Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part IV

[Gil Jesus]

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv

[John Corbett]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv

So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.

Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
> evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.

I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )

He went on to explain how it could be done:

"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )

And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4

So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
>
> So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
> that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
> are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
> evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
> he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
> authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.

Worse yet, Griffith cites Jack White as *his* photographic expert:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

This Jack White:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm
— QUOTE —
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you ever examined the original exhibits? By that I mean the original first generation of prints of 133-A and B and the original negative?
Mr. WHITE. No. I have only seen the DeMohrenschildt picture in the original.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. So as to exhibits 133-A and B you have never examined the first-generation print and you have never examined the original negative; is that correct?
Mr. WHITE. That is true. I have only the prints that were furnished me by the National Archives.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Do you know what generation prints they were? By that I mean if someone were to take a picture of 133-A or B, that would now be a second-generation print?
Mr. WHITE. That is right.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. And if someone were to take a picture of that, it would be a third-generation print and so on?
Mr. WHITE. True.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. The materials you were given, do you know what generation they were?
Mr. WHITE. I have no way of knowing. I would presume that they were the next generation after what the exhibit is in the National Archives. That is just a presumption. I have no way of knowing.
…
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in the study of shadows in photographs?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, if the picture is authentic, would you expect all the shadows cast by objects in that picture to line up parallel to each other?
Mr. WHITE. I am no expert on that. 1 wouldn't have any conclusion unless you pointed some specific reference to me.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are you familiar with the concept known as "vanishing point"?
Mr. WHITE. Oh, yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you studied these photographs did you use the vanishing point concept to analyze the shadows?
Mr. WHITE. Not as such. I didn't see any point in using a vanishing point to analyze shadows.
…
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, you have made reference to several points in these photographs that suggest that Oswald's head is disproportionately---- I withdraw the question. That the body of Oswald is not consistent in the various photo-graphs in light of the head size; is that correct?
Mr. WHITE. Yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?
Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I realize you are not a scientist. Do you now whether scientists consider the use of transparency overlays to be a good way of detecting differences between soft edged images?
Mr. WHITE. I have no way of knowing that.
…
Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly describe the exhibit labeled F-396?
Mr. WHITE. OK. Once I received this photo of the Archive rifle and studied it in connection with some of the others, I had what you might call a brainstorm, after hearing some rifle experts talk. When I appeared before Senator Schweiker and the Church committee, I talked to some rifle experts. They said frequently when somebody buys an old war surplus weapon like this, the first thing he does is modify the stock to fit his physique. Therefore the thought dawned on me that the wooden stock is changeable.
Mr. GENZMAN. Did you line up the metal parts?
Mr. WHITE. Yes. I made prints where the metal parts of the rifle, that is, from the muzzle to the trigger guard, were all identical lengths.
Mr. GENZMAN. After lining up the metal parts, what did you determine about these stocks?
Mr. WHITE. I determined that the butts were different lengths after lining up the metal parts.
Mr. GENZMAN. Does the photograph at the bottom demonstrate this discrepancy in the length of the stocks?
Mr. WHITE. Yes. Here we have the Archive rifle printed in brown, the Warren report rifle printed in red; all the way from the muzzle through all the metal parts, in fact all the way to the comb, which is this little notch in the stock of rifle. All of that matches exactly. Only from here back, less than one-fifth length of the rifle, does not match.
Mr. GENZMAN. Briefly what did you determine from your study?
Mr. WHITE. It is my opinion that we have been shown by the authorities more than one gun as being the assassination weapon.
Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you, Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Chairman STOKES. Mr. Goldsmith?
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.
Mr. WHITE. All right.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?
Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----
Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
Mr. WHITE. No.
— UNQUOTE —

