JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

He didn't agree or disagree as to the conclusion, but only deferred to them as to the originals. Except for one very obvious anomaly -- the fact that the chin in the backyard photos is not Oswald's. It is a square chin. Oswald had a rounded chin. Doesn't take a degree in photogrammetry to see that. Thompson did not defer as to the chin issue.


Backyard photo with square chin.


Mugshot (rounded chin)

So you really have no comprehension how light and shadow can affect the appearance of a face.

Here's quick test that replicates the effect in the photos:



The only difference in the two is that on the right the lighting is aimed straight at the face, as with a flash or studio light, and on the left it's angled down like sunlight. See Robert, no fakery or editing required, just some basic physics.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Southwind wrote:

The 'evidence', in this case, Robert, is essentially the interpretation of the photo, hence the credibility of the interpretor is paramount, by which I mean his expertise. How would you describe and validate Jack White's 'expertise'?

Comment:
I evaluate witnesses by their evidence. You, and other Lone Nutters would prefer to commit the fallacy of appealing to authority, while deflecting attention away from the evidence. While I do not dwell on whether White is an "expert" since that is a very ambiguous term, the HSCA did by calling him in as an "expert" witness.

No, they didn't call him in as an expert photographic witness.

Please cite your PRIMARY (not secondary) source of this.

They called him because he had been a leading critic of the backyard photographs for ten years and they wanted to find out what he claimed to have discovered that led him to conclude the backyard photos were fakes.

Robert Blakey gave a lead-in to Jack White's testimony that starts here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...Vol2_0162a.htm

It concerns the known history of the backyard photos, and a brief history of the criticism of the backyard photos. Among others, he mentions the criticism of Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher in that introduction. White wasn't called as an expert photographic witness, but as one of the leading critics of the backyard photos.

Blakey concludes with this, before the House Committee heard White's testimony:

The 1978 BBC television documentary entitled "The Assassination of President Kennedy " ' ` What Do We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then" includes an interview with British forensic photography expert, Malcolm Thomson. At the request of the British Broadcasting Corp., Mr. Thomson examined copies of two of the backyard photographs . He found that they were fakes.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to show the BBC interview to illustrate how concern over the photographs has drawn public attention.
Chairman STOKES. You may proceed.
Mr. BLAKEY. Could the lights be turned down please?
[The documentary was shown.]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years.
Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction,
including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts.
Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs .
Mr. Chairman, I would note that Mr. White's testimony today will be split into two parts: The first dealing with the photographs, and the second in relation to the rifle. But it would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. White to testify on the backyard photographs.
Chairman Stokes. The Committee calls Mr. White.

Here's White's testimony (previously cited).
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...Vol2_0163b.htm

But at no time is Jack White referred to as an expert photographic witness. He was called as a leading critic of the backyard photos, and the two are NOT synonymous.

Jack White being a critic doesn't give him expertise, Robert.

We see that every day with your posts, as well.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Hank wrote:

Or you choose to ignore it.

2. By finding the cop (Joe Murphy) who was at the scene and interviewing him and establishing the supposed gunman with the supposed 'gun case' was actually long gone by the time of the assassination. Murphy stated "...it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY."

That is hearsay speculation. How would he know?

Bizarre. He was there, it's not hearsay. It's not speculation. And it's not hearsay speculation either. He's testifying to what he saw. He saw them drive off before the assassination. He noted they were long gone before the assassination and weren't in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

Here's a fuller version of his statement, which I posted earlier. Also as I pointed out earlier, Mark Lane, the source you cited for Mercer's story, didn't mention any of this in his aptly-entitled book that describes his decision-making process, RUSH TO JUDGMENT:

The following investigation was conducted by SA's HENRY J. OLIVER and LOUIS M. KELLEY on December 9, 1963:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade, the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck, and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He stated these persons were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.

Please present some evidence they were involved. Otherwise you got a stalled truck that was gone before the assassination, and a big heap of speculation that this is somehow connected to the assassination of the President.

It's not.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

According to the ARRB's Doug Horne, Stringer disowned the brain photgraphs in the archives for several reasons. Deal with it.

On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, by Dick Russell p. 290

Robert, I already dealt with it. I pointed out that Stringer's testimony conflicted with an earlier version, and his recollection was all over the map.

