Carmen Taylor's story still doesn't add up

[spooked911]

They Hung Themselves With Their Own Words
by Thomas Potter
Saturday, December 26, 2009 12:15 PM-
When Doug Haluza and Robert Bukaty were interviewed by Jeff Hill on November 1, 2007, only Jeff Hill and myself knew of the original Carmen Taylor photo that was published in ERROR with the towers still standing in the display screen of her "borrowed" camera and not the AP edited image with United flight 175 frozen in time. This was WHY Jeff Hill called them. We had inside information that we wanted to verify. Doug Haluza and Robert Bukaty not only hung themselves with their own words but Carmen Taylor as well.

Doug Haluza/Jeff Hill November 1, 2007
http://www.filefreak.com/files/90235_1xuhy/dh_110107.mp3

Robert Bukaty/Jeff Hill November 1, 2007
http://www.filefreak.com/files/85088_9jd9h/rb_ap_110107.mp3

The picture at issue can be seen here (second one down):
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/who-really-took-famous-carmen-taylor.html

Simply put, she was photographed with a picture in her camera that is impossible for her to have taken. Robert Bukaty confirms this. So what is the truth here? Did she really photograph UA175 right before it hit the tower?

[duphase]

1. I'm no 9/11 ct expert, but if I had to guess, I sue as heck wouldn't

put it past her. Maybe other people will have a different take.


"Simply put, she was photographed with a picture in her camera that is impossible for her to have taken. Robert Bukaty confirms this. So what is the truth here? Did she really photograph UA175 right before it hit the tower?"

[spooked911]

2. the point is that her incredible story of taking the incredible picture

has a major hole in it.

[SDuderstadt]

3. You mean kinda like how your "mini-nukes" theory...

has a "major hole" in it, Spooked? Why don't you use the same standards you demand of Carmen Taylor to evaluate YOUR goofy bullshit, dude?

Tu quo?

[William Seger]

4. WTF? Fraud

I thought you already at least partly solved this "mystery," Sherlock:

UPDATE 7/1/09: Sources are now saying the photo of Taylor above with the camera and the wrong shot in her camera has been altered. Here is a photo of Taylor with what appears to be the famous plane photo in her camera (from here):



Conceivably because the plane shot was copyrighted, people who used this shot altered the photo in her camera so as to avoid copyright issue if they showed this picture. But... that is still weird. Why use the picture with the wrong photo in the camera? Why use the picture at all? Why go through so much trouble to photoshop a new picture in her camera? Why not black out the camera viewfinder? And how did people who alter this picture take out the large AP watermark? I still think this story stinks.

So, Spooky, why is that clown posse organizing a lynch mob for Haluza, Bukaty, and Taylor if someone else faked that photo, and don't you think the authorities should be notified?

[spooked911]

6. I am just trying to spread the word.

Not sure what you want from me.

This is just one more way the official story is a lie.

As far as the "authorities" go, they don't give a shit-- they have been notified of far worse and won't do anything. Either they are intel, brainwashed or scared. WHich one are you?

[William Seger]

7. Spread WHAT word?

You don't think the authorities would give a shit that some insane crackpots are apparently trying to incite a lynch mob based on one of the stupidest things I've yet seen from your "truth movement?" I think it's enough to warrant restraining orders, at the least. Here's what Potter said just before the part you quoted:

The image found in the Internet Archive violated all official accounts. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Carmen Taylor to have an image of the smoking towers still standing in the digital display of the "borrowed" camera she was holding when AP photographer Robert Bukaty took her photograph.

You KNEW several months ago that the photo had been altered by someone other than Taylor, Haluza or Bukaty, yet you are trying to "spread the word" from Potter that they should be hanged, based on nothing but Potter's apparent inability to even put things in the right time order?

I've told you many times before what I want from you: Keep this stupid shit on your own blog and quit polluting DU.

[spooked911]

8. First, no one is asking for anyone to be "hanged" or to be lynched.

Potter said they hung themselves with their words, which is a figure of speech.

