TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

Thanks to the rapidly decaying Fetzer, we have a new SBT:

The SHIRT BULLSHIT THEORY.

Just as bogus, created and promoted by exactly the same forces, for exactly the same reasons.

[James H. Fetzer]

Gregory Burnham has become a past master at putting words into someone else's mouth to make their position easier to attack. In logic, this is known as "the straw man". He has variously claimed that I insist our conclusions are "absolute" when I have only claimed that they are true. He has suggested that I believe there is no possibility that we could be wrong, when I have observed that all empirical knowledge is fallible and uncertain. Even when we have an argument that is well-founded on the basis of the available evidence, it may have to be rejected or revised when new evidence becomes available. Why he would attribute such elementary blunders to a professional philosopher is beyond me. This is Philosophy 101, which I infer must have been a course he missed. There he would have learned about the Cartesian "Evil Demon" who might be deceiving us to believe things that are not so and the possibility that what we think is real is actually an elaborate dream. Neither I nor any competent student of philosophy would commit the blunders he attributes to me, which is a great shame.

He goes on and on about alleged mistakes in my reasoning, including "special pleading" by only citing the evidence on one side (mine), which reflects the shallowness of his understanding of the fallacy. That Lee Oswald told Will Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", of course, has tremendous bearing on these questions, since it motivates a close examination of the Altgens6 for photographic evidence that he was right. Were someone to conclude that LEE WAS OUT IN FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY on the basis of Fritz' notes, that might be an appropriate allegation to raise. But I HAVE NOT CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS THERE ON THAT BASIS. I have treated it as a plausible hypothesis that requires confirmation, since we know that he was observed in and around the 2nd floor lunch room at 11:50, Noon, 12:15 and as late as 12:25; that the assassination took place at 12:30; and that he was confronted in the lunch room by Marrion Baker within 90 seconds after the shooting. So it is an interesting question whether confirmation or disconfirmation for his remark to Fritz might be found in the Altgens6 photo.

Notice again how he wants to put words in my mouth by claiming I "refuse not only to acknowledge the possibility that the images in Altgens6 are too obscure to make such definitive conclusions, but that he also seeks to deprive others of having their own opinion about the matter", which is absurd on its face. How could I possibly deny anyone the right to have their own opinions about the matter? This is on a par with those who are concerned that children might be deprived of having the opportunity to pray in school. Who could possibly deny anyone the opportunity to pray anywhere, including in school? I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent and respect everyone's right to their own opinion. What he seems to fail to grasp is that not all opinions are on a par. In this case, obvious features of the Altgens6 (which anyone with visual acuity can observe for themselves) establish a prima facie case that the photograph has been altered, where the only reason for altering it would have been if someone had been there who should not have been there. So I ask the following questions simple questions:[URL="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/grodenannot-one-half1-6/"]

[/URL]

Given this Groden copy, please affirm or deny the following questions:

(1) the face of a man in the Altgens6 has been obfuscated: YES or NO

(2) the shoulder of Doorman is missing, completely gone: YES or NO

(3) the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him: YES or NO

(4) the profile of a black man appears around mid-torso: YES or NO

Based upon your knowledge of the Fritz notes from his interrogation:

(5) Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front": YES or NO

Based upon your knowledge of the FBI document and photographs:

(6) Billy told the FBI he was wearing a different shirt: YES or NO

(7) Billy showed the FBI the shirt he had been wearing: YES or NO

(8) It was a red-and-white, vertically striped shirt: YES or NO

(9) It is not the shirt that Doorman is wearing: YES or NO

Anyone, of course, is at liberty to draw their own conclusions. As I have observed, Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966), concluded that the Warren Commission was fudging its handling of this question in order to obfuscate that the man in the doorway is not wearing the shirt that Billy Lovelady insisted (at the time) he had been wearing on 22 November 1963. He was emphatic about it, where we (it turns out) are simply confirming what Harold had already figured out in relation to how they altered the Altgens6. It is not a question of certainty, however, but of relative likelihoods, understood as probabilities of the available evidence on the assumption that one or the other of these hypotheses is true, namely: (h1) that Doorman was Oswald and (h2) that Doorman was Lovelady. If one of these hypotheses has a higher likelihood (by conferring a higher probability on the evidence), then it is the preferable hypothesis; and when the evidence "settles down" by pointing in the same direction, then that hypothesis is acceptable as true in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Thus, consider:

(h1) If Doorman is Oswald, what is the probability that they would share the same right ear, the same left eye, and the large number of other features of their clothing and build, which, given the number, would be extremely high, approaching one.

(h2) If Doorman is Lovelady, what is the probability that he would have Oswald's right ear, Oswald's left eye, and such, and that Lovelady would repeatedly deny that he was wearing Doorman's shirt to the FBI and others, which approaches zero.

There is room to dispute the points of identification we have made, which are based upon detailed and meticulous studies of the photographic record. Gregory Burnham ignores the separate studies that have been made and sends the "50 points of light" to one of my research associates, who, not having familiarized himself with the data and the studies based upon them, remarks, "Yikes!" But that is because Burnham is playing him by concealing the evidence that supports them. It is a very familiar tactic in uncivil discourse, since it exemplifies a combination of special pleading with the straw man. He has held a grudge against me since I called him out for asking his wife to look at a copy of Altgens6 and then tell him whether she saw anything unusual, which was grossly inappropriate because she had no idea of the issues involved here. But that is why he is now committing himself to defeating our research, as though it were his special obligation in life to undo what we have done.