I pointed out you couldn't just pick and choose the good parts you liked and ignore the rest. But that's exactly what you're doing - AGAIN! - above.

Here is my points again. Ignore them some more and post the excerpt from Stringer's testimony (as filtered through Doug Horne as filtered through Dick Russell)* again.
Yeah, we'll find that real convincing.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

According to his AARB testimony, which you cited earlier, Stringer said they did view the photos at the archives (it makes no sense that he went there, saw no photos, then signed a document saying he did).

Q: Did you ever speak to Mr. Riebe about the apparent discrepancy in the number of films that had been exposed on the night of the autopsy?
A: I don't know whether I did or not.
Q: After the conversation with Captain Stover that you discussed earlier, did you ever raise the issue with him again?
A: I don't know, but we raised the issue when we saw the photographs in `66.

So you need to do something besides pick and choose only the parts you like. You can say Stringer's memory was fine, in which case his testimony above takes precedence; or you can say Stringer's memory deteriorated over the years (as is known to happen) and his best recollection would be his earliest statement on the record (in which case the 1966 signed statement would be the one that takes precedence.

Let me know where you come down on this issue.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
(bottom of page 143-top of 144 for the quote above).

_____________

* How come you admonish me to site primary sources but then cite a source like 'What Doug Horne told Dick Russell about John Stringer's testimony' ?!!?

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

He didn't agree or disagree as to the conclusion, but only deferred to them as to the originals. Except for one very obvious anomaly -- the fact that the chin in the backyard photos is not Oswald's. It is a square chin. Oswald had a rounded chin. Doesn't take a degree in photogrammetry to see that. Thompson did not defer as to the chin issue.

Yep, you're doing here precisely what I thought you'd do. Running away from your own expert witnesses' testimony, and instead giving us YOUR TAKE on his testimony.

Sorry, that's not acceptable, Robert. You're not the expert, he is. So quote HIM.

Do you not have the precise full quote from Thompson? It appears you do, and it appears you don't want to quote your own expert's opinion!

Why is that, Robert?

I didn't ask for your take on his testimony. I asked what he said, and whether you would quote it. It's clear you won't, will you?

Originally Posted by HSienzant

The FBI and the HSCA photographic panel examined first generation originals as well as the extant negatives. Did Thompson examine those materials? Or did he examine copies of copies ?

Was he asked about this? What did he say about first-generation vs copies?

He is a legitimate expert - so I know he knows. What I want to find out is if you will actually quote his opinion on THAT and whether you will give your own expert any credence - or whether you will want to yank him off the stand without cross-examination.

Hank

What did Thompson say about drawing conclusions from multi-generational copies versus first-generation originals? What did HE examine?

Will you quote YOUR OWN EXPERT on this?

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Hank wrote:
3) He engages in circular reasoning; using the conclusion (the film was altered and the conspirators were really good at faking stuff!) to rule out the evidence it wasn't (for example, the film markings are consistent with authenticity);

Comment:
Oh, but that reasoning is perfectly valid. If the film can be shown without question to have been altered, then it is only logical to theorize as to how and when it could have been done. The film did not alter itself. Your problem is, you take a valid fact, and attempt to turn it into a non-fact by very fallaciously appealing to "Authority." Why don't you consider the evidence first. Or is that threatening to you???

How do I nominate this for a Stundie?

Here's the logic Robert is arguing is perfectly valid:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

...All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas. Well, of course they are. Any conspirator who's going to change a movie and screw up that kind of stuff isn't worth two cents. "

-- Doug Horne

Aside to Robert: There's a very big IF in your argument you appear to be ignoring:

...If the film can be shown without question to have been altered...

You see, the film must be shown to be altered first as you yourself admit.

And Zavada's study does an excellent job of eliminating that possibility as Horne above admits ("All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas...").

Horne ignores all that, and so do you, simply because you both want the Z-film to be altered, because otherwise it pretty effectively destroys your arguments for conspiracy. So Horne argues none of that matters, because we know the film is altered, so of course all that shows is the conspirators were really good at altering stuff.

That sir, is pretty classic circular reasoning.

If none of that matters, why did the AARB commission the study?

Why did they hire the best 8mm expert they could find on this planet to do the study?

