25-12-2009, 10:21 PM
Charles Drago Wrote: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.
The problem is that you only know indirectly that there was a "George Washington" who served as our first president. If his existence was a legend created by historians for our own national inspiration, then not only did Washington never live but, unsurprisingly, he never died. So while I'm in agreement in believing that he lived and died, it is a matter of high probability (or likelihood), not certainty, which is impossible about the occurrence of everts in history. For a more recent example, think of the alleged 19 Islamic fundamentalists who hijacked nineteen planes!
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]
Well, lots of odd things happen during these ops that might appear to be unreasonable on their face. Planting a medium to low-velocity weapon on the alleged assassin, which cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, for example, is an nice illustration. The resemblances in this case are so striking and the number so imposing that their presence is all but assured.
I am the least bit puzzled at your resistance to these identifications, which are, after all, as I have explained several times now, both tentative (subject to revision with the acquisition of new evidence and new alternatives) and fallible (even when they are well supported by the evidence, they could still be false). The major objection to your stance is they seem to have been there!
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.
I take it this is a concession on your part. If that is the case, I accept it.
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?
I will ask Jack and see what we come up with. That is a useful suggestion.
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]
Well, by either standard, Fletcher Prouty is an appropriate "authority" to ID Conein and, in relation to another photo, Lansdale, an identification, we know, that was confirmed by Victor Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps.
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]
The gross features that Jack identified--the shape of the face, the length of the chin, the ear shapes and the supranasal ridge differences do not appear to require quantification. They are more than sufficient to disqualify Adams as Mainman. We can look for more confirmations that Mainman is Conein, but the resemblance is striking--with no obvious alternative candidates.
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]
I will have to learn more about "Major Lopez". Was there some reason to think he might have been there? The fact that Morales worked with Robertson and Lansdale, for example, offers corroborating circumstantial support for his identification, where the similarity looks very strong to me.
8. Let's see how you do on the exam!
Schrödinger's cat ate my homework.
That was just the mid-term. When your wavepacket collapses, I'll grade it!