Why I Don't Waste Time Posting On JFK Issues in Google Groups

Google groups is a later iteration of Usenet newsgroups and newsgroup culture after Google took them over ca. 2001. According to a Wikipedia entry:.

By 2001, the Deja search service was shut down. In February 2001, Google acquired Deja News (and its archive), and transitioned its assets to groups.google.com.Users were then able to access these Usenet newsgroups through the new Google Groups interface.

But cursory inspection shows that contrary to the claim of being a better information repository, Google groups is as beset by noise from trolls, morons and screwballs as Usenet was in the mid 90s. In fact, I'd say even more.  The JFK assassination is a case in point and shows pretty well that most of the numskulls who post aren't interested in serious discussion - but drive -by snark that would embarrass an intelligent 8-year old. But this was one reason that in 2001 I stopped forthwith with Deja news and never signed onto Google groups. Too much noise, not enough signal.

In the current discussions in the JFK assassination forum author Richard Charnin has tried valiantly to introduce the resident peanut gallery to my recent JFK assassination book, but with zero success. He's received one to two line responses (again,  most that a 2nd grader wouldn't write), ranging from: "Jeez why should I waste money on some book full of CT shibboleths and nonsense!" (Amazing he could use the word "shibboleths")  to "I bet he don't have a job and sits in his mom's basement writing this stuff!" (Actually no, I'm nearly 69 and long since retired - able to travel and work on my own projects. You should be so lucky, Sparky!)

But this is the sort of drivel one must put up with if he dares to cast pearls before swine. Because given their nature, swine won't appreciate what's on offer and will generally use the occasion only to evacuate their bowels - or in this case resort to verbal diarrhea via their keyboards.  This is the low quality dreck that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the cybersphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Heck, most of these turkeys couldn't distinguish Oswald's CI/SIG 201 file from his 74-500 file, far less Kennedy's  NSAM-263 from Johnson's NSAM-273.  I warrant they've never even read them ....or the cables from the Mexico City station (dispatched compliments of station chief David Atlee Phillips)  that clearly sets up Oswald as the patsy. They talk and write about this being "more CT nonsense" but the very writing of such idiocy shows they're not invested in the truth (as James Douglass shows in his 'JFK and the Unspeakable') but denial and propaganda.

Another dolt actually asked Mr. Charnin if I ever "came up with an original theory on the assassination".  But why would I when the existing JFK records, released files clearly show  - to any person with an IQ at least one standard deviation beyond normal - that there is no need to "reinvent the wheel" as it were. All the evidence is there and points to a CIA-instigated hit - which this bozo would learn about if he possessed the reading level (2nd year college) to appreciate my book. Also, to appreciate my original mathematical approach to the analysis of the backyard photos (using fractional calculus) and the rifle shots.

But see, when people lack aptitude - either in reading or mathematics- the only response they're left with is the default  put down, irresponsible (uninformed) criticism, and simpleton snark. They aren't going to applaud the work - because hell, they aren't prepared to exercise their minds to a degree that exceeds accepting  more than the simplest answers. It's more comfortable to remain brainwashed zombies gobbling up lone nut propaganda.

This brings up my other main point on why I won't waste time with these clueless nimrods: they already have made their minds up on what's true and what's false - just like the climate change deniers. It is what I have earlier called "false knowledge syndrome".  As I noted in a post elaborating on the condition:

"Sure, all humans want to believe they’re rational, but Kahan's work shows that in reality most people employ their reason  ex post facto to  rationalize what they already want to believe. Thus, if they already believe global warming is a "hoax" their brains won't work in order to process new information that invalidates that, but rather they will search for bogus information (say from a Terry Lovell, or Richard Lindzen, or Jason Lisle) that reinforces their misperceptions. "

Let's also bring in another related observation for those who so vehemently (and mindlessly) defend the lone nut bunkum (which one Mensa Bulletin letter writer in 1995  compared to "accepting the virgin birth").  Then there is this percipient take compliments of Matt Ridley in his Wall Street Journal column of Sept. 10, 2011:

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?"