Or is that too many questions for you to answer?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I'm not here to change opinions. Only to examine facts.

I find myself having to thank you, Robert. Your complete destruction and utter humiliation

has enabled Hank to teach all of us a lot more about Oswald's assassination of JFK. Well done! Thanks for unknowingly volunteering to be the unwitting pawn and cat toy. Remember we all questioned the wisdom of shooting yourself so often in the foot so early in the thread.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Garrison

So you really have no comprehension how light and shadow can affect the appearance of a face.

Here's quick test that replicates the effect in the photos:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3275/shadow2j.png : http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3751/shadow1h.png

The only difference in the two is that on the right the lighting is aimed straight at the face, as with a flash or studio light, and on the left it's angled down like sunlight. See Robert, no fakery or editing required, just some basic physics.

Apropos of the image on the left, one conspiracy theorist (Ralph Cinque) is arguing the photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway because Oswald wore a V-neck t-shirt, whereas Billy Lovelady wore a round-neck T-shirt. It has been pointed out to him that what he's seeing is the shadow of the head on the T-shirt, making it appear to be V-necked, but of course that hasn't dissuaded him any.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcb...id=93960&page=

Here's the full Altgens photograph.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg

The question of who is in the doorway was raised within the first month of the assassination.
In blowups of the image, it looks like Oswald.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/index.html

The Warren Commission established it was Billy Lovelady.
The HSCA re-examined the evidence in 1978 and concluded it was Billy Lovelady.
Billy Lovelady said it was Billy Lovelady.
Even Oswald admitted it wasn't him in the photo.*

Even that doesn't close the case for some conspiracy theorists like Ralph Cinque above.

Robert, just curious: Do you think it is Oswald in the doorway, and do you think Oswald was lying about his whereabouts at the time of the assassination?

____________

* Oswald's admission is part of the famous "I'm just a patsy" exchange with reporters, but is seldom quoted by conspiracy theorists.

ANNOUNCER: Dallas Police headquarters, November 22nd, 1963.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I don't know what this is all about.
1st REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No, sir, I didn't. People keep-- [crosstalk] Sir?

1st REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I work in that building.
1st REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

2nd REPORTER: Back up, man!
3rd REPORTER: Come on, man!
4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ipts/1205.html

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Apropos of the image on the left, one conspiracy theorist (Ralph Cinque) is arguing the photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway because Oswald wore a V-neck t-shirt, whereas Billy Lovelady wore a round-neck T-shirt. It has been pointed out to him that what he's seeing is the shadow of the head on the T-shirt, making it appear to be V-necked, but of course that hasn't dissuaded him any.

Very interesting. The 'v-neck' was a purely unintentional effect of angling the light to shade the face, sort of an unexpected prediction of the experiment. I realize CT's tend to have a loose understanding of 'evidence' but it wasn't exactly back breaking labour to show how different lighting changes the apparent shape of the face, is it so much to expect them to check their outlandish ideas makes sense once in a while?

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

I've always found the Oswald's Chin argument very amusing. Why oh why did these idiot forgers splice the photo across the chin? Did they not have a full face photo of Oswald?

What about it, Robert? I've done my share of airbrushing, damage repair and manipulations to photos. Everything from simple redeye and blemish removal to head swaps and airbrushing out objects obscuring faces in the photo. That large dark shadow under the face of the figure in the backyard could quite nicely hide any number of manipulations and is like a gift from heaven if the aim is to swap the head in the photo with another head. Yet your supposed genius conspirators make a mistake even a rookie would roll his eyes at and splice in the Oswald face starting at mid-chin (were all their real Oswald photos from mid-chin up?), totally giving the game away to armchair investigators who've never retouched a photo in their life* but somehow managing to fool professional photographers and artists who retouch photos for a living**.

Either those are some crazy like a fox conspirators or you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I wonder what William of Ockham would have to say about it? Now there's a man who knew where to cut.








* "Guy Fawkes in a leather jacket and khakis" being the honorable exception, of course.

** You know, those experts you hold in such contempt.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by JohnG

...Yet your supposed genius conspirators make a mistake even a rookie would roll his eyes at and splice in the Oswald face starting at mid-chin (were all their real Oswald photos from mid-chin up?), totally giving the game away to armchair investigators who've never retouched a photo in their life* but somehow managing to fool professional photographers and artists who retouch photos for a living...