I am pointing out serious monkey business, here, and it is relevant to 9/11. I think it casts major doubt on the credibility of Taylor's story-- or implies a major, sophisticated form of fraud -- or even both.

"You KNEW several months ago that the photo had been altered by someone other than Taylor, Haluza or Bukaty, yet you are trying to "spread the word" from Potter that they should be hanged, based on nothing but Potter's apparent inability to even put things in the right time order?"

I'm not sure what you are referring to here-- maybe you don't understand my point yet.

The point is that--
1) Haluza verifies that Taylor could not possibly have taken the picture of the smoking standing towers from New Jersey.
2) Bukaty verifies that he took a picture of Taylor with the camera with the image of the smoking, standing towers from New Jersey.

So how did this image get in Taylor's camera?

[duphase]

9. I've read more about this and I now agree with you, Spooked911

Even if Ms. Taylor is a magician, and I mean a real good PROFESSIONAL one, there's still no way she could have taken the photo.

Up is still up and down is still down. Doesn't matter how much barking and other distractions one has to put up with.

[spooked911]

10. Thanks. I know this isn't the biggest issue in the world

but I still think it is damning in its own small way.

[duphase]

11. It may not be a BIG issue, but it's implications certainly are.

It appears to be another example of a covert operative working on behalf of those who prefer confusion over clarity, distraction rather than focused attention, and false evidence as part of an elaborate cover-up. A big criminal conspiracy often requires a second, extensive cover-up to fool, confuse and confound those who would be appalled if they knew the truth.

[William Seger]

19. It appears to be another example of

... what CTers use as a substitute for rational thinking. This one is a little clearly than most examples, since the irrationality is right there on the surface, staring you in the face.

[spooked911]

50. there's no irrationality

there is a discrepancy.

Perhaps, the proof isn't 100% for you, since you probably think Bukaty was misled or something, but the discrepancy is clear.

[William Seger]

51. It's TOTALLY irrational

You have given absolutely no rational reason to think that an altered photo you found on steves-digicams.com years after 9/11 has anything whatever to do with Taylor, Haluza, or Bukaty; or why it has any significance whatever to what happened on 9/11; or even how it ties in with your other "no plane" delusions.

It appears to me that someone may have altered that photo simply because the LCD image in the real photo is too washed out to even tell what it is -- the same reason they use "simulated pictures" in TV ads -- but either they weren't very careful to select a suitable photo or they specifically avoided using Taylor's copyrighted photo. That would be a breach of photojournalist ethics, for sure, regardless of how trivial the effect, but you haven't yet identified any culprit.

And still you say that it "casts major doubt on the credibility of Taylor's story." Don't kid yourself, Spooky: that's TOTALLY irrational.

[William Seger]

12. How did WHICH image get in Taylor's camera?

The one Bukaty apparently took -- which you already posted on your own blog -- or the one that somebody altered, which someone or other found somewhere or other on the net?

The one Bukaty apparently took doesn't show any photo in Taylor's camera taken from New Jersey, nor did Bukaty say it did, regardless of how hard Pump It Hard Hill tried to coax him into saying that. It seems to show the one that's always been attributed to her. Mystery solved, Spooky, unless you feel like trying to track down the person who actually altered that photo. But no, your inability to sort out that distinction does not "casts major doubt on the credibility of Taylor's story."

[spooked911]

49. The Hoboken image, which was the first one of Taylor I found some years back.

It accompanied the AP article I posted on my blog, and it was from a digital camera website, though the article has now been removed from the site. But it was an official enough article. Not some random blog post.

It was only years later, that the "official AP version" surfaced, with the plane shot in it.

In fact, Bukaty DOES say the shot in her camera was from a distance, like from the Statute of Liberty. That seems fairly clear. Certainly, Bukaty didn't say the picture had the camera with the plane photo in it.

