TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

Sounds more like stand-up tragedy to me.

Take my life ... please.

[Phil Dragoo]

David your Doorman is Lovelady at 348 is clear and concise.

Fifty points of light would be illuminating whereas fifty shades of gray might simply be dominating, sadistic, specious.

Garbage in garbage out is the stock in trade of the flimflam and the unrecognized hero.

[David Josephs]

Funny stuff Greg... I've wanted to try stand-up too... but the "terrifying" has kept me away.... so Kudos for even trying.

Statistics versus Probability...

Stats can be made to distort the situation
Probability can't....

MOST people do not understand probability.... a lottery example:
"With all those people buying tickets, my chance of winning isn't as good"

Independent versus dependent events -

i.e. in this case - GIVEN that the first 3 items MATCH, what are the ODDS/probability that 3 more items WILL MATCH if we look at 10 more items?

What are the odds that any 10 items out of 50 will match with better than 95% certainty?

If the MATCHING was somehow quantifiable (two shirts, same setting, same camera, good detail, measureable) this becomes a 0% or 100% proposition...
It either does or does not match - in the REAL WORLD

When our friend JF says, "what are the chances these two would match in 50 areas on their own AND STILL BE DIFFERENT SHIRTS" we have a non-sequitur
(In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.)

The SHIRTS THEMSELVES either are or are not the same shirt.... true or false.... same with the person...
there would be nothing subjective about it....


DJ

[Greg Burnham]

Sounds more like stand-up tragedy to me.

Take my life ... please.

Hey, but it's all in the delivery!

Oh, BTW, did I mention: I walked off the stage before my time was up?

[James H. Fetzer]

Sure, we MIGHT be wrong about one or more of these points of identification. But the basic argument remains, regardless:

(1) If Doorman is not wearing Oswald's shirt, what is the probability that his shirt would match Oswald's in 50, 49, . . . points?

If the probability of matching in one respect BY CHANCE at say, 1/10, then that probability is equal to 1/1 with 50, 49, . . . zeros.

(2) If Doorman is wearing Oswald's shirt, what is the probability that his shirt would match Oswald's in 50, 49, . . . points?

Since they are, BY HYPOTHESIS, the same shirts, the probability they would match is equal to one (minus any chance of errors).

But it is not difficult to determine by visual inspection that there are few, if any errors, among those 50 points of identification.

Your argument, in other words, is simply silly, but there are weak minds here who will grasp after any reed, no matter how slender.

NOT TO MAKE THE OBVIOUS POINT, but this guy does not even dare touch the fact that the photo displays a missing left shoulder,
a man in front of and behind another, an obfuscated face, and the profile of a black man in an anomalous position. So what is the
probability that a photograph would display these features and not be faked? or display these features if it actually were authentic?

And why not consider the damage being done by DENYING OBVIOUS PROOF THAT ALTGENS6 HAS BEEN ALTERED AND THAT LEE
OSWALD WAS ACTUALLY STANDING IN THE DOORWAY AS THE MOTORCADE PASSED BY? You look like a group of nuts and loons.

Bringing to light that a crazy person is crazy does not "resolve" the madness Charles

the crazy person will forever be crazy... and not be aware of it.

The only way this resolves is if Jim Fetzer comes back down to earth and listens to the scores of people who have been his friends and supporters, sounding boards and confidants for years.

Some will brown nose the famous man and ride coat tails, some will be genuine, some will vehemently disagree...

A TRUE RESEARCHER understands the difference and welcomes the counterpoint without venom or hatred, or fear of not being the MOST RIGHT.

We will never get a true or accurate % of "correctness in a match"
and there no such thing as probability of a match when one item is an actual shirt while the other is a poor photographic reproduction....
....the true definition of SUBJECTIVE

Add to this the real concept of photogrammetry and the difficulty it is to perform
and I truly hope Jim and group seriously reexamine the NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS to the JFK RESEARCH COMMUNITY of so public a declaration
with such a low probability of accuracy...