White didn't even know how to take perspective into account when he reached this conclusion:
— QUOTE —
Mr. WHITE. …a researcher from California named Fred Newcomb furnished me a photograph of the rifle as it existed in the National Archives.
Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly describe the exhibit labeled F-396?
Mr. WHITE. OK. Once I received this photo of the Archive rifle and studied it in connection with some of the others, I had what you might call a brainstorm, after hearing some rifle experts talk. When I appeared before Senator Schweiker and the Church committee, I talked to some rifle experts. They said frequently when somebody buys an old war surplus weapon like this, the first thing he does is modify the stock to fit his physique. Therefore the thought dawned on me that the wooden stock is changeable.
Mr. GENZMAN. Did you line up the metal parts?
Mr. WHITE. Yes. I made prints where the metal parts of the rifle, that is, from the muzzle to the trigger guard, were all identical lengths.
Mr. GENZMAN. After lining up the metal parts, what did you determine about these stocks?
Mr. WHITE. I determined that the butts were different lengths after lining up the metal parts.
Mr. GENZMAN. Does the photograph at the bottom demonstrate this discrepancy in the length of the stocks?
Mr. WHITE. Yes. Here we have the Archive rifle printed in brown, the Warren report rifle printed in red; all the way from the muzzle through all the metal parts, in fact all the way to the comb, which is this little notch in the stock of rifle. All of that matches exactly. Only from here back, less than one-fifth length of the rifle, does not match.
Mr. GENZMAN. Briefly what did you determine from your study?
Mr. WHITE. It is my opinion that we have been shown by the authorities more than one gun as being the assassination weapon.
— UNQUOTE —

>
> Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
> yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
> testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
> evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.

And White.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

And Griffith tried to make normal everyday things into some kind of bizarre one in a million probability.

His argument on page three, under the heading “Duplicating the Nose Shadow”, is where he does this. Griffith is attempting to question this demonstration of how the head can be tilted and yet the shadow of the nose fall directly down:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0101b.htm

He pretends this is some great mystery, how
A. the tilt of the head,
B. the change in the camera position, and
C. the head looking directly at the camera would be a happenstance almost impossible to duplicate, so the same image of Oswald’s face would have to have been used in the various backyard photographs.

But his argument ignores what happened, and what people do.

For starters, they look at the camera when they want their photograph taken. So the fact that both images show Oswald looking at the camera is not some bizarre unlikely happenstance, but a 100% certainty. So strike point C from his argument.

Secondly, Marina’s statement is that she handed the camera to her husband to advance the film.
That would entail her not being in the same position for the backyard photos. She testified she did not use a tripod.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm
— QUOTE —
Q. How many pictures did you take?
A. I think I took two.
Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?
A. Yes; that is what I recall.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.
Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?
A. He changed his pose.
Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?
A. He did that.
— UNQUOTE —

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscamar1.htm
— QUOTE —
Mr. McDONALD. Did you use a tripod at all?
Mrs. PORTER. Did I use what?
Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
— UNQUOTE —

So that explains point B. We know the camera position must have changed between photographs.

And finally, the tilt of the head — people tilt their heads for a variety of reasons, one is to keep the sun out of their eyes. As Oswald and Marina worked the camera and changed their positions slightly between photographs, Oswald would naturally change the tilt of his head to keep the sun out of his eyes. Again, the likelihood that a person would do that is a near certainty, not a rare event whatsoever. That would put the shadow under his nose again. That eliminates point A.

So rather than some bizarre happenstance that is highly unlikely, the likelihood that Oswald would be looking at the camera while the camera moved about and the tilt of his head changed to put his nose shadow under his nose is what would naturally occur. Critics, as Bud like to say, look at the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly.

This is another example. And this flawed analysis by Griffith is what Gil cites, calling it “a good critique”.

Laughable.

[Steven Galbraith]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it's evidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their inconsistency. The conspiracy mindset is a strange, strange thing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 05:23:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv

Logical fallacies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
>
>So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
>that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
>are actually qualified to make these judgements.

Did you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
reading.

If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
dishonesty.

> Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
>evidence of Oswald's guilt

You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.


>Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...


Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
going to have to rule you out of order...

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil doesn't understand the law regarding chain of custody. As I've pointed out before, most recently here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/MDgG5vw6CAAJ
Secondary critics like Gil get their opinions about chain of custody from conspiracy books, not law books. And the conspiracy books falsely claim that any question about chain of custody renders the evidence inadmissible. That’s untrue. The evidence would be admissible, and the jury would get to decide how much weight to put on it.

— QUOTE —
Tell me what is stupid about citing the actual document written by a law professor at an actual law school summarizing the law on admissibility of evidence.

It's entitled “CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE”.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

Again:
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].

