Jack White Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Some here complain that I am not a professional photo analyst, even though I have worked in the field for more than 40 years. Out of curiosity, I Googled PHOTO ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY DEGREE PROGRAMS. The number of universities offering courses or study in photo analysis...ZERO. Then I Googled PROFESSIONAL PHOTO ANALYSTS/ANALYSIS. On about the third page I found one investigative laboratory which offered many services for scientific investigation of crime scenes and the like. One item listed in long list of services was analysis of photos. After several pages, I gave up hope of finding any professional photo analyst anywhere. The laboratory I found said they were "registered EXPERT WITNESSES in Federal Court". Well, I can counter that a Dallas Federal Court accepted me as AN EXPERT WITNESS AS A PHOTO ANALYST in the case of Wilson vs Blakey, and I was prepared to testify, but the case never came to trial. So if you cannot specify where I should have studied to become a TRAINED PHOTO ANALYST, please quit using this lame accusation to villify my reputation. As far as I know, only the MILITARY and NASA train people to be photo analysts. There is NO CIVILIAN NEED FOR SUCH A PROFESSION. If you know of even ONE person who is a professional full time photo analyst, please tell us. If you are one of those who criticize my qualifications, please list YOUR OWN qualifications in any message criticising my lack of a degree in photo analysis. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) Some here complain that I am not a professional photo analyst, even thoughI have worked in the field for more than 40 years. Out of curiosity, I Googled PHOTO ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY DEGREE PROGRAMS. The number of universities offering courses or study in photo analysis...ZERO. Then I Googled PROFESSIONAL PHOTO ANALYSTS/ANALYSIS. On about the third page I found one investigative laboratory which offered many services for scientific investigation of crime scenes and the like. One item listed in long list of services was analysis of photos. After several pages, I gave up hope of finding any professional photo analyst anywhere. The laboratory I found said they were "registered EXPERT WITNESSES in Federal Court". Well, I can counter that a Dallas Federal Court accepted me as AN EXPERT WITNESS AS A PHOTO ANALYST in the case of Wilson vs Blakey, and I was prepared to testify, but the case never came to trial. So if you cannot specify where I should have studied to become a TRAINED PHOTO ANALYST, please quit using this lame accusation to villify my reputation. As far as I know, only the MILITARY and NASA train people to be photo analysts. There is NO CIVILIAN NEED FOR SUCH A PROFESSION. If you know of even ONE person who is a professional full time photo analyst, please tell us. If you are one of those who criticize my qualifications, please list YOUR OWN qualifications in any message criticising my lack of a degree in photo analysis. Jack HEAR - HEAR! or is it, Here - Here Edited January 31, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 My statements have said you are not an aeronautical or aerospace engineer, nor are you a spacecraft designer. As far as I am aware you have no qualifications or experience in the aerospace world. My complaints involve your inability to recognise errors that you have made using your photographic experience. As far as photographic analysis is concerned, I'm not aware of any civil qualification with that name (though there may be). The only "professional" photo analysts or interpreters I know of are in the military or government (e.g. NPIC). Even in those case, they are specialised (i.e. trained to identify military items). There are courses, though, that specialise in analysis or interpretation for specific fields (e.g. geology). Aerial Photographic Interpretation http://geoworkforce.olemiss.edu/courseoutl...1/aerphoint.pdf http://www.geodata.soton.ac.uk/geodataweb/...oject.php&id=18 There is the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, who do run a number of courses and provide certification: Certified Mapping Scientist, Remote Sensing (ASPRS) "A professional that specializes in analysis of images acquired from aircraft, satellites or ground bases, or platforms using visual or computer-assisted technology. Analysis is used by various specialized disciplines in the study of natural resources, temporal changes, and for land use planning. They develop analytical techniques and sensor systems." http://www.asprs.org/membership/certificat...guidelines.html These people do actually publish a Manual of Photographic Interpretation. There is a International Society for Stereology who are strongly into image analysis: http://www.wise-t.com/ias/ There are applications in the medical field: http://www.lia.auc.dk/ Even in Australia! http://www.cmis.csiro.au/IAP/ There are a number of image interpretation software applications available (I wonder if any are freeware?). There was an International Conference on Image Analysis and Recognition: http://www.iciar.uwaterloo.ca/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) Some here complain that I am not a professional photo analyst, even though I have worked in the field for more than 40 years. Jack you've found a new way to avoid answering questions to prefer to avoid. You answer only one question and do so by starting a new thread. I guess being caught contradicting yourself is not vert plesant. You also misrepresent my views I asked you if any profesional photo analyst ever backed any of your "discoveries". So I imagine by your response the answer is "no". Besides the fields mentioned by Evan many forensic scientists specialize in photo analysis. Many deal with photography or photo, video and film exclusively or almost exclusively. There are even sites and forums dedicated to the subject one is http://groups.msn.com/ForensicPhoto/1.msnw. College Board lists 88 schools with "forensic technology" majors http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/servle...To=9&viewpage=1 There doesn't seem to be a set name for this type of profesional but there are a few variations -forensic photo analyst/specialist/examener etc -forensic photo lab technician/specialist etc. I assume the "registered EXPERT WITNESSES in Federal Court" had gone through some training to qualify as do most expert witnessess Without more information about the Wilson v. Blakey case it's not possible to know how to evauate your being accepted once in 42 years as an "expert witness". I assume the Blakey was Robert Blakey and your familiarity with the JFK photographic record might have been a factor. So the dodge was a nice try by try answering the question asked and the other two while you're at it.