A point surely missed by the uneducated yahoos who inhabit Google Groups, namely the JFK discussion forum.  Because if a rational man like Richard Charnin (and even long time researcher Anthony Marsh- who noted whenever he gave an original theory it was shot down in the forum) can be so summarily dismissed there is no hope for rational exchange.  Further, the evidence is manifestly clear that the bulk of respondents are fools and trolls just as wedded to their own wacko conspiracy theories (in this case irrationally anti-CT) as those who currently believe U.S. Army special forces are in Texas for an Obama "takeover"

The worst tragedy is that, leaving out all subjective back and forth,  these morons are totally unable to see how the basic physics - mechanics points to conspiracy.( I.e. grasping that Jackie's limo  trunk motion is impossible for a rear shot such as from the Book Depository, because the direction of linear momentum is always in the direction the bullet travels)  It is almost like trying to impart or teach Chinese to chimps.  As for the mathematical proofs - such as via Charnin's Poisson  analysis or use of my fractional calculus - when you  have to deal with those possessing subnormal IQs (who wouldn't be able to do even basic algebra) you're not going to get kudos because again...showing your work is analogous to showing Chinese to a chimp. A chimp isn't likely to read that page of Chinese characters but more probably defecate on it.

Bear in mind these misfits who find it so easy to slam a reflective book of analysis they haven't read,  likely couldn't even write a convincing comic book. But this is what you get when you offer substantive fare for consideration to mentally deficient imps who are more at ease wallowing in their own verbal feces and hurling it at anyone who dares try to enter their 'den' for education purposes.

This is why it's a total waste of time, mental capital and energy to attempt to dispense any pearls of wisdom regarding the JFK assassination (and I'd guess global warming as well) on Google Groups. It is simply not a venue conducive to intellectual exercise or exchange.

If I were Richard Charnin I wouldn't waste another minute of time or mental energy on the Google Groups JFK forum. He's better served writing a follow-up to his excellent original conspiracy book - this time focusing on LBJ's role. Perhaps doing a Poisson analysis showing that what too many regard as disconnected, "coincidental" events: i.e.  destruction of the bloody suit coat, cleaning and disassembly of the limo and even the Bethesda autopsy- could only have been orchestrated by Johnson. He had the means, motive and opportunity (as well as the power)  to do it and everything to lose (owing to the exploding Bobby Baker scandal) if JFK wasn't in a box by the time the entourage left Big D.

Something to consider.

Analysis of Pixel Diffusion In Oswald 'LIFE" Photos

Regions near right eye in 2 photos and fractional pixel deviations for D_t(x^b)  and D_t(y^b)   

Four years ago Dartmouth prof Hany Farid presented alleged "proof" the Oswald backyard rifle photos were "real". Google the name “Hany Farid” and you will bring up about 5,000 pages on the Dartmouth computer software scientist – from almost as many news sources – all parroting that he has “proven the Oswald backyard rifle photo is genuine." (One begins to wonder from this if the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird" is still going on.). For those who may not know, this is the infamous photo taken in the Oswalds’ backyard on Neeley Street in Dallas, sometime in March, 1963 (as documented from FBI files by Mark North in his ‘Act of Treason’) .

I did my own analysis of the backyard photos, based on the reasonable assumption that any transformation from specular dots on silver iodide based (1963) photo emulsions will undergo some drift  over time in rectangular coordinates such that this time-affected diffusion needs to be examined using fractional calculus equations of the form : d’(x) = w_H×(d(x)^bH) and d’(y) = w_V×(d(y)^bV).

An illustration of applying the parameters d'(x) and d'(y) to respective pixel sub-frames is shown in the accompanying graphic. These measure fractal deviations in pixel density from one Oswald photo  to the other (there were 4 in all) and from which the weighted error in the conceptual space may be computed. 