The evidence is admitted and the jury gets to decide how much weight to give it. You offer nothing in rebuttal except your own opinion (gleaned from conspiracy books, which you should know by now, are not truthful).
— UNQUOTE —

Ben to post some unsupported claim of his, attempting to change the subject.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
> >
> >So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
> >that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
> >are actually qualified to make these judgements.
> Did you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
> did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
> reading.

Unsupported assertion by Ben.

>
> If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
> what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
> dishonesty.
> > Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
> >evidence of Oswald's guilt
> You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
> exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.

What forensic evidence exculpates Oswald? Be specific.

>
>
> >Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...
>
>
> Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
> going to have to rule you out of order...

Another unsupported assertion by Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 06:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
>>
>> So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
>> that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
>> are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
>> evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
>> he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
>> authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
>>
>> Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
>> yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
>> testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
>> evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
>

>And Griffith...

Logical fallacies deleted.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been
> authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court.

It's amusing that you're TERRIFIED of addressing the actual evidence
that shows this.

> Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks
> he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court.

Is this what you think happened? You're a real kook!

[Hank Sienzant]

What logical fallacies, Ben?

Another unsupported assertion by Ben.

Be specific. Don't just delete everything I wrote and attempt to hide behind your unsupported assertion.

Compare and contrast. My post was supported by links to the evidence, and quotes from pertinent witnesses like Jack White and Marina Oswald Porter and an argument pointing out the flaws in Griffith’s analysis that Gil Jesus cited and called “a good critique”.

Ben just makes an unsupported assertion. Good enough for a critic, I suppose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Gil doesn't understand the law regarding chain of custody.

What a kook! Nothing but throwing slime...

Can't you deal with the evidence, coward?

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben doubles down on his unsupported assertion, then declares himself the winner based on nothing at all.

As I said above:

—QUOTE —

What logical fallacies, Ben?

Another unsupported assertion by Ben.

Be specific. Don't just delete everything I wrote and attempt to hide behind your unsupported assertion.

Compare and contrast. My post was supported by links to the evidence, and quotes from pertinent witnesses like Jack White and Marina Oswald Porter and an argument pointing out the flaws in Griffith’s analysis that Gil Jesus cited and called “a good critique”.

Ben just makes an unsupported assertion. Good enough for a critic, I suppose.

— UNQUOTE —

It appears Ben has no reasoned argument to make, nor evidence to
produce to support his beliefs.

Deletions and repeated unsupported assertions are what he’s produced in this thread to date. Let's see if he can do better.

He resorts to deleting my points, asserting they are logical fallacies. But my points are still there (just scroll back up), unrebutted by Ben, or Gil, or any other critic of the Commission’s conclusions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:05:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
>>>
>>>So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
>>>that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
>>>are actually qualified to make these judgements.
>> Did you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
>> did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
>> reading.
>
>Unsupported assertion by Ben.

Supported by what Corbutt wrote.

And when *YOU* have to lie to support Corbutt - you merely support
what I stated.

>> If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
>> what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
>> dishonesty.
>>
>>> Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
>>>evidence of Oswald's guilt
>>
>> You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
>> exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.
>
>What forensic evidence exculpates Oswald? Be specific.

ARE YOU A MORON OR JUST SENILE???

You could easily answer this question you ask of me, since you know
full well what forensic evidence a defense would bring up.

But just for you, I'm going to post one of the answers, that you've
ALREADY run from:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/g8d4WE9-p5M/m/X5EAoHlsAAAJ

Run again, coward, and prove your cowardice yet again.

>>>Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...
>>
>>
>> Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
>> going to have to rule you out of order...
>
>Another unsupported assertion by Ben.

Sorry Huckster, unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
going to just laugh at you!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:17:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Gil doesn't understand the law regarding chain of custody.
> What a kook! Nothing but throwing slime...

Ben resorts to ad hominem instead of showing how my citation to a law professor’s summary of the law regarding admissibility of evidence is treated in actual cases, rather than how WC critics treat it. Hilariously, he calls a citation to a published article by a law professor (and pointing out how Gil’s opinion is opposed to the cited rulings) “throwing slime”.

Here is what Ben is ignoring:

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

And here is the pertinent quote (AGAIN!):

“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].

>

> Can't you deal with the evidence, coward?

I did. You deleted everything I posted, alleged but did not support, your assertion of logical fallacies and now resort to just calling me names (”coward” and “kook”).

How’s that strategy working out for you thus far, Ben? Making many converts with that approach?