I imagine this isn't solid enough proof for you, but the fact is, it's what I have. I actually think there are many very fishy things with Hill himself and these phone calls, that involve some kind of fraud. But it's a sophisticated fraud, and not just something from a random dumb Canuck.

For instance, what are the odds that *I* would be able to call AP, get Bukaty, get him to talk to me about this picture, and then have him remember this exact photo? I would say VERY slim. I think Hill's calls are set-up, and part of the whole conspiracy.

[spooked911]

52. No response?

Curious what you think about Hill's calls.

[defendandprotect]

55. Sounds like there were a few Zapruder's on the scene of 9/11 . . .

[SDuderstadt]

5. Maybe one of these would help, Spooked...

[BeFree]

13. Hey

It has been awhile since my photo looking days convinced me that what I was being told by the BS-911 types wasn't altogether, all together.

Just can't ever remember seeing that angle of the towers before. And, having looked at the stuff here, and saying I have to agree with the thrust of the OP, was wondering if there is a site that has shots from all angles around the towers?

Thanks.

[duphase]

14. Altered photos are an essential aspect of major...

conspiracies such as 9/11. Legendary photo analyst Jack White, of Ft. Worth, Texas, has been studying altered images for more than
40 years. He has played a large role in helping people realize that the photographic record as provided in official accounts of
major conspiracies are designed to mislead, distract, frustrate, and otherwise fool an unwitting, trusting public. As an example,
consider the use of altered images in the framing of Oswald. You seen 'em. The infamous backyard photos.

Technology advances, but covert operation strategies today are not much different than they were 50 years ago: use doubles, triples of everything and all important players (Fat Osama, Skinny Osama, Real Osama et al.) and so on. Someone has a very good OP about
this, but I can't recall it's title or the author's name right now - but it's a recent OP and anyone interested can find it easily.

[KDLarsen]

15. Regarding the Oswald backyard photos

Hany Farid, Dartmouth Scientist, Says Controversial Oswald Rifle Photo Real
CONCORD, N.H. — The infamous photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his backyard would have been nearly impossible to fake, according to a new analysis by a Dartmouth College professor.

Oswald, who was shot to death days after being charged with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, claimed the photo of him holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other had been doctored. Over the years, many others have pointed out what appear to be inconsistent lighting and shadows.

But Hany Farid, director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth, said the shadows are exactly where they should be.

"You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect," Farid said Thursday. "As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/hany-farid-dartmouth-scie_n_347862.html

[duphase]

16. As any lawyer could tell you, it's always possible to find a...

an "expert" who'll testify to just about anything. Mr. Farid is no different. Merely the latest. Jack White is a legendary
photo analyst (Mr. Farid is not) who testified at the HSCA hearings. Mr. White's analysis of the photos and his conclusions
that they were altered have not been debunked. Yes, I realize that you (wisely) avoided claiming otherwise.

There are also people who claim that real airplanes crashed into the WTC, despite what the videos show.

[William Seger]

18. Jack White is a legendary

WHAT?!?

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

20. If it's "always possible to find an expert who'll...

testify to just about anything", how do you know that's not Jack White?

[duphase]

22. How do you know it's not

me? Or you?

[SDuderstadt]

23. My money's on you...

dude.

[William Seger]

21. Legendary photo analyst Jack White's legendary testimony to the HSCA

Since your brought it up, here's how Jack White became a legend:

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I see that you have taken a ruler and placed it by Oswald's body and also by his rifle; is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, do you believe that an object photographed can be measured simply by placing a ruler against the image in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE. That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

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. 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 photographs 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 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.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

So, even though it's "virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like (White) to interpret the perspective of this photograph," it's extremely easy for a complete idiot to become a "legendary photo analyst" among conspiracists. All you need to do is reach the "right" conclusions.

But if you want major belly laughs, you should check out legendary photo analyst Jack White's legendary analysis of Apollo moon photos.

[duphase]

24. Mr. Goldsmith tried his best to undermine Jack White's findings

but he only managed to get Mr. White to acknowledge his lack of knowledge about photogrammetry.

