Enough already with the fake photo analysis

[Joseph Backes]

I’m sick of these charlatans coming forward who no one has ever seen or heard of before claiming they see whatever in this photo or film and presenting their imagination as not only research but actual proof that what they say they see is real. They are con-men. They exist solely to discredit the entire JFK research community. They are allowed to pollute the research community by fools who think one forum posting is just as good as another, or from some false notions of free speech and democracy.

This is how you do research:

• First of all properly identify the photograph and its history, give the reader everything, the name of the photographer, the make and model of the camera, and type of film. Where was the film developed?
  
• Explain if the Dallas Police Dept or any other local law enforcement agency ever had possession of the photograph. Was the film ever used in any federal investigation? Did a corporation buy the original photo or film?
  
• Was the photograph published in any book? Has the film or photograph been moved from its original medium to another, i.e, from 8mm to 16mm, to 35mm, to videotape, to DVD, etc.
  
• Was the photo or film enhanced in any way?
  
• Explain what type of scanner and software you’re using if you using any to capture a copy of the photo from a book. Explain what type of software you’re using to copy an image from a CD, or DVD, or video source or from something already online, like from Youtube.com. Explain where you got the version your using.
  
• In other words give us the meta-data.
  

It is not acceptable to say this is the Altgens photo when you’re using a copy, and God only knows how many generations removed from the original source. The Altgens photo that you got from a book, DVD, TV documentary, off the internet somewhere, etc. is a copy, and probably a very bad one. It is not right to just call it the Altgens photo. If it’s a distant copy, and it almost invariably is, then say so. A postcard of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa.

In this digital age, with photographic altering software such as Photoshop widely available the integrity of the JFK photographic record is something that needs protection. And I know some people question the integrity of the photographic record because they think a photo or film was faked, that's not my point, but I'll get to that one in a moment. The study of the photographic record in the assassination of President Kennedy deserves the very best standards. If one uses the tools of today's technologies for discoveries in the photographic record, for example to prove a photo or film was faked, or altered, then one should guard against be accused of using the same tools to submit or promote a falsehood. If the technologies of today allow for better methods of studying the photographic record, and perhaps as a way to prove forgery in a photo or film then you must support and abide by a very high standard of research lest you be accused of some chicanery in how you arrived at your conclusion(s). This should be implicitly obvious to all. Unfortunately, it's not.

It's imperative to list and explain the tools you used, you need to take notes of the steps you took that led you to your conclusion(s) so that others can duplicate the process and thus confirm or refute your conclusion(s.) That’s the scientific method.

The scientific method is not, exclaiming, I see X, and then say I see X over and over and over, never listening to anyone, never admitting they have made any mistake, never admitting there is any flaw in their methodology. The scientific method is not just saying “I see X.”

I am sick of this amateur crap. We've had two goofballs behaving like this, one was Cinque, and now we have Mike Rago. These people and more importantly their methodology must be banned.

Joe Backes

[Mike Rago]

I have not presented any fake photo analysis.

All you have done is call people names. You have not made any substantive comment regarding specific posts I have made. Your feathers are ruffled because you tried to put forward a presentation made by Casey Quinlan as fact when you knew , or should have known , that it was indeed not a fact but specualtion and from an unreliable source. (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19310&st=45#entry257439)

You said the woman with the baby was "loitering" and I showed these images to show she was not "loitering" and in fact, waited in line at the TSBD.

http://educationforu...=30#entry257423

You said there were two people sitting on the bench at the time of assassination and I made this post to show that there is no photographic evidence to to support that claim.

http://educationforu...=45#entry257454

You said that the people (two people on the bench and Gordon Arnold) hit the ground behind the retaining wall so they would not show up in the photo because they were behind the retaining wall. I pointed out that the picture I used was taken 7 seconds before the assassination and they would not have been on the ground at that time. You just ignored it.

You said that Casey said that someone who talked to Eveyln King said that she said that two shots were fired from behind the fence. (That is about 3 or 4 degrees of hearsay). But Marilyn Sitzman, who was only a few feet away, said she didn't hear one shot from there, let alone two shots! Something has to give here. And the photographic evidence is our best source data to use to try to resolve these issues.

I have made my interpretation of all the images that show the "Black Dog" person. In my opinion that person was a completely innocent woman holding a baby.

I have also presented my interpretation of a few other controversial images and I stick by those interpretations as well because they can be corroborated by witness testimony.

You need to read the post regarding the cropping of the Towner #3 photo in the following link.

http://educationforu...97

I think this is another important post because I explain that Trask has put the important Towner 3 photo in the incorrect chronological order.

http://educationforu...=15#entry257404

Here is another important post which shows how JFK's head wounds were elaborated in time.

http://educationforu...=45#entry256195

Here is another one containing an interpretation of the yellow mist and indicating a shot from the roof of one of the buildings.

http://educationforu...45

I do not think anyone identified Weitzman in the Towner photo before.

I guess I should add a link to this one ( The woman and baby!)

http://educationforu...10

I could add a lot more to this list.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Mike Rago