[Ben Holmes]

[Hank Sienzant]

As predicted here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pO7r1USI98I/m/2J0MKsGrAgAJ

“Ben to post some unsupported claim of his, attempting to change the subject.”

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben doubles down once more on his unsupported assertion strategy.
How’s that working out for you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:38:11 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Huckster simply ran again... as predicted right here:

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Huckster simply ran again... as predicted right here:

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:34:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:05:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> >> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
> >>>
> >>>So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
> >>>that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
> >>>are actually qualified to make these judgements.
> >> Did you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
> >> did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
> >> reading.
> >
> >Unsupported assertion by Ben.
> Supported by what Corbutt wrote.

Another unsupported assertion by Ben.

How so? Explain. Be specific. Make an argument contrasting what I wrote with what Corbett wrote, showing how the evidence supports what you’re claiming Corbett wrote.

Go ahead, we’ll wait.

>
> And when *YOU* have to lie to support Corbutt - you merely support
> what I stated.

Another unsupported assertion by Ben. Show my supposed lies, don't just allege them.

> >> If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
> >> what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
> >> dishonesty.
> >>
> >>> Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
> >>>evidence of Oswald's guilt
> >>
> >> You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
> >> exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.
> >
> >What forensic evidence exculpates Oswald? Be specific.
> ARE YOU A MORON OR JUST SENILE???
>
> You could easily answer this question you ask of me, since you know
> full well what forensic evidence a defense would bring up.

Another unsupported assertion by Ben.

Ben attempts to shift the burden of proof (logical fallacy #1), telling me I need to support his claims.
And of course, calls me names (logical fallacy #2).
And resorts to a false dilemma, where he limits the choices to me being “A MORON OR JUST SENILE” (logical fallacy #3).

You alleged there is forensic evidence that exculpates Oswald. Your claim is unsupported. List it here. Let’s discuss. You won't, of course. Unsupported assertions are more your thing.

>


>
> But just for you, I'm going to post one of the answers, that you've
> ALREADY run from:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/g8d4WE9-p5M/m/X5EAoHlsAAAJ

This link deals with the Paraffin tests on Oswald’s hand and face.
So a clear attempt by you to change the subject once more.
Yet another logical fallacy by you (this fallacy is also called a red herring).

Note that I point out Ben’s logical fallacies as they occur. Ben merely alleges logical fallacies by me as an excuse to delete and ignore everything I write.

>
> Run again, coward, and prove your cowardice yet again.

Calling me a coward twice doesn’t change the fact that you are attempting to change the subject, and is yet just another logical fallacy by you (ad hominem).

> >>>Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
> >> going to have to rule you out of order...
> >
> >Another unsupported assertion by Ben.
> Sorry Huckster, unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
> going to just laugh at you!

Ben attempts to shift the burden of proof. He needs to provide evidence of my dishonesty, not simply assert it and ask me to disproof it. Yet another logical fallacy by Ben.

Beside’s, it’s not my honesty you need to be questioning.

You need to rebut my citations to the law professor’s summary of the law on admissibility, and the expose’ of Jack White nonsense by the HSCA, and Mike Griffith’s silly arguments concerning the nose shadow in the backyard photos of Oswald. Show how all that is flawed.

Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Or call me names and resort to other logical fallacies as you have done above.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben triples and quadruples down on his logical fallacies of making unsupported assertions and attempting to change the subject.

And he thinks his non sequiturs (yet another logical fallacy) are meaningful.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben to respond with more logical fallacies, but he won’t address the points made above ever.

These:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pO7r1USI98I/m/LIkgUzamAgAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pO7r1USI98I/m/yogypYGpAgAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pO7r1USI98I/m/2J0MKsGrAgAJ

He’s run from all three. And will continue to do so.

Or maybe Gil (the original poster) would like to take a crack at them and show where my facts or reasoning are wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:17:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:02:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>> Huckster simply ran again... as predicted right here:
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>> How's that working out for you?
>
>Ben to respond with more logical fallacies, but he won’t address the points made above ever.

