration can also be challenged because it is patently not expert, for reasons already belabored.
...thus Utah is left pooh-poohing his peer review endorsement of Jack White.
You're still left unable to address the actual points I made. You want to wave a vaguely-worded resume in the air and then stamp your little feet when it fails to impress.
You styled Brian Mee as an expert in photographic analysis. But he clearly is not. You styled his defense of White as a peer review, when in fact the bulk of his testimony is simply more criticism of those who dispute White -- the well-worn tactic of the JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. On the subject of photogrammetry, Mee is clearly not an expert. On the subjects of retouching etc., Mee's defense is inconclusive: he admits that other hypotheses are equally as credible as retouching for White's "anomalies." Finally, Mee's defense is based on watching White's video on a 19-inch NTSC-format television.
As I stated earlier, when I examine the record of someone who is a legitimately trained and qualified photographic analyst, I find plenty of evidence of that. Not so in Mee's case. I have a "control" for my argument, so my dismissal of Mee is not merely pooh-poohing. Mee simply fails
voir dire.
Indeed. Your "experts" have been refuted over and over and over again, but you still keep on weakly carrying their banner as if it still mattered. Further, you're desperately trying to exclude other evidence of White's incompetence in the field. Why would you do that unless you have something to hide?