And that's just a still photo. The easiest to alter. Yet on a 8mm motion picture film, they are damn near so perfect that only circular reasoning can uncover their dastardly plot:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas. Well, of course they are. Any conspirator who's going to change a movie and screw up that kind of stuff isn't worth two cents. -- Doug Horne

So I guess Robert's conclusion is that there were two groups of photo alterationists involved. One who altered the motion pictures like the Zapruder film and were damn good; and the other guys, who were more or less just dragged in off the street and had no clue what they were doing; making it real easy to spot the misplaced shadows, the splice in the chin, the missing fingernails, the wrong size rifle, etc. Conspiracy theorists have pored over the backyard photos for nearly five decades and still haven't come up with any arguments that will withstand scrutiny.

But they keep at it still.

One would ask "Why?", but the answer is simple: Oswald was confronted with these photos in custody after saying he didn't own a rfile, and Oswald declared them fakes. If they are indeed fakes, then Oswald was telling the truth and Oswald was being framed by some massive conspiracy. But if Oswald was lying and the photos are legitimate, then... then... [shudder] that outcome is too horrible for conspiracy theorists like Robert to even contemplate.

Hank.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Very interesting. The 'v-neck' was a purely unintentional effect of angling the light to shade the face, sort of an unexpected prediction of the experiment. I realize CT's tend to have a loose understanding of 'evidence' but it wasn't exactly back breaking labour to show how different lighting changes the apparent shape of the face, is it so much to expect them to check their outlandish ideas makes sense once in a while?

Yes it is.

At least, in my nearly 49 years following this case, I've never known them to perform any experiments to prove their assertions. Neither have they ever put their own scenario on the table. They are satisfied to just criticize.

Robert, can you cite any experiments by critics to prove the correctness of their assertions?

Hank

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

He didn't agree or disagree as to the conclusion, but only deferred to them as to the originals. Except for one very obvious anomaly -- the fact that the chin in the backyard photos is not Oswald's. It is a square chin. Oswald had a rounded chin. Doesn't take a degree in photogrammetry to see that. Thompson did not defer as to the chin issue.


Backyard photo with square chin.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...5c3c48f5bc.jpg

Mugshot (rounded chin)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...5c4200bec0.jpg

? lol, they are the same person, different days, different light source. If this is the best you got, you might want to find another crazy nut case CT fantasy. Holocaust denial, 911, or Bigfoot.

This is a joke right? If you think you are right, you can team up with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer. Famous time! Go for it.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by beachnut

? lol, they are the same person, different days, different light source. If this is the best you got, you might want to find another crazy nut case CT fantasy. Holocaust denial, 911, or Bigfoot.

This is a joke right? If you think you are right, you can team up with a newspaper and earn a Pulitzer. Famous time! Go for it.

It is a joke but I don't think Robert Prey got the punchline.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Yes it is.

At least, in my nearly 49 years following this case, I've never known them to perform any experiments to prove their assertions. Neither have they ever put their own scenario on the table. They are satisfied to just criticize.

Robert, can you cite any experiments by critics to prove the correctness of their assertions?

Hank

[CT-LOGIC] Yeah, but a a highly trained double agent spy, who went on secret missions for the CIA and FBI and the KGB wouldn't know how to lie convincingly. Spies are always honest! Except when they are covering up murders by kill teams. But not when talking about if they killed somebody themselves, then they have to use their super-duper honesty code![/CT-LOGIC]

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Backyard photo with square chin.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...5c3c48f5bc.jpg

And...he has a black neck, no eyes, and kind of a Hitler mustache!

My god, it's all so clear to me now!!!

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

And...he has a black neck, no eyes, and kind of a Hitler mustache!

My god, it's all so clear to me now!!!

I interpreted the 'Hitler' moustache as a gaping hole in his upper lip. Is it not? Are you sure that's not an exit wound created by a heart-shaped magic bullet?!

[matt.tansy]

He doesn't have thumbs either! Are we supposed to believe a man without thumbs can hold up a newspaper and a rifle?

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by matt.tansy

He doesn't have thumbs either! Are we supposed to believe a man without thumbs can hold up a newspaper and a rifle?

