03-04-2010, 09:07 PM
MORE FROM JUDYTH ABOUT THE PURPORTED PHOTOS OF "HARVEY" AND "LEE"
NOTE: Just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about my replies to Duncan
MacRae, realize that even if Judyth did not have problems with her vision, there
would be the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm her findings by replicating her
research and determining whether or not you obtain the same results. If she is
right, then the results should be the same. And this is the case even if she had
perfect vision, since having perfect vision alone is not sufficient to conduct the
studies that she has reported in the past and continues to report on in this post.
JUDYTH COMMENTS:
Amazing, bringing up braille...I am not blind...and with new glasses will be able to
see the keyboard without it being 'double vision'. The person who wrote that remark
is not stupid and anybody can see what the intent was.
I welcome a duplication of findings because my vision is not that good and I could be
off by some percentage points. However, I will continue to do my best with these photos.
So far:
1) Photos have been over-copied, where in the case of the sepia reproductions significant
degradation of feaures is involved -- yet people are asked "Which is Harvey?" and "Which
is Lee?" from this set of photos that are degraded in their clarity.
2) Every photo of "Lee" that I have examined so far has been a) bloated or otherwise
distorted or 2) could be a photo of Robert Oswald insead of Lee H. Oswald. More later...
3) I have seen photos of Marguerite where the feet were placed at different levels, making
Marguerite (the sort one, so called) look shorter: when the disparity was corrected and, in
addition, high-heels versus slippers were taken into consideration, very little difference in
height remains--nothing like the six or seven inches clamed...This is a serious blunder, in
my opinion, on the part of the researchers.
4) In a photo to 'prove' Marguerite was 'much shorter", a FUNERAL photo was the one that
was provided with a line that clearly showed, instead, the angle of slope, going downhill from
left to right, reducing the height of Marguerite to an APPARENT but not actual LOWER HEIGHT.
5) We were then shown a photo of Lee fishing in the USSR, where once again a line was drawn,
without any reference to the steep slope of a riverbank upon which Oswald was sanding so that
his feet could not be seen.
6) We were next shown a photo of Lee with Marina, where Lee is shown as too short once more
-- with more lines pointing this out -- -but Peter Wronsky took photos showing that (ONCE AGAIN)
a significant slope is involved that artificially visually raised the height of the person as seen to
the left by a viewer of the photo (Marina, in this case)....Therefore, in examples 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,
slopes are involved or position of photos are placed that fool the eye.
7) We next find that a "hunting photo" of Lee might very well be that of Robert Oswald, but it, too,
is distorted -- 'bloated' -- and could possibly be of Lee Oswald as well...What is obvious to me is
that the person in this 'hunting photo' is not holding the rifle correcty and therefore may be joking.
Whoever took the photo was clearly friendly toward the person being photographed.
8) We need a DNA sample to ascertain if Robert Oswald and Lee were biological brothers....Lee's
daughters can provide enough DNA, because they are females (mitochondria will be the same),
to provide the answer.
9) There is increasing evidence that Robert Oswald had the incentives and motives to betray his
brother and support the findings of the Warren Commission; his records in the miliary need close
examining to see if some of the official "Lee Oswald" records are really about Robert.
JVB
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188653' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188649' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:12 PM']
The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement
of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called
"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,
and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are
either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which
is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to
falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX
I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188647' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188643' date='Apr 3 2010, 04:28 PM']
Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.
Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate
them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in
the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments
of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps
you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth
is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that
out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,
since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this
now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am
sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188632' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:33 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188630' date='Apr 3 2010, 02:02 PM']
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES
The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:
I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well
at about an inch from a page.
JVB[/quote]
This leads to the obvious question.
If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,
then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?
[/quote]
[/quote]
And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?
I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.
The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.
They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.
Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.
I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.
[/quote]
edited for offensive language.
[/quote]
The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.
You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.
Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.
Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?
[/quote]
NOTE: Just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about my replies to Duncan
MacRae, realize that even if Judyth did not have problems with her vision, there
would be the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm her findings by replicating her
research and determining whether or not you obtain the same results. If she is
right, then the results should be the same. And this is the case even if she had
perfect vision, since having perfect vision alone is not sufficient to conduct the
studies that she has reported in the past and continues to report on in this post.
JUDYTH COMMENTS:
Amazing, bringing up braille...I am not blind...and with new glasses will be able to
see the keyboard without it being 'double vision'. The person who wrote that remark
is not stupid and anybody can see what the intent was.
I welcome a duplication of findings because my vision is not that good and I could be
off by some percentage points. However, I will continue to do my best with these photos.
So far:
1) Photos have been over-copied, where in the case of the sepia reproductions significant
degradation of feaures is involved -- yet people are asked "Which is Harvey?" and "Which
is Lee?" from this set of photos that are degraded in their clarity.
2) Every photo of "Lee" that I have examined so far has been a) bloated or otherwise
distorted or 2) could be a photo of Robert Oswald insead of Lee H. Oswald. More later...
3) I have seen photos of Marguerite where the feet were placed at different levels, making
Marguerite (the sort one, so called) look shorter: when the disparity was corrected and, in
addition, high-heels versus slippers were taken into consideration, very little difference in
height remains--nothing like the six or seven inches clamed...This is a serious blunder, in
my opinion, on the part of the researchers.
4) In a photo to 'prove' Marguerite was 'much shorter", a FUNERAL photo was the one that
was provided with a line that clearly showed, instead, the angle of slope, going downhill from
left to right, reducing the height of Marguerite to an APPARENT but not actual LOWER HEIGHT.
5) We were then shown a photo of Lee fishing in the USSR, where once again a line was drawn,
without any reference to the steep slope of a riverbank upon which Oswald was sanding so that
his feet could not be seen.
6) We were next shown a photo of Lee with Marina, where Lee is shown as too short once more
-- with more lines pointing this out -- -but Peter Wronsky took photos showing that (ONCE AGAIN)
a significant slope is involved that artificially visually raised the height of the person as seen to
the left by a viewer of the photo (Marina, in this case)....Therefore, in examples 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,
slopes are involved or position of photos are placed that fool the eye.
7) We next find that a "hunting photo" of Lee might very well be that of Robert Oswald, but it, too,
is distorted -- 'bloated' -- and could possibly be of Lee Oswald as well...What is obvious to me is
that the person in this 'hunting photo' is not holding the rifle correcty and therefore may be joking.
Whoever took the photo was clearly friendly toward the person being photographed.
8) We need a DNA sample to ascertain if Robert Oswald and Lee were biological brothers....Lee's
daughters can provide enough DNA, because they are females (mitochondria will be the same),
to provide the answer.
9) There is increasing evidence that Robert Oswald had the incentives and motives to betray his
brother and support the findings of the Warren Commission; his records in the miliary need close
examining to see if some of the official "Lee Oswald" records are really about Robert.
JVB
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188653' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188649' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:12 PM']
The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement
of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called
"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,
and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are
either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which
is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to
falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX
I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188647' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188643' date='Apr 3 2010, 04:28 PM']
Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.
Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate
them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in
the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments
of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps
you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth
is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that
out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,
since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this
now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am
sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.
[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188632' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:33 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188630' date='Apr 3 2010, 02:02 PM']
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES
The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:
I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well
at about an inch from a page.
JVB[/quote]
This leads to the obvious question.
If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,
then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?
[/quote]
[/quote]
And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?
I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.
The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.
They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.
Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.
I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.
[/quote]
edited for offensive language.
[/quote]
The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.
You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.
Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.
Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?
[/quote]