Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Oh, but you yourself have declined to state what makes an expert an expert.
JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends
- Thread starter Walter Ego
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jfk assassination
- Status
Oh, but you yourself have declined to state what makes an expert an expert.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nonsense. I stated it back in November, and you duly rejected it without comment and refused to state your own criteria.
You already told us Mee was an expert. You must therefore already have in mind what the criteria are for being an expert. I'm simply asking you to apply that to the evidence you posted, but you won't. You instead want to shift the burden of proof.
Once again: what do you believe qualifies Mee to be the expert you say he is?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
infocusinc
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 143
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Oooo, snap!
Straw Man
Flammable
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 8,184
Jay knows. Jay knows only too well.
Unfortunately, you are the one who believes a qualification from the University of I'llMakeItUpAsIgoAlong counts.
I've got a camera and I've done a course in Photgraphic Interpretation. Am I an expert? Can I serve you a nice healthy slice of deli meat?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Again: Why is the note dated 1997, if the issue is if McCellend was involved in the conception and creation of the drawing. 1966 is not1997.
Ergo: Robert lied about the drawing being "dictated" . One can only assume he will apologise for his lie, and compare himself to a certain puppet-child.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Gee, it's not like someone's recollections can change over 30+ years is it?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
A recollection that is 30 years later is of course flawed.
The bigger concern is that if Robert was either willing to misrepresent the illustration as one that mcCellend had a direct or indirect part in at the time, through dictation or contemporary endorsement, when he is offering evidence of indorsement three decades later, this means he either misunderstood the origins and context of the illustration, meaning his quality control of sources is dubious, or worse he knew the context and origins but still misrepresented it as something McCellend dictated himself to imply a better source.
As others, including myself, have shown in this thread, if you are mistaken about the source of evidence (eg, the 'death stare' photo I misidentified as being from the Tippit/Front wound series of images, before being pointed towards the uncropped original) you correct and clarify.
What Robert has tried to do is move the goal posts from "dictated" to "endorsed". If the drawing is accurate or not no longer matters. An honest misfire of memory can be misrepresented, dishonestly or ineptly. It was never the best evidence, but is now shown to be of far less significance.
The bigger concern is that if Robert was either willing to misrepresent the illustration as one that mcCellend had a direct or indirect part in at the time, through dictation or contemporary endorsement, when he is offering evidence of indorsement three decades later, this means he either misunderstood the origins and context of the illustration, meaning his quality control of sources is dubious, or worse he knew the context and origins but still misrepresented it as something McCellend dictated himself to imply a better source.
As others, including myself, have shown in this thread, if you are mistaken about the source of evidence (eg, the 'death stare' photo I misidentified as being from the Tippit/Front wound series of images, before being pointed towards the uncropped original) you correct and clarify.
What Robert has tried to do is move the goal posts from "dictated" to "endorsed". If the drawing is accurate or not no longer matters. An honest misfire of memory can be misrepresented, dishonestly or ineptly. It was never the best evidence, but is now shown to be of far less significance.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Robert has been asked...
Which part of Mees CV made him an expert in forensic analysis of photographs.
Which areas of the head correspond to the wounds in the warren commission illustration Robert himself posted.
What time it was in a photo with apparently impossible shadows.
To list, not discuss in turn, his 40+ medical witnesses.
Why he insists on one question at a time.
Where he is able to quantify terms such as "large" and "gaping" beyond his subjective opinnion.
Now to address his responses as he addresses others, I believe I should have to say something about tumble weeds drifting past?
Which part of Mees CV made him an expert in forensic analysis of photographs.
Which areas of the head correspond to the wounds in the warren commission illustration Robert himself posted.
What time it was in a photo with apparently impossible shadows.
To list, not discuss in turn, his 40+ medical witnesses.
Why he insists on one question at a time.
Where he is able to quantify terms such as "large" and "gaping" beyond his subjective opinnion.
Now to address his responses as he addresses others, I believe I should have to say something about tumble weeds drifting past?
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Medicacl Witness No. 11; Dr. Charles Baxter
CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: ...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..."
Warren Report, P. 523
CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: ...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..."
Warren Report, P. 523
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Would a wound with the temporal bone missing not look like the WC illustration?
Which regions of the skull are damaged by wounds in the WC illustration?
Straw Man
Flammable
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 8,184
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Hmm, I wonder why Robert ran off to his next {medical?} witness:
Without answering this?
Without answering this?
Last edited:
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
"Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland""Brad, the drawing below is an exact copy, in regard to location and dimensions, of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966. Best wishes, Robert N. McClelland"
I really don't get the point. The statement speaks for itself.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
OH, Jay knows alright. He just won't admit it.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
No. The Ryberg drawing shows no damage to the Occipit other than the tiny invented entry wound.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Kindly stop putting words in my mouth and answer my question.
What do you believe qualifies Brian Mee as the photographic analysis expert you say he is?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
That you don't get the point says a lot. So much for calling others deep thinkers while stuck inthe shallow end.
What McClelland thought about it in 1997 has no baring on your claim he dictated the drawing.
You can apologise for your mistake, or admit the kind of lie you are quick to accuse others of. But please don't pretend the opinion of somebody thirty years later retroactively makes this a primary source in place of a tirtiary one.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The point is that the origin and provenance of the drawing are well known and attested by its owner. The statement you reproduce suggests a different provenance. What does that say about the likely veracity of the statement?
- Status