Mr. Seger has here used the cross examination of Mr. White in an effort to undermine Mr. White's findings. He (Goldsmith) knew full well that Mr. White had found strong evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald thru the use of altered photographs of Mr. Oswald.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Seger neglected to post the TESTIMONY of Mr. White, and instead only posted the cross examination of him,
which, as anyone can see, nevertheless still failed to undermine Mr. White's findings. I'm sure that this selective use of material by Mr. Seger was inadvertent and not meant to convey a misleading impression.

Just for the record - and in case anyone is interested in reading Mr. White's testimony to the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations), here is a link to that testimony. It includes photos as well as his testimony about how he analyzed the famous
so-called backyard photographs and came to the conclusion that they had been altered.

Maybe Mr. Seger will also want to learn about this important aspect of how Oswald was framed for JFK's murder.


http://www.clavius.org/hsca_2_0914.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

25. Yet the HSCA concluded that Oswald...

killed JFK, dude. You also omitted the fact that Oswald's ownership of the rifle he claimed he didn't own is corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. Ever heard of "convergence of evidence"?

[duphase]

26. That's nothing. 9/11 C. concluded OBL & 19 men did 9/11

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm


The above is a link to the HSCA findings. They're all over the board. Their findings were apparently a compromise, for political reasons. They said Oswald killed JFK, but they also said JFK was likely killed as the result of a conspiracy. They said there was
evidence of two gunmen.

Bottom line: HSCA TESTIMONY is worthwhile, but it's findings are as suspicious as those of the 9/11 Commission - and they're really not much better than the Warren Commission's Report. The HSCA's own findings are contradictory and anyone who is interested in
learning the truth should be very skeptical of it.


"Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? - stupid." - Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Sec. of Defense for Public Affairs, 1965

[SDuderstadt]

27. And, of course, you're omitting the fact that the DOJ...

turned to the National Academy of Science concerning the acoustic evidence and it was determined that the sounds that the HSCA thought were evidence of a 4th shot were not even contemporaneous with the assassination, but were from a minute or more AFTER the assassination. You're also mischaracterizing the findings of the HSCA by claiming they concluded that JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy, when what they actually said was that JFK was PROBABLY killed as the result of a conspiracy. Funny how you leave that out.

Simple question, dude. Why do you keep trying to mislead the reader by leaving certain facts and details out?

[duphase]

28. Maybe you didn't have time to actually read my post

It said: "They said Oswald killed JFK, but they also said JFK was likely killed as the result of a conspiracy. They said there was
evidence of two gunmen."

Let's make better use of our time here. Instead of approaching this as a prosecution of people you disagree with, let's make our efforts be about finding out the weight and truth of evidence.

Simple question to you, dude. What makes you think that insulting people and being disrespectful towards ANY DU member helps your cause? Did someone advise you (and the others) that that's a smart tactic to use?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Dude...

you didn't use either "likely" or "probably" in anything you claimed. Again, you also omit the work of the NAS that concluded what sounded ((to some) like a 4th shot was not even contemporaneous with the assassination, unless you claim someone shot at JFK while the limo was en route to Parkland on Stemmons Freeway.

Additionally, you keep making this false claim that I "insult" people, yet you can't produce any example of my actually doing so. Do you understand that criticism, even very sharp criticism, is not automatically an "insult"? So, I'm calling your bluff, dude. Either point to specific insults from me directed at anyone here, or drop these false accusations.

[duphase]

32. DUDE - this is the last time I'm going to repost this

dude, you have twice implied that I'm a liar - and that's only about this one particular post. Kindly cease and desist.


Post #24

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/...


The above is a link to the HSCA findings. They're all over the board. Their findings were apparently a compromise, for political reasons. They said Oswald killed JFK, but they also said JFK was likely killed as the result of a conspiracy. They said there was
evidence of two gunmen.