As Huckster continues to refuse to answer:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

[Ben Holmes]

[Hank Sienzant]

I see that Ben’s link attempts to point out supposed exculpatory evidence against Oswald, in the form of rifle tests performed by Guinn. I’d like to amend my response:

But those tests were performed on a different rifle, and thus, have no bearing on what would have shown on paraffin tests performed with Oswald’s rifle. Moreover, despite testing only one *similar* rifle WWII weapon, Guinn (or McKnight) jump to the conclusion that all Carcano’s have this defect. That is assumed, not established. The tests by Guinn are therefore meaningless.

This is established in Ben’s citation:
“He [Guinn] sought out Gallagher to report the results of their tests on a "rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald." The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, "leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts." Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army's World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue "on both cheeks" of the shooter." (Breach of Trust - Gerald McKnight, pg 211)

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben triples and quadruples down on his logical fallacies of making unsupported assertions and attempting to change the subject.

And he thinks his non sequiturs (yet another logical fallacy) are meaningful.

Ben to respond with more logical fallacies, but he won’t address the points made above ever.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

[John Corbett]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
> > evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.

> I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
>
> He went on to explain how it could be done:
>
> "...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )

Which means he found no evidence of a fake, which means any such argument is speculation.
>
> And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4

Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.
>
> So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.

The truth is you and Griffith are speculating in absence of any evidence of fakery. Can you tell
us why any of us should give more weight to yours and Griffith's opinions than to that of real
experts in the field.

[Steven Galbraith]

"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
>>> evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
>> I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
>>
>> He went on to explain how it could be done:
>>
>> "...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
>

>Which means he found no evidence of a fake...


ARE YOU STUPID, OR WHAT???

You acknowledge part of what he said, and refuse to accept the rest...

>> And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
>
>Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.

Still no acknowledgement of the truth... just sticking your head in
the sand, and refusing to address the point made.

>> So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
>

>The truth is...


Lie deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
>Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
>Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."

What's truly funny about this is that in his parody, Steven used
Corbutt's name correctly.

And Steven never noticed...

[Steven Galbraith]

Yes, I spelled it Corbutt. Hah. Corbett. Both of them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:08:26?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:02:20?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
>>>>> evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
>>>> I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
>>>>
>>>> He went on to explain how it could be done:
>>>>
>>>> "...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
>>>
>>> Which means he found no evidence of a fake, which means any such argument is speculation.
>>>>
>>>> And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
>>>
>>> Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.
>>>>
>>>> So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
>>>
>>> The truth is you and Griffith are speculating in absence of any evidence of fakery. Can you tell
>>> us why any of us should give more weight to yours and Griffith's opinions than to that of real
>>> experts in the field.
>> "Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
>> Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
>> Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."
>Yes, I spelled it Corbutt. Hah. Corbett. Both of them.

Posted one minute AFTER I posted Steven's error - he's CLEARLY
responding to me, yet he's too dishonest & cowardly to reply to the
ACTUAL post he's responding to.

So lurkers miss the context... Here's what Steven quite dishonestly
left out:

*************************************************************************************

>"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
>Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
>Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."

What's truly funny about this is that in his parody, Steven used
Corbutt's name correctly.

And Steven never noticed...

**************************************************************************************

WHAT A COWARD!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >>> The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
> >>> evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
> >> I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
> >>
> >> He went on to explain how it could be done:
> >>
> >> "...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
> >
> >Which means he found no evidence of a fake...
>
>
> ARE YOU STUPID, OR WHAT???

False dilemma logical fallacy. Ad hominem logical fallacy.

>
> You acknowledge part of what he said, and refuse to accept the rest...

No, he said he detected no evidence of forgery.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect, that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some [other person and his face]
Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites…

Shaneyfelt went on to qualify that, but his expert opinion was they were NOT composites. That’s what’s important. Not his *speculation* about how a forgery might be done.
— QUOTE —
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture. I found no such characteristics in this.
In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
— UNQUOTE —

Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.

Nobody cares what Gil or Griffith thinks.

Except maybe Gil and Griffith.

And maybe you.

> >> And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
> >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
> >
> >Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.
> Still no acknowledgement of the truth... just sticking your head in
> the sand, and refusing to address the point made.

The point was addressed. Gil cited no evidence of fakery. He substitutes his own speculation about what further measurements *might have shown* (speculation) for the conclusions of the Photographic Expert Panel.

> >> So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
> >
> >The truth is...
>
>
> Lie deleted.

No, you left your points in.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:48:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.

You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> "Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it's evidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their inconsistency. The conspiracy mindset is a strange, strange thing.