I would observe that this is rather ironic, given his professed insinuations that I am supposed to be a bad person for denying others the right to hold their own opinions. That, as I have explained, is not my position, where I find his dedication to this project bizarre in the extreme, since he IS NOW COMMITTING HIMSELF TO DENY OTHERS THE RIGHT TO AGREE WITH ME! I also find an earlier observation (which he attributes to David W. Mantik) of having heard the report during a JFK conference that, among those who were allegedly standing in front of the Book Depository, there was virtually 100% agreement on who was there among those reporting (see page 36, post #360). That smacks of being TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, but even if some high degree of agreement were the case, that would not rule out the possibility that Oswald, like most of his coworkers, had arrived late and stretched to see Jack and Jackie before he returned to the lunchroom for his encounter with Marrion Baker. And I can't wait for him to deny that that is even possible given the biased fashion in which he has been treating this case.

That Jim Fetzer has repeatedly refused to even acknowledge the Special Pleading inherent to his introduction of select items from the Fritz notes that may support his theory and his arbitrary rejection of items from that same source because they do not support his theory has been noted by some of his closest friends with whom I am in contact--and they are concerned. That he becomes agitated when this most basic of critical thinking faux pas is kindly pointed out to him is another cause of grave concern. And, yes, these were originally pointed out kindly on EF. That he refuses not only to acknowledge the possibility that the images in Altgens 6 are too obscure to make such definitive conclusions, but that he also seeks to deprive others of having their own opinion about the matter, is further cause for concern. That he refuses to allow other interpretations to even be considered, irrespective of their merits, simply because they differ from his own opinion, is further cause for concern. And finally, that he fails to be capable of detecting these aberrations in his own reasoning and behavior is also cause for concern.

Upon emailing his diagram: 50 Points of Identification and his accompanying explanation to a colleague (with NO COMMENT added by me), I received this single word reply: "Yikes!"

Indeed.

[Greg Burnham]

Someone do something--quick--it's getting itchy here in the tall grass and I may just lose my patience.

[Charles Drago]

Someone do something--quick--it's getting itchy here in the tall grass and I may just lose my patience.

Stand by. DEFCON 2.

[Greg Burnham]

Signs of "difficulty" are abundant with Fetzer. Not only in JFK research, but elsewhere, as well. That is not to say that his over all conclusions are necessarily incorrect, just that his means to arrive at said conclusions are rife
with ill conceived notions, poorly reasoned argumentation, and too conveniently positioned spells of apparent mental deficiency to be legitimate.

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground...39076.html

[Charles Drago]

You'll need to remind him.

[Charles Drago]

My Christmas card to "Fetzer," "Doyle," "Cinque," Miss Manners, Stapleton, and their loved ones.

Sorry for all those dirty cracks.

[James H. Fetzer]

So Greg is finally coming out of the closet and agreeing with Alfred about DARPA "Jump Rooms", time travel, and Barack Obama having traveled to Mars with Andrew Basiago, where they were nearly eaten by carnivorous Plesiousaurs?

"Now it can be told: The Real Reason Obama was Nearly Devoured by Carnivorous Plesiousarus on Mars" by Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/01/...s-on-mars/

Webre and Basiago think the Loch Ness Monster is a
plesiosaur, and that carnivorous martian plesiosaurs devour humans who teleport to Mars in CIA "jump rooms"

"The Vancouver Hearings: Subversion from Within" by Jim Fetzer and Don Fox
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/09/...om-within/

"Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD: 9/11 Disinfo Op?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/21/...isinfo-op/

Signs of "difficulty" are abundant with Fetzer. Not only in JFK research, but elsewhere, as well. That is not to say that his over all conclusions are necessarily incorrect, just that his means to arrive at said conclusions are rife
with ill conceived notions, poorly reasoned argumentation, and too conveniently positioned spells of apparent mental deficiency to be legitimate.

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground...39076.html

[Dawn Meredith]

Someone do something--quick--it's getting itchy here in the tall grass and I may just lose my patience.

Stand by. DEFCON 2.

And not a moment too soon.

[Don Jeffries]

Somehow I doubt that you've ever received many Christmas cards, Charles.

Those viewing these recent threads may conclude the following:

- Those who disagree with Charles and Monk are mentally unstable.
- Those who disagree with Charles and Monk are disinfo agents.
- Those who disagree with Charles and Monk are referred to by childish names.
- Albert Doyle and Jim Fetzer are arguing with each other as part of an elaborate psyop.
- Albert Doyle is a multiple person "entity," one of whom may be Jim Fetzer.
- Those who disagree with Charles and Monk face the threat of an attack from Monk,
who is portraying himself as a snake in the grass. What that attack will be is unclear.
- Charles and Monk alone possess absolute knowledge of the JFK assassination.
- Charles and Monk will not share this information with the rest of us, deigning only to
utter cryptic one sentence "insider" replies to each other, often in a foreign language.
- JFK researchers are in a war, and it is indispensable that they be able to ridicule others
with offensive terms like "short bus" in order to win the battle.
- Mental retardation is funny. Rape is funny.

And all this has been revealed because Albert Doyle and Mark Stapleton posted favorable
comments about Michael Piper's book, Jim Fetzer insists that the figure in the doorway
is Oswald, and I objected to Charles' sneering "jokes" about the "short bus" and the Special
Olympics.

I beseech the good members of this forum to let Charles and Monk know that they are making
fools of themselves here.

Their conduct on this forum reflects more poorly on the research community than any alleged
"disinfo agent" they may recklessly label.