24-12-2009, 03:20 PM
Jim,
I've addressed eight selected points from your illuminating response. Each begins with an excerpt from my original post. Next come your reactions, which appear in italics. Finally I offer my latest thoughts in RED.
1. I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."
That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents.
How about this: I know that George Washington is dead.
2. This paragraph makes no sense.
Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?
[COLOR="Red"]I’ll withdraw the “no sense” assessment. But I’ll maintain that, for reasons having to do with operational security and discipline – not to mention personal security – the hypothesis that highly trained, disciplined intelligence officers presumably with no operational responsibilities would be willing to expose themselves at a crime scene of their making simply to gloat defies what we know about how these characters operate.
Yeah, the “no operational responsibilities” is a leap on my part. But it is no greater a leap than the one you make when you reason that they keenly desired to witness the destruction of JFK, so they violated all rules, abandoned reason, and showed up for the kill.[/COLOR]
3. Agreed: Your Mainman is Conein hypothesis is preferable to the Mainman is Adams hypothesis. It is equally preferable to a Mainman is Mr. Ed hypothesis, isn't it?
Not just "equally", but overwhelmingly, since there seems to be no resemblance relationship between Mainman and Mr. Ed, unlike the case of Adams -- unless we notice that they are both animals, both mammals, and such. But Mr. Ed is even more obviously not Mainman.
I’d phrase it more simply: A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
4. I'm assuming that eight points of similarity is the universally accepted standard used to identify fingerprints. Are there similarly governing standards used to identify facial characteristics? If so, have you used them in a manner consistent with the scientific method to identify Mainman?
Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue.
Let’s leave fingerprint analysis for another campfire. To your knowledge, is there an established scientific methodology for the comparison of photographic images of faces that can be applied to Dealey Plaza and control images?
5.In citing Prouty you may be commiting the fallacy of argument from false authority. I am not all that quick to accept Prouty at his word.
No. You commit a blunder in logic.
[COLOR="Red"]You are correct; my choice of terminology was, shall we say, less than artful. Or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
UNLESS you accept that the “authority” I meant to reference is that of an expert who can be trusted not to disinform.[/COLOR]
6.Agreed. I simply ask, in relation to the quest to identify Mainman, if all avenues of scientific comparison have been exhausted? Have they? Or is what you're claiming nothing more or less than, "It sure looks like him to me"?
Well, it's more than that.
[COLOR="Red"]Again and for the record, we agree that Mainman and Adams are not the same person. Obvious and otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities convince us of this to a significant degree.
BUT regarding the noted similarities between Mainman and Conein, I pose yet again the simple question: Can the similarities be scientifically evaluated?[/COLOR]
7.Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.
Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here?
[COLOR="Red"]I wholeheartedly disagree with you in re the Morales identification. Let’s not postpone the discussion much longer. Nonetheless it is safe to say we are making progress: I agree with your Mainman reasoning in terms of the low probability of an Adams match. Mainman likely is not Adams.
That being stated, I would not hesitate to conduct a scientific Mainman/Adams comparison if such methodology exists. And of course I wish to do the same for the Mainman/Conein hypothesis.
I reiterate: My simple bottom line is this: I slowly moved toward the "Major Lopez" discussion/illustration with the hope that a former defender of the Lamp Post man as DSM hypothesis would change his/her mind. Our dear friend Jack has done just that. So in your opinion who does Lamp Post Man more closely resemble: “Major Lopez” or DSM?[/COLOR]
8. Let's see how you do on the exam!
Schrödinger's cat ate my homework.
I've addressed eight selected points from your illuminating response. Each begins with an excerpt from my original post. Next come your reactions, which appear in italics. Finally I offer my latest thoughts in RED.
1. I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."
That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents.
How about this: I know that George Washington is dead.
2. This paragraph makes no sense.
Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?
[COLOR="Red"]I’ll withdraw the “no sense” assessment. But I’ll maintain that, for reasons having to do with operational security and discipline – not to mention personal security – the hypothesis that highly trained, disciplined intelligence officers presumably with no operational responsibilities would be willing to expose themselves at a crime scene of their making simply to gloat defies what we know about how these characters operate.
Yeah, the “no operational responsibilities” is a leap on my part. But it is no greater a leap than the one you make when you reason that they keenly desired to witness the destruction of JFK, so they violated all rules, abandoned reason, and showed up for the kill.[/COLOR]
3. Agreed: Your Mainman is Conein hypothesis is preferable to the Mainman is Adams hypothesis. It is equally preferable to a Mainman is Mr. Ed hypothesis, isn't it?
Not just "equally", but overwhelmingly, since there seems to be no resemblance relationship between Mainman and Mr. Ed, unlike the case of Adams -- unless we notice that they are both animals, both mammals, and such. But Mr. Ed is even more obviously not Mainman.
I’d phrase it more simply: A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
4. I'm assuming that eight points of similarity is the universally accepted standard used to identify fingerprints. Are there similarly governing standards used to identify facial characteristics? If so, have you used them in a manner consistent with the scientific method to identify Mainman?
Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue.
Let’s leave fingerprint analysis for another campfire. To your knowledge, is there an established scientific methodology for the comparison of photographic images of faces that can be applied to Dealey Plaza and control images?
5.In citing Prouty you may be commiting the fallacy of argument from false authority. I am not all that quick to accept Prouty at his word.
No. You commit a blunder in logic.
[COLOR="Red"]You are correct; my choice of terminology was, shall we say, less than artful. Or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
UNLESS you accept that the “authority” I meant to reference is that of an expert who can be trusted not to disinform.[/COLOR]
6.Agreed. I simply ask, in relation to the quest to identify Mainman, if all avenues of scientific comparison have been exhausted? Have they? Or is what you're claiming nothing more or less than, "It sure looks like him to me"?
Well, it's more than that.
[COLOR="Red"]Again and for the record, we agree that Mainman and Adams are not the same person. Obvious and otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities convince us of this to a significant degree.
BUT regarding the noted similarities between Mainman and Conein, I pose yet again the simple question: Can the similarities be scientifically evaluated?[/COLOR]
7.Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.
Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here?
[COLOR="Red"]I wholeheartedly disagree with you in re the Morales identification. Let’s not postpone the discussion much longer. Nonetheless it is safe to say we are making progress: I agree with your Mainman reasoning in terms of the low probability of an Adams match. Mainman likely is not Adams.
That being stated, I would not hesitate to conduct a scientific Mainman/Adams comparison if such methodology exists. And of course I wish to do the same for the Mainman/Conein hypothesis.
I reiterate: My simple bottom line is this: I slowly moved toward the "Major Lopez" discussion/illustration with the hope that a former defender of the Lamp Post man as DSM hypothesis would change his/her mind. Our dear friend Jack has done just that. So in your opinion who does Lamp Post Man more closely resemble: “Major Lopez” or DSM?[/COLOR]
8. Let's see how you do on the exam!
Schrödinger's cat ate my homework.