Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Von Pein: That is incredible. Incredible for being utterly ludicrous. There is absolutely no basis to assume that, from Bob Jackson's perspective, that one of Oswald's knuckles would be missing. And what is the default? That is: to make such a claim, wouldn't you have to first prove that it's possible? And I mean by taking a picture in which someone known to have 5 knuckles appears to have 4? Bob Jackson was in front of Oswald, and there is no reason, according to the laws of physics, why all Oswald's knuckles would not be visible to Jackson.
And here's something else: My whole pursuit is based on the accusation (my accusation) that the Jackson photo is NOT a legitimate photo, that it contains altered elements- grossly, crudely, and conspiculously altered elements. That's what is being evaluated. That is what is on trial. The photo is on trial. Now, if you want to try to defend it, you can, but you can't do it by just assuming that it's legit. You can't make the thing being questioned a presumption in your argument.
The Jackson photo only shows 4 knuckles on Oswald, and the burden is on you to demonstrate that that is legit, that it is some kind of optical illusion. I maintain that it is NOT an optical illusion, that it is due to photographic fraud. And I have supported my argument by using, not only images I have taken, but images that two other people have taken, both adversaries of mine, which display 5 knuckles. You are entirely free to support your argument of optical illusion by creating one in which 5 knuckles appear as 4. But to just declare it? To just assume it? You think you can get away with that with me?
And whether you allow it or not, I'll repeat what I said yesterday: lip-flapping won't cut it this time. You have to get a camera out.
The fact is that from Bob Jackson's perspective, there is no reason why 5 knuckles would not have been captured. What is the basis for doubting that?