Bottom line: HSCA TESTIMONY is worthwhile, but it's findings are as suspicious as those of the 9/11 Commission - and they're really not much better than the Warren Commission's Report. The HSCA's own findings are contradictory and anyone who is interested in
learning the truth should be very skeptical of it.


"Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? - stupid." - Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Sec. of Defense for Public Affairs, 1965

[Bolo Boffin]

33. And again, the only evidence of conspiracy was the acoustic evidence, which SD dealt with.

You're begging the question now in earnest. Please stop.

[duphase]

34. The rifle found in the TSBD didn't even belong to Oswald

Whenever actual evidence is considered, rather than simplistic cliches, the Lone Nutter theory sinks deeper into its grave.
Oswald was a Patsy, just like Osama. And again: Conspiracy is a crime, not a theory.

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

this "the evidence was faked" kick you're on is getting really annoying. When you get backed into a logical corner, you just lash back with some even goofier CT nonsense, in this case, "well, it was a Carcano, but not Oswald's Carcano" nonsense. Since the motorcade route was not even made public until just before the date of the visit, please tell us how the "perps" could have either maneuvered Oswald into a job there (which is impossible, because he worked there well before any details of the trip were publicized) or, alternatively, how would the "perps" have somehow known in advance that Oswald even owned a rifle? The problem with your goofy theories is they all crumble when you are confronted with hard logical questions.

More importantly, when confronted, Oswald denied that he even owned ANY rifle, not just that particular one. Please stop embarrassing DU with your silliness.

[duphase]

36. Dude

I provided a link precisely so that obstructionists who don't know the evidence would be able to learn something about the case without having to rely on the propaganda from the likes of McAdams or the magician guy.

Here it is again: Read it and then you maybe won't have to resort to puerile nonsense and gibberish all the time.

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

that's funny...I never mentioned Macadams nor Randi. Why do you?

Seriously, answer the questions I posed. Of course, you won't, because they totally destroy your goofy CT nonsense. Why did Oswald deny that he even owned a rifle, when it is established beyond question that he not only owned a rifle, he owned THE rifle used to kill JFK? Secondly, assuming the "perps" were able to develop a plan in the short time after the plans and details for JFK's visit became public, how would they have determined that Oswald even owned a rifle, since he purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano under an alias? If, as you claim, the "perps" were powerful enough to kill JFK and finger Oswald as a "patsy", why wouldn't they simply link Oswald to the rifle we know he owned, rather than do something stupid like link Oswald to a rifle he DIDN'T own?

The problem in trying to reason with you is that when you are called on your far-fetched, CT-fueled bullshit, it never occurs to you that it doesn't make sense to dig deeper in your bag of CT nonsense and trot out something even more laughable.

It's truly comical to watch. Again, please quit embarrassing DU with this silliness. The least you could do is come up with more believable bullshit.

[duphase]

41. dude

Never mind. I found what I was looking for.

Conspiracy is a crime, not a theory.
And any prosecutor, criminal or civil defense lawyer, or defendant will tell you that there's nothing goofy or
silly about conspiracies. They're as serious as a heart attack, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...we've discussed this before....

NO ONE here denies the existence of conspiracies. I'm certain we all know that SOME conspiracies are crimes (I really hope you don't try to argue there are no conpiracies that aren't crimes).

No one is saying actual conspiracies are silly. But, unlike your goofy CT bullshit, actual conspiracies have been proven. So far, your hit rate is exactly zero.

Please quit trying to confuse this "debate" by claiming we're denying the existence of actual conspiracies or pretending you've proven any of your goofy CT nonsense, dude. Again, your sleazy tactics are among the reasons why CT bullshit types are regarded so lightly here.

I'm going to ask you politely one time to quit trying to reframe the actual argument I've made into your silly strawmen. I won't ask again, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Bullshit. n/t

[duphase]

39. It's difficult, and probably impossible to refute, so your frustration

is understandable.

