23-10-2010, 01:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-10-2010, 01:32 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
While O'Sullivan is convinced that Campbell is "Roman", he only took the word of the Roman family that Joannides was "Owens". And the only case for Morales being a Bulova executive is that he was observed (by Rabern) interacting with Campbell and Cambell was observed (in footage) also interacting with Joannides. Since members of the Roman family (on the assumption that it was real) were equivocal about the identification, I think Shane has gone beyond the evidence in the strength of his belief.
But the important measure of the strength of the evidence is comparing the hypotheses that they were the CIA officials we are discussing or that they were instead Bulova Watch executives. What is the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, then they would look like Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador?
Presumably, the answer to that is obvious: the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, those effects of that cause would be very high, which in turn means that the likelihood of that cause (hypothesis), given those effects (as evidence) is very high. If, instead, we are talking about Bulova Watch executives, what is the probability that they would look like Morales, Joannieds, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador? That probability has to be very low.
The likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is equal to the probability of e on the assumption that h is true. So if h1 is that they are these CIA officials and h2 is that they are Bulova Watch executives as the alternative -- which is the only alternative explanation that has surfaced -- then, since one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood, clearly h1 is preferable to h2, which means that it provides a better explanation for the available evidence. When the evidence has, as it were, "settled down" and points in the same direction, the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable (in the tentative and fallible fashion of science), which appears to be the case here, since the more we examine the evidence, the stronger support for h1 becomes and the weaker for h2. h1, absent new evidence or alternative hypotheses, is thus acceptable.
Because O'Sullivan insists that Campbell is "Roman", even though, in my opinion, he does not look that much like "Roman", if we accept that Brad is most unlikely to be wrong in identifying the man who served as his case officer at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 -- and for whom we have independent testimony (from Clines and from Rabern) that he did not die in 1962 -- then logic dictates that Campbell and Roman are one and the same. Thus, since we have already established, by the weight of the available evidence, that we are dealing with Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, the additional conclusion follows (if we assume O'Sullivan is right) that at least one of the was also a Bulova Watch executive, which, all things considered, would not be entirely surprising. That thus appears to be the situation we are in from the point of view of logic and evidence.
But the important measure of the strength of the evidence is comparing the hypotheses that they were the CIA officials we are discussing or that they were instead Bulova Watch executives. What is the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, then they would look like Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador?
Presumably, the answer to that is obvious: the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, those effects of that cause would be very high, which in turn means that the likelihood of that cause (hypothesis), given those effects (as evidence) is very high. If, instead, we are talking about Bulova Watch executives, what is the probability that they would look like Morales, Joannieds, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador? That probability has to be very low.
The likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is equal to the probability of e on the assumption that h is true. So if h1 is that they are these CIA officials and h2 is that they are Bulova Watch executives as the alternative -- which is the only alternative explanation that has surfaced -- then, since one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood, clearly h1 is preferable to h2, which means that it provides a better explanation for the available evidence. When the evidence has, as it were, "settled down" and points in the same direction, the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable (in the tentative and fallible fashion of science), which appears to be the case here, since the more we examine the evidence, the stronger support for h1 becomes and the weaker for h2. h1, absent new evidence or alternative hypotheses, is thus acceptable.
Because O'Sullivan insists that Campbell is "Roman", even though, in my opinion, he does not look that much like "Roman", if we accept that Brad is most unlikely to be wrong in identifying the man who served as his case officer at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 -- and for whom we have independent testimony (from Clines and from Rabern) that he did not die in 1962 -- then logic dictates that Campbell and Roman are one and the same. Thus, since we have already established, by the weight of the available evidence, that we are dealing with Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, the additional conclusion follows (if we assume O'Sullivan is right) that at least one of the was also a Bulova Watch executive, which, all things considered, would not be entirely surprising. That thus appears to be the situation we are in from the point of view of logic and evidence.
Albert Doyle Wrote:It's statistically impossible for the three Bulova executives to look like Morales, Campbell, and Joannides without there being a purposeful reason. The real executives had to be other people because I would imagine Morales, Campbell, and Joannides had other things to do that kept them from being Bulova executives.
It would make sense that M,C,&J could be switched-in when they needed the Bulova cover to remove suspicion from them. However you would imagine the real executives would also have to be CIA or sworn to CIA secrecy because they would or could find out they were at certain places they knew they weren't.
What you might be seeing here is O'Sullivan blowing their cover and exposing an operation. They might have gotten sloppy because they needed Bobby dead and fast. The identification of Morales, Campbell, and Joannides as Bulova executives might be an actual CIA damage control operation as part of the failsafe plan unfolding right in front of you. The fact even close friends and co-workers aren't sure which they are sort of speaks for itself and shows the effectiveness of this possible look-a-like ruse.