Not only that, did you notice that complete slice missing from his right ring finger? We know it's a missing slice because we can see the white newspaper behind! He really should have tried wearing a ring to bridge the gap, thereby ensuring he didn't lose the loose end of that finger, just like he lost his thumbs!

[jargon buster]

Its about time Roberts posts were treated with levity, at least now he may ease up on his ridiculous crusade.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Yes it is.

At least, in my nearly 49 years following this case, I've never known them to perform any experiments to prove their assertions. Neither have they ever put their own scenario on the table. They are satisfied to just criticize.

Robert, can you cite any experiments by critics to prove the correctness of their assertions?

Hank

I have conducted by own experiment in attempting to prove or disprove the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in backyard photo 133B, where the rifle is at 11 o'clock and proven the shadow to be a fraud. Jack White has conducted numerous experiments on the backyard photo anomalies as has John Costella and others. And that is what Science is all about -- Replication. If you cannot replicate an observation then that observation is not worthy of belief. On the other hand the so-called panel of photo "experts" on the HSCA conducted no experiments at all, and thus replicated nothing.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I have conducted by own experiment in attempting to prove or disprove the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in backyard photo 133B, where the rifle is at 11 o'clock and proven the shadow to be a fraud. Jack White has conducted numerous experiments on the backyard photo anomalies as has John Costella and others. And that is what Science is all about -- Replication. If you cannot replicate an observation then that observation is not worthy of belief. On the other hand the so-called panel of photo "experts" on the HSCA conducted no experiments at all, and thus replicated nothing.

Jack White? Are you serious, Robert?!

I hope at least you applied some solid photgrammetry principles. Did you, Robert? Would you be so kind as to post your experiment details, and explain how they prove the photo to be fraudulent?

BTW - science isn't all about replication. There are many other factors that determine good science.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

How do I nominate this for a Stundie?

Here's the logic Robert is arguing is perfectly valid:




Aside to Robert: There's a very big IF in your argument you appear to be ignoring:

...If the film can be shown without question to have been altered...

You see, the film must be shown to be altered first as you yourself admit.

And Zavada's study does an excellent job of eliminating that possibility as Horne above admits ("All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas...").

Horne ignores all that, and so do you, simply because you both want the Z-film to be altered, because otherwise it pretty effectively destroys your arguments for conspiracy. So Horne argues none of that matters, because we know the film is altered, so of course all that shows is the conspirators were really good at altering stuff.

That sir, is pretty classic circular reasoning.

If none of that matters, why did the AARB commission the study?

Why did they hire the best 8mm expert they could find on this planet to do the study?

Or is that too many questions for you to answer?

Yes. Too many. There are several anomalies the Z film. I cited one being the one sixth of a second blood and tissue spray. You ignored it.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Bizarre. He was there, it's not hearsay. It's not speculation. And it's not hearsay speculation either. He's testifying to what he saw. He saw them drive off before the assassination. He noted they were long gone before the assassination and weren't in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

Here's a fuller version of his statement, which I posted earlier. Also as I pointed out earlier, Mark Lane, the source you cited for Mercer's story, didn't mention any of this in his aptly-entitled book that describes his decision-making process, RUSH TO JUDGMENT:

The following investigation was conducted by SA's HENRY J. OLIVER and LOUIS M. KELLEY on December 9, 1963:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade, the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck, and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He stated these persons were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.

Please present some evidence they were involved. Otherwise you got a stalled truck that was gone before the assassination, and a big heap of speculation that this is somehow connected to the assassination of the President.

It's not.

Hank

No. The only thing I challenged you to do is to disprove Mercer's account. You have not done that.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

No, they didn't call him in as an expert photographic witness.

Please cite your PRIMARY (not secondary) source of this.

They called him because he had been a leading critic of the backyard photographs for ten years and they wanted to find out what he claimed to have discovered that led him to conclude the backyard photos were fakes.

Robert Blakey gave a lead-in to Jack White's testimony that starts here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...Vol2_0162a.htm

It concerns the known history of the backyard photos, and a brief history of the criticism of the backyard photos. Among others, he mentions the criticism of Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher in that introduction. White wasn't called as an expert photographic witness, but as one of the leading critics of the backyard photos.