[SDuderstadt]

40. It's stupid to claim that...

the silly notion that Oswald didn't even own the murder weapon is impossible to refute, dude.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#ownership

Essentially, you're trying to argue that the "perps" were smart enough to kill JFK and get away with it for 46 years but were also stupid enough to link Oswald to a rifle he didn'r even own??? Why not simply kill JFK with Oswald's rifle, THEN pin it on Oswald? If the murder weapon isn't Oswald's and you don't deny that Oswald, in fact, owned a Mannlicher-Carcano, where is Oswald's rifle? Trying to reason with you reminds me of trying to reason with creationists who ask monumentally stupid questions like, "If man descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?".

Do you ever notice that you make little, if any, sense? Again, please quit embarrassing DU with your goofy CT bullshit, dude.

[duphase]

43. "Do you ever notice that you make little, if any, sense?"

Are you bragging... or complaining about your attraction to things that make little, if any sense, dude? And, are you
also bragging - or complaining - about your attraction to "goofy CT bullshit", dude?

How many of my posts have you personally responded to - and then when you add to mine, all those posted by so many other DUers, that's a lot of "goofy CT bullshit" for one person to be attracted to and in such a way as to make you feel compelled to respond to it, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

45. What the fuck are you babbling about now, dude?

I'll ask you one more time to quit reframing my comments and arguments and mischaracterizing what I've actually said, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Oswald bought the gun found in the book depository.

He's the only one that had possession of it during the time in question.

It's impossible to refute your statements because you don't admit the actual evidence is true. You can't reason with the unreasonable. People who love Big Brother can't be bothered with the evidence anymore.

[duphase]

46. Well, that settles that, doesn't it?

Your facts couldn't be more wrong. The JFK case has many of the same complexities as other covert operations such as 9/11.
Unless you know the evidence, it's futile to try and discuss it with an uninformed partisan.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Self-delete....unintentional dupe

Stupid ISP

[SDuderstadt]

48. When you mention "uninformed partisan"....

is that a reference to yourself? Dude, the evidence that Oswald owned the murder weapon is overwhelming. The fact that you deny the mountain of evidence against Oswald, yet you cannot intelligently offer any counter argument, is testimony to your worship of delusion.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. And the only evidence of a conspiracy was the acoustic evidence, which SD dealt with

When the supporting evidence is eliminated, duphase, the premise becomes unsupported and insisting on it the way you did is called begging the question.

[William Seger]

29. Good freakin' grief

So in other words, according to you, as long as White and you don't even understand why his sloppy, imprecise measurements completely invalidated any conclusions that he or you might draw from them, then those conclusions are still valid?

And this is why the Legend of Jack White lives on. :eyes:

[William Seger]

17. LOL! Actually, what's happened is...

... inept attempts at photo analyses have become a major aspect of the nonsense conspiracists pile up in their desperate hunt for a rational reason to believe an implausible hypothesis. JFK CTers didn't invent the technique but they did perfect it: Just gaze at a photo or movie or video until you find something that you don't understand, claim that it proves fakery, ignore any attempt to explain what's wrong with that "analysis," and presto: you're a "researcher" among all the other CTers desperately hunting for reasons to believe the same implausible hypothesis. With 9/11, given the huge number of photos and videos available and the huge number of things that CTers don't understand about imaging and photometry, it was inevitable that we'd end up with a huge pile of such "evidence."

But another thing that's happened is that this "analysis" technique has become a major aspect of why CTers are not generally taken seriously.

[YougeneDebs]

53. Bukaty's response

to Jeff's phone call (I listened to the 3-minute version) is inconclusive, in my opinion; only voices were exchanged, not pictures.

Maybe you, spooked911, should contact Bukaty via email and send him two jpegs as attachments and get a difinitive response.

Or would such an activity on your part be too close to 'doing research' for your comfort level?

[SDuderstadt]

54. Think of this from Spooked's perspective...

why do actual research when you can just make shit up?

It's actually quite a racket he's got going.