Give me a few days and I will compile a list of NON MATCHING ITEMS with the same level of care and % of correctness as our dear comrades.

Stay tuned
DJ

[Greg Burnham]

Jim Fetzer said: But it is not difficult to determine by visual inspection that there are few, if any errors, among those 50 points of identification.

Not only is it difficult to determine if there are few, if any errors, it is equally difficult to determine by visual inspection that there are NOT some, but perhaps are
many, errors--given the obscurity of the images within your source.

[Charles Drago]

Sounds more like stand-up tragedy to me.

Take my life ... please.

Hey, but it's all in the delivery!

Oh, BTW, did I mention: I walked off the stage before my time was up?

Voluntarily?

[Greg Burnham]

Sounds more like stand-up tragedy to me.

Take my life ... please.

Hey, but it's all in the delivery!

Oh, BTW, did I mention: I walked off the stage before my time was up?

Voluntarily?

Of course.

[Mark Stapleton]

If the chances are 50% on any ONE ITEM then the CHANCES of YOU AND RALPH being right about 2 of the items is 25%, 3 items? .5 to the 3rd... 50 items?

[TABLE="width: 481"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 641, bgcolor: transparent"][FONT=Arial][size=12][COLOR=#000000]1,125,899,906,842,620 : 1 are the odds that YOU AND RALPH are correct on ALL 50 items if you are correct 50% of the time in your matches... 50% to the 50th power

So what? That enormous number is also the probability that all the points of identification are wrong.

You haven't proved a thing.

Huh? What was it you think I was trying to prove Mark? Do you agree with JF about Doorman being Lovelady or not?

I think Ozzie might indeed have been Doorman. It looks like LHO and Doorman wore the same shirt. Oswald told Fritz he was out front with Bill Shelley and Shelley told the FBI Lovelady was sitting on the steps in front of him at the time of the shooting. The WC never tried to make Shelley state that Lovelady got up from his sitting position and Shelley was interviewed twice by WC counsel. I think some people here can't bring themselves to admit that Jim Fetzer is right.

Altgens 6 has been doctored to cloud the issue. I give that a 99% probability of being correct.

[Greg Burnham]

If the chances are 50% on any ONE ITEM then the CHANCES of YOU AND RALPH being right about 2 of the items is 25%, 3 items? .5 to the 3rd... 50 items?

[TABLE="width: 481"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 641, bgcolor: transparent"][FONT=Arial][size=12][COLOR=#000000]1,125,899,906,842,620 : 1 are the odds that YOU AND RALPH are correct on ALL 50 items if you are correct 50% of the time in your matches... 50% to the 50th power

So what? That enormous number is also the probability that all the points of identification are wrong.

You haven't proved a thing.

Huh? What was it you think I was trying to prove Mark? Do you agree with JF about Doorman being Lovelady or not?

I think Ozzie might indeed have been Doorman. It looks like LHO and Doorman wore the same shirt. Oswald told Fritz he was out front with Bill Shelley and Shelley told the FBI Lovelady was sitting on the steps in front of him at the time of the shooting. The WC never tried to make Shelley state that Lovelady got up from his sitting position and Shelley was interviewed twice by WC counsel. I think some people here can't bring themselves to admit that Jim Fetzer is right.

Altgens 6 has been doctored to cloud the issue. I give that a 99% probability of being correct.

So now we have Mark Stapleton who, by his own admission, is not much of a scholar on the JFK case as evidenced by his hanging his hat on the posts made by the likes of Rago and company on the EF--chiming in with his uninformed opinion that Fetzer is correct.

Except Mark has apparently begun to do a little research into how many times Shelley was interviewed by the Warren Commission counsel among other things.

David Mantik just told me yesterday that he enjoyed a very informative presentation in Dallas last week at the Lancer conference. Striking was the fact that the numerous witnesses out front on the steps corroberated each other's story with an extremely high degree of consistency--nearly 100%--which indicates truthfullness. And not even one single witness mentioned seeing Oswald out front during the shooting. Not even one.