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5987 Edited January 31, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Well my curiosity is raised about "Wilson v Blakely", Jack. Who was Wilson, what was the nature of the case, and how did it terminate? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 (edited) Well my curiosity is raised about "Wilson v Blakely", Jack. Who was Wilson, what was the nature of the case, and how did it terminate?Thanks! The details of the case can be read here. <a href="http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/...07.CV0.wpd.html" target="_blank">http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/...07.CV0.wpd.html </a>] Apparently Thomas W. Wilson an engineer from US Steel in Pittsburg computer enhanced some assassination related photos. He reached the conclusion that a shooter could be seen on the "grassy knoll" and that the infamous "backyard photos" were faked and presented his findings at a symposium in Dallas in 1991. A Dallas newspaper reporter asked G. Robert Blakey (chief council of the HSCA) and David Belin, the assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, for their opinions. They referred to Wilson's work as "garbage" and "lies" so he sued them for libel in Dallas federal court. The defendants who lived in Indiana and Iowa asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing the Dallas court did not have jurisdiction over them. The court agreed as did the circuit court in New Orleans. From what I understand the bar for being accepted as an expert witness is much lower in civil than in criminal cases. Also since the crux of the case (if it had come to trial) would have been the photographic record of the assassination, the court might have simply recognized Jack's expertise in that area, he had at that point been studying it for almost 40 years at that point. And since one of Wilson's claims had been made by Jack many years before it does not seem unusual that he would have been accepted as an expert in this particular case. Would the court have accepted Jack as an expert if the case didn't involve assassination photos - specificlly the "backyard photos". Another doubt I have is since the merits of the case were never argued if Jack's acceptance as an expert witness was preliminary or definitive. I suspect that if the case had come to trial defendants' council would have tried to challenge Jack's qualifications to testify. Or considering Jack's humiliating performance before the HSCA ( [ <a href="http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html" target="_blank">http://www.clavius.org/white-test.html </a> ), where he showed a complete ignorance of basic photo analytic principles, they might have though Jack would help more he would hurt. I have 2 questions for Tim or Dawn or any other lawyers out there. Am I correct that it's easier to get accepted as an expert witness in civil than in criminal cases? If a defense lawyer was trying to get a case dismissed on technical grounds would they normally challenge the credentials of a plaintiff's expert witnesses before or after this was decided? Jack - I'm still waiting to hear back from you about the questions asked on the other thread: For the record do you or don't you believe the Moon landings were faked? Please explain you contradictory statements on the matter. 2- Has any one with recognized expertise or training in photo analysis agreed with any of your findings about anything at anytime? 3- Are you ever going to respond to that long list of unanswered questions that I left links to in the other posts? Jack please don't start a third thread to avoid replying. Len Edited February 2, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE JACK WHITE IS TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR HIS COURAGE INSIGHT AND PENETRATING RATIONAL INDUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD.......... A THOUSAND THANKS TO THIS BRAVE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN............ HURRAY FOR JACK WHITE AND JACK WHITE HURRAY ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE JACK WHITE IS TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR HIS COURAGE INSIGHT AND PENETRATING RATIONAL INDUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD.......... A THOUSAND THANKS TO THIS BRAVE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN............ HURRAY FOR JACK WHITE AND JACK WHITE HURRAY ............ Shanet - drugs are bad, okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE JACK WHITE IS TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR HIS COURAGE INSIGHT AND PENETRATING RATIONAL INDUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD.......... A THOUSAND THANKS TO THIS BRAVE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN............ HURRAY FOR JACK WHITE AND JACK WHITE HURRAY Well I guess we all now know you're Jack's #1 admirer. Made you should start a fan club. Just what has Jack ever done that you classify as being brave? He doesn't even have the courage to defend his own work and theories when they are questioned look at the long list of threads awaiting his reply on the "three questions thread" or the 12 questions I put to him a Healy in the Zapruder thread. When exactly was his analysis rational? As for his photo analytic skills have you noticed the drubbing he is getting in Evan's debunking of his Aulis claims where his only reply has been to misrepresent his own position regarding the Moon landings. So you believe he is a brave, rational and insightful interpriter of the photograhic record. Can you cite any examples? Other than cheerleading what have you got to add to this thread? Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Some here complain that I am not a professional photo analyst, even though I have worked in the field for more than 40 years. Jack ‘work’ in the context above could imply getting compensation. Have you ever been paid for your photo analytical 'work'? If so please cite some examples. If not you should have written "...even though I have been doing it for more than 40 years." I don't think collecting and cataloguing old photos of Dallas counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE JACK WHITE IS TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR HIS COURAGE INSIGHT AND PENETRATING RATIONAL INDUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD.......... A THOUSAND THANKS TO THIS BRAVE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN............ HURRAY FOR JACK WHITE AND JACK WHITE HURRAY ............ Shanet - drugs are bad, okay? I suspect Shanet will survive the above inference. My question, why insinuate something like that? You don't agree with Jack, that's fine -- NASA won't respond to Jack directly (or even in-directly to my knowledge) - that's fine too... We're left with your opinion and opinions from others ALL opinions, nothing official - only the original record and the ever reliable internet cyber-warriors -- so we have discussion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE JACK WHITE IS TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR HIS COURAGE INSIGHT AND PENETRATING RATIONAL INDUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD.......... A THOUSAND THANKS TO THIS BRAVE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN............ HURRAY FOR JACK WHITE AND JACK WHITE HURRAY ............ Shanet - drugs are bad, okay? Evan, what about Anti-biotics, and my Uncle swears by Viagra....LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I suspect Shanet will survive the above inference. My question, why insinuate something like that? You don't agree with Jack, that's fine -- NASA won't respond to Jack directly (or even in-directly to my knowledge) - that's fine too... We're left with your opinion and opinions from others ALL opinions, nothing official - only the original record and the ever reliable internet cyber-warriors -- so we have discussion.... I could be wrong on this point, but I think if Jack writes a letter to NASA, he will get a reply. It might not be the reply he wants to hear, but they will reply. If they haven't replied, Jack should bring the matter up with his Federal representatives; they are a Federal organisation and have to reply even if they might think the matter is ridiculous. Has Jack taken this further? As far as the studies go.... there are only a couple of instances where it comes down to opinions. In most cases, Jack has made serious errors and it is not a matter of opinion. I've said before, and I'll say again - I wish NASA would be allowed to answer Jack and his ilk directly. I would like to see ex-NASA Apollo staff bring the whole thing into court for judgement. NASA is not allowed to answer these ridiculous claims directly (e.g. the cancelled book). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) Sorry I missed Len's legal questions. I do not believe there is any difference in the qualification as an expert witness for a criminal versus a civil trial. But from what you say I doubt that Mr. White was in fact "qualified" as an expert witness in that case. He may have been designated an expert witness by plaintiff's counsel but normally an expert witness is not accepted until his testimony is offered, and from what you posted the case was dismissed before it got that far. Normally what happens is the party who wants to use expert (opinion) testimony puts his expert on the stand and attempts to "qualify" him as an expert. The other side can, if it wants, interrupt at this point to cross-examine the witness re his qualifications. Often, if an expert is well-qualified, the adverse counsel may stipulate to his expertise (to prevent the offering counsel from impressing the jury through the recitation of all of the witness' accomplishments). In pretrial discovery each side must designate its proposed expert witnesses so the other side can depose the proposed expert witnesses before the trial. It sounds like that is what had happened in the case in Texas. Of course, Dawn would know best being an attorney who practices criminal law in Texas. Through this post I do not mean to imply that the court would not have ultimately accepted Mr. White as an expert witness in photography. Edited February 6, 2006 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 Mr. Gratz...to reply to your message, let me say that I am not a lawyer and do not know legal terminology. The late Tom Wilson and his lawyer were suing Robert Blakey in Dallas (Federal court?) for libel and defamation of character. (FYI, Tom was a former vice-president of US Steel). They asked me to testify as an expert witness on Tom's photoanalysis. The lawyer, Brad Kizzia, said I would have to be "qualified" as an expert witness. I was sent by registered mail a packet of forms with questions to answer regarding my qualifications. I sent the forms back after filling them out. I was later informed that "the court had accepted my qualifications for being an expert witness". That is what happened. You may interpret that any way you want, or get a lawyer to interpret it. Eventually the court ruled that Blakey was a resident of Indiana, and not Texas when he made the defamatory remark (even though the Dallas Morning News had published their interview), and that Wilson would have to refile his suit in South Bend, not Dallas, so I never had to testify. If Blakey had made the remark in Dallas instead of by telephone, the trial would have proceeded. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now