I give some of the results below for the diffusion factors, D_t(x^b)  and D_t(y^b) done using a Mathcad 14 software program. This is based on comparison of two photos (A and B) with the same regions selected as “prototypes” and the mapping done one to one, e.g. from points of dx1 to dx1’ and dy1 to dy1’. We start out with initial values: y = dy1 = 2.7 mm, and x = dx1 = 3.4 mm.

I estimated the weighting parameters: w_H = 1.01,  w_V = 1.03, b_H= 0.0015,  b_V= 0.10, so that: w = 1.443 and b = 0.1. With the non-dimensional fractional thickness change parameter estimated at: t = 0.001 then: D_t(x^b)  = 0.967 and D_t(y^b) = 0.964.

 

The total mapped diffusion from (A) is:

 

In x-coordinate:  dx1’ =  {dx1 +  D_t(x^b)}   = 4.3 mm

 

In y-coordinate: dy1’ =  {dy1 +  D_t(y^b)}   = 3.6 mm

 

The change in aspect ratio is: 0.794 to 0.839 or 5.6%

 

The original Euclidean resultant (for A) is:

 

D_rA(x,y) =      [ (dy1)² + (dx1)²]^1/2   =   

{(y₂ – y₁)₁² + (x₂ – x₁)₁²}^1/2  = 4.34 mm

The mapped (diffused) resultant (for B) is:

 

D_rB(x,y) =      [ (dy1’)² + (dx1’)²]^1/2   =    {(y_2’ – y_1’)₂² +           (x_2’ – x_1’)₂²}^1/2  = 5.70 mm

 

The fractional error for the resultant is then: d(d._AB)  » ½ (f1) + ½ (f2)  where:

 

f1=  [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y)  = 0.31    and 

 

f2 = [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y) =   0.23

 

We now look at another example for which the weighting parameters are significantly increased. Again, we use the same original dimensions: y = dy1 = 2.7 mm, and x = dx1 = 3.4 mm.

 

We estimate the new weighting parameters: w_H = 1.05,  w_V = 1.1, b_H= 0.05,  b_V= 0.18, so that: w = 1.521 and b = 0.187. With the non-dimensional fractional thickness change parameter estimated at: t = 0.4 then: D_t(x^b)  = 1.039 and D_t(y^b) = 1.014.

 

The total mapped (length) diffusions from (A) are:

 

In x-coordinate:  dx1’ =  {dx1 +  D_t(x^b)}   = 4.43 mm

 

In y-coordinate: dy1’ =  {dy1 +  D_t(y^b)}   = 3.71 mm

 

The change in aspect ratio is: 0.794 to 0.837 or 5.3%

The original Euclidean resultant (for A) is:

 

D_rA(x,y) =      [ (dy1)² + (dx1)²]^1/2   =   

{(y₂ – y₁)₁² + (x₂ – x₁)₁²}^1/2  = 4.34 mm

 

The mapped (diffused) resultant (for B) is:

D_rB(x,y) =      [ (dy1’)² + (dx1’)²]^1/2   =  

 {(y_2’ – y_1’)₂² + (x_2’ – x_1’)₂²}^1/2  = 5.78 mm

 

The fractional error for the resultant is then: d(d._AB)  »

½ (f1) + ½ (f2)  where:

 

f1=  [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y)  = 0.33    and 

 

f2 = [D_rB(x,y) - D_rA(x,y)] / D_rA(x,y) =   0.25

 

We find that with realistic estimates of the weighting parameters, there is very little diffusion difference in the mapping of pixels from A to B along the dimensions indicated. Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same. Note, however, the purpose of the fractional calculus diffusion method is to show that two images are not the same in terms of pixel distributions. It does not claim to show how this happened.