Blakey concludes with this, before the House Committee heard White's testimony:

The 1978 BBC television documentary entitled "The Assassination of President Kennedy " ' ` What Do We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then" includes an interview with British forensic photography expert, Malcolm Thomson. At the request of the British Broadcasting Corp., Mr. Thomson examined copies of two of the backyard photographs . He found that they were fakes.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to show the BBC interview to illustrate how concern over the photographs has drawn public attention.
Chairman STOKES. You may proceed.
Mr. BLAKEY. Could the lights be turned down please?
[The documentary was shown.]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years.
Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction,
including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts.
Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs .
Mr. Chairman, I would note that Mr. White's testimony today will be split into two parts: The first dealing with the photographs, and the second in relation to the rifle. But it would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. White to testify on the backyard photographs.
Chairman Stokes. The Committee calls Mr. White.

Here's White's testimony (previously cited).
http://history-matters.com/archive/j...Vol2_0163b.htm

But at no time is Jack White referred to as an expert photographic witness. He was called as a leading critic of the backyard photos, and the two are NOT synonymous.

Jack White being a critic doesn't give him expertise, Robert.

We see that every day with your posts, as well.

Hank

White obviously knew more about those photos than anyone on that panel. Can you cite any example of where the committee attempted to replicate a cited anomaly????

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Apropos of the image on the left, one conspiracy theorist (Ralph Cinque) is arguing the photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway because Oswald wore a V-neck t-shirt, whereas Billy Lovelady wore a round-neck T-shirt. It has been pointed out to him that what he's seeing is the shadow of the head on the T-shirt, making it appear to be V-necked, but of course that hasn't dissuaded him any.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcb...id=93960&page=

Here's the full Altgens photograph.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg

The question of who is in the doorway was raised within the first month of the assassination.
In blowups of the image, it looks like Oswald.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/index.html

The Warren Commission established it was Billy Lovelady.
The HSCA re-examined the evidence in 1978 and concluded it was Billy Lovelady.
Billy Lovelady said it was Billy Lovelady.
Even Oswald admitted it wasn't him in the photo.*

Even that doesn't close the case for some conspiracy theorists like Ralph Cinque above.

Robert, just curious: Do you think it is Oswald in the doorway, and do you think Oswald was lying about his whereabouts at the time of the assassination?

____________

* Oswald's admission is part of the famous "I'm just a patsy" exchange with reporters, but is seldom quoted by conspiracy theorists.

ANNOUNCER: Dallas Police headquarters, November 22nd, 1963.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I don't know what this is all about.
1st REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No, sir, I didn't. People keep-- [crosstalk] Sir?

1st REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I work in that building.
1st REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

2nd REPORTER: Back up, man!
3rd REPORTER: Come on, man!
4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ipts/1205.html

And so, your point is????

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Garrison

So you really have no comprehension how light and shadow can affect the appearance of a face.

Here's quick test that replicates the effect in the photos:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3275/shadow2j.pnghttp://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3751/shadow1h.png

The only difference in the two is that on the right the lighting is aimed straight at the face, as with a flash or studio light, and on the left it's angled down like sunlight. See Robert, no fakery or editing required, just some basic physics.

Your top example shows shadow in the chin itself. There is no shadow on Oswald's chin, but on his neck in BY photo 133A.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Yes. Too many. There are several anomalies the Z film. I cited one being the one sixth of a second blood and tissue spray. You ignored it.

Your interpretation of how long blood should be visible for is not evidence

Show us where we can see paint on the frame, or artefacts of tampering. Until then we have no reason to assume alterations were made.

[Robert Prey]

Still waiting for an answer to the question:

What is an "expert"????

None of the "experts"on this board seem to know what one is, though quick to point out who is, and who is not an "expert."

[jargon buster]

Quote:

What is an "expert"????

We can all use this definition from now on.

Quote:

Expert.
A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by jargon buster

We can all use this definition from now on.

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

[jargon buster]

Having studied the backyard photos myself Im still at a loss as to where the grassy knoll shooter is, is he behind Oswald or is it the person taking the photo?

PS feel free to ignore this post Robert.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

I'm inclined to concur with jb's suggestion. Regardless, one can quickly point out, validly, that Jack White is certainly not an expert by any reasonable definition of the word.

