John Mcadams

12430 Words50 Pages
Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up? by J. P. Mroz I: The Stakes The events that served as a catalyst for this article can be traced back to early last summer, when Jim DiEugenio, as a guest on Len Osanic‘s Black Op Radio (show #430, July 2, 2009), extended a collective challenge to David Reitzes, David Von Pein, John McAdams, and Gary Mack: ―I will debate any part of my Bugliosi review to any one, or any more than one of them. ... Let‘s see if their arguments will stand up.‖ The gauntlet was thrown. Eventually, after several weeks, John McAdams alone (and undoubtedly to the surprise of some) brazenly dared to reach down and pick it up. The actual debate, which consisted of a well-planned format that traversed twenty key points of…show more content…
Nor does he appear to have used the sun as his light source, which means that his ―conclusion‖ is based upon a flawed methodology. Since digital photography did not exist in 1963, it is also relatively effortless to state—with a high degree of confidence—that no digital tampering of the original photos took place. 33 So at the highest level of Farid‘s study, Fetzer justifiably calls Farid to task for having ―violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. It is impossible to demonstrate that a photo is not fake by selecting one issue, excluding consideration of the rest of the evidence, and showing that it would have been possible under special conditions.‖34 Simply put, Farid‘s distortion of data is the limitation of his digital reconstruction to just ―the head and neck, [and] not a full figure corresponding to the image,‖ along with his failure ―to have used the sun as his light source.‖35 And the illogic that is coupled with Farid‘s distortion of data? Farid has, as they say, ―stacked the deck.‖36 Now that we have covered the first three elements in our deconstruction, i.e., source, object, and (il)logical means, there remains just one for our consideration, intentionality. Here, Fetzer best sums the situation: Farid has in fact published numerous articles regarding the use of digital analysis of photographs, which suggests that he possesses the academic ability to have analyzed them properly. Even on our charitable interpretation—that he was simply unaware of other problems and had not done a search of the literature to dispel his ignorance—then at the very least we would expect that his analysis of the nose shadows would be competent. His conclusion supports our inference. If Farid studied more than one of these photographs, as he claims, then he should have noticed that the nose shadow remains constant across different photos, an obvious
Open Document