 

In addition to the above cautionary points, the deviation of optical density for solar radiation falling at an angle of incidence i exhibits only minor diffusive differences (e.g. << 5%) on such (silver iodide) film negatives. Indeed, for years when teaching introductory astronomy courses, it was precisely this property that allowed me to show my students how to use the old b&w film negatives to view the Sun during partial eclipse without risk of blindness. One can't do that with the emulsions used today - assuming one uses old fashioned cameras! Hence, Farid's counting on computer processed pixel re-transformations of old (presumed) silver iodide films today to affirm fakeness is akin to me looking at old home movies on dvd format and trying to ascertain where the exact point of editing occurred.

----

Further comments:

 

In Farid’s computer analysis, one is left to wonder what exact photo he has proven genuine- since there were four in all. One of those featured small irregularities including that the telescopic scope was absent, because a technician had accidentally retouched it. WHY has Farid not picked it up with this elite software, when it was openly admitted by the management of LIFE magazine? Or, was Farid not given the retouched photo? If not, why not? Perhaps to prevent him from saying that ONE photo at least was a fake?
 

Then there is the “Oswald ghost” photo recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. It is shown below:

As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image.  Photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture. This has to be the same as that shown above. Was the FBI in on the manipulation of images and photos? We don't know, but given Hoover hated JFK's guts and Hany Farid's connection to the FBI in funding his lab, can we really trust his work? Can we trust he analyzed the actual source photo? And if so - which?

 

Now, I am not implying here that Farid faked the photos used for his work, so we are clear. However, he had to have obtained the backyard photos he used from someplace and most plausibly it was from the FBI -which funded his lab along with the Justice Dept. We already are well aware of the record of the FBI’s chicanery in JFK assassination –related evidence tampering: for example as noted earlier, and also when FBI special agent Richard Harrison (equipped with finger print ink and Oswald's alleged rifle) went to Miller’s Funeral Home where the slain Oswald lay, in order to get ex post facto fingerprints which weren’t there originally. As Walt Brown notes (Brown: 1995, Treachery in Dallas, Carroll & Graf Publishers, p. 332.), the Dallas PD never bothered to print him at the time of booking - incredible as that seems-  but lots of incredible events transpired that day and on those to follow, including Oswald's killing by Jack Ruby.

 

In 1977, Canadian Defense Dept. Photographic specialist Maj. John Pickard noted the 99% probability the LIFE cover photo was a fake and noted each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When superpositions of the images are performed, e.g. one photo laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly. As Pickard observed:

"Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger - the heads match perfectly."

Again, this can be explained using the same "spliced out head"  re-incorporated into each image.. 

It is incredible Farid has not performed this simple test, but then that would mean divorcing himself from his computer- which he obviously believes to be the next thing to an Oracle. In the above context, I am convinced that Farid’s preoccupation with statistical disparities or deviations in pixel density is only useful provided he knows the full and complete history of the object-film-photographic emulsion he is investigating. In particular, what criteria has he to implicitly trust the source photo? As my middle brother, a former photographic specialist with the Air Force in the 1960s also pointed out to me

“First of all he'd have to have had the original photo of Oswald, not a copy, which I doubt very much he had, since the Feds confiscated it and only allowed reprints. Secondly, in those old photos there were no pixels to measure since all photos of that period were taken with film type cameras and no pixels were on them to measure. The photos looked the same as a painted picture, smooth and even ”

To add to what he said, I do admit Farid could have generated pixels from the old photos (to enable and facilitate computer processing), but also - as I pointed out- he'd have to use fractional calculus at all inter-comparison points between all the relevant photos to be assured of a faithful reproduction or representation following any transformations of media. Since it isn't at all clear he did this, then basically he revived computer formats of the old photos, which appear to have already been tampered with, and reproduced the same errors. Farid actually re-discovered the tampering, but was too blinded by his computer processing tools to see it. To make a long story short, and skip to the chase, the differential fractional calculus transformations disclose that the V-shaped shadow under Oswald's nose is essentially identical in all photos, despite the fact the photos were taken at different times.