What is it, Robert, about White's testimony that leads you to believe that he is an expert? Is it your definition of 'expert', I wonder, which seemingly reads something like: 'A person who has a purported authoritative knowledge or skill in a particular area but in reality has a keen but amateurish, naive interest.'

What authoritative knowledge and/or skill do you consider White demonstrated in his testimony?

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Your top example shows shadow in the chin itself. There is no shadow on Oswald's chin, but on his neck in BY photo 133A.

Robert, you're splitting hairs now in a desperate attempt to avoid severe embarrassment. The profile of most chins, including Oswald's, as demonstrated by the mug shots, and as you well know, transfers from essentially vertical to essentially horizontal. Hence the shadow line from an elevated light source, (the sun, in the case of the Oswald photo) occurs at a point somewhere before essentially true horizontal, i.e. well in advance of the neck, namely still on the chin. Get it? Or would a simple line diagram help?

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No. The only thing I challenged you to do is to disprove Mercer's account. You have not done that.

lol. Asking me to prove a negative now?

No weapon found, no gunman seen, no damage from a bullet fired from the knoll. The alleged gunman, his associates, and their vehicle were all gone before the assassination.

That should be good enough for most people. Especially since the positive is merely a suspicion of suspicious activity, with no actual suspicious activity associated with it.

Hank

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Asking me to prove a negative?

No weapon found, no gunman seen, no damage from a bullet fired from the knoll.

That should be good enough for most people.

Not for you, right?

Hank

It would appear Robert doesn't understand the burden of proof is on him to validate witnesses with material/physical/what ever term you like/ actual evidence, and it is not our place to believe assertions until proven otherwise.

But then he has now admitted he is not here to persuade us, but wants to examine facts. I suppose it could be argued that examinig facts does not require discussion, and a discussion where you don't intend to convince others of your view nor accept the possibility of your own views being found flawed is not a discussion but a dictation.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

By that definition, I am too an expert on the supposed anomalies in the back yard photos. I think I have demonstated a pretty damn good knowledge of the assassination, the criticisms, and the failures of those criticisms to hit home.

I am not, however, a photographic expert, and neither is White.

If you accept his testimony, you should accept mine.

Hank

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

Why? He has been shown to be entirely lacking the knowledge and skill required to be an expert. This is as laughable as it would be for you to claim to have a professional medical opinion. You seem to have mistaken White making his claims as proof of his expertise. They are not. They are unsupported by anything that remotely resembles actual knowledge in the field he wants to discuss.

I could bombard you with equally bombastic claims about Aztec ruins. I could spiel. Of all kinds of facts and deductions. I can claim expertise through my research. But it will be worth exactly bumpkis.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I have conducted by own experiment in attempting to prove or disprove the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in backyard photo 133B, where the rifle is at 11 o'clock and proven the shadow to be a fraud.

LOL. Robert, what times are it?


Maybe you could ask your pee-stained janitor friend. He looks like a doofus who should be taken seriously.

Quote:

Jack Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?" White has conducted numerous experiments on the backyard photo anomalies

FTFY

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

No. I am an engineer, trained in many types of photo analysis (for forensic engineering purposes) and published in peer-reviewed journals as such. I have debated Jack White on his "analysis" of the Apollo space mission photos. White has absolutely no stature whatsoever in the field of photographic analysis; he is seen as a conspiracy-theory crackpot only. He has demonstrated time and again almost complete ignorance not only of the elementary principles of photographic analysis and interpretation, but a below-average aptitude for spatial reasoning.

Saying he is an "expert in the anomalies" seems to be a polite way of saying he's a conspiracy theorist. Jack White is most decidedly not an image analysis expert. Not even close. Here is an example from my web site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html showing just how inept White is.

Further I don't much care for his honesty. I was hired by Ten Worlds Productions to appear on a pilot for a series they were producing for the History Channel. I was asked to debunk some photo analysis and scientific claims made by others. I learned that White was claiming he was a "consultant" to this same program, and that he had worked with the producer "for several days." The producer is a long-time friend from my hometown, so I called to check up on that claim. John, the producer, said no, he'd only interviewed White for an hour or two, and then only to collect White's conspiracy claims on video. Clearly White is comfortable overstating his case and misleading his readers for his own personal aggrandizement. This is not someone I trust to get to the bottom of some claim.