Who said anything about chain of custody ?
Try to keep up, Professor Numbnut.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Huckster, like all liars, cannot accept expert testimony if it
contradicts their faith. No other reason.

Critics are happy to accept expert opnion, unless there are actually
REAL reasons not to.

This difference is a matter of honesty.

[Chuck Schuyler]

And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
>> Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
>> You posted it Hank.
>
>> He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
>
>And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.

Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???

>> Exactly what I said.
>> Thank You.

Of course, Chuckles also shows his dishonesty in rejecting expert
opinion with no reason other than he doesn't like it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Steven often gets stuck in past topics, and can't deal with current
events... No doubt his seniity is to blame...

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
> >> Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
> >> You posted it Hank.
> >
> >> He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
> >
> >And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.

> Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???

This?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:08 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???
> This?
> Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.

You know asshole, when make up shit, nobody takes you seriously, as they shouldn't.
Now go sit in the corner and behave.
If we want any shit out of you, we'll squeeze your head.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:20:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
>>>> Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
>>>> You posted it Hank.
>>>
>>>> He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
>>>
>>>And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.
>
>> Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???
>
>This?
>
>Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites

That you confuse the above response by you with a "cited post" shows
that *YOU* are either a moron, or can't comprehend what you read. (or
both)

>>>> Exactly what I said.
>>>> Thank You.
>>
>> Of course, Chuckles also shows his dishonesty in rejecting expert
>> opinion with no reason other than he doesn't like it.

Dead silence. Chuckles can only hopelessly agree with me.

[Hank Sienzant]

You are welcome. I posted it.

And I guess I need to point out again it is *not* evidence there was any compositing.

Where’s your *evidence*, Gil?

[Hank Sienzant]

You, several times. Not necessarily in this thread, but elsewhere.

> Try to keep up, Professor Numbnut.

“When in doubt, go for ad hominem” appears to be Ben and Gil’s fallback position.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:03:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
> >
> >Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
> >
> >You posted it Hank.
> >He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
> >Exactly what I said.
> >Thank You.
> Huckster, like all liars, cannot accept expert testimony if it
> contradicts their faith. No other reason.

I accept the expert testimony:

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.

>

> Critics are happy to accept expert opnion, unless there are actually
> REAL reasons not to.

Gil is the one trying to argue around this.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.

>

> This difference is a matter of honesty.

Again, your problem is not with me, it's with the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Hilarious. Did you say *stuck*?

This from the same guy who keeps deleting my points and posting the same change of subject repeatedly.

And Ben doesn't understand the humor here.

[Hank Sienzant]

Not a reasoned rebuttal. Hell, that’s not even an unreasonable rebuttal. It's not a rebuttal of any kind.

What was Shaneyfelt’s EXPERT opinion, not made up, but as he stated precisely in his testimony?

[John Corbett]

I cannot entirely eliminate the possibility I will win the Powerball lottery, but that is no reason
to think that I will. This is where Gil demonstrates his poor reasoning skills. Just because
someone acknowledges a theoretical possibility is not evidence that is what happened.

[Hank Sienzant]

Heck, I never purchase lottery tickets and I cannot entirely eliminate the possibility of winning the Powerball lottery.

Maybe I’ll find the winning lottery ticket on the street after the guy who purchased it decides he would rather be poor and tosses it away.

Or maybe those emails I get about splitting $20 million from some in Nigeria are legitimate, and AARP doesn't want me to know that for their selfish reasons.

These are theoretical possibilities that can't be eliminated.

But having said that, they are NOT evidence they will happen.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:59:51 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

No, in your cited posting, you said:
Is it possible that the photographs could have been faked without leaving a trace ?
Short answer: yes.

But that’s not what Shaneyfelt said:
— QUOTE —
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture. I found no such characteristics in this.
In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.
Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched
This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.
— UNQUOTE —

Shaneyfelt said that there is always characteristics that can be seen of inconsistencies in the compositing (”… there is always an inconsistency”). And he said this can typically be detected through magnification. And he said, in his expert opinion, he found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.

Not even under magnification.

That's Shaneyfelt’s expert opinion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 11:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:43:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 11:26:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:59:51?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
>> Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
>> You posted it Hank.
>> He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
>> Exactly what I said.
>> Thank You.

Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt likes to claim things never
stated...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 12:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant