TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

Let me explain the key issues involved in determining what's going on here from the point of view of the theory of knowledge. Ralph is being pilloried because he is expressing his degree of personal conviction, not claiming that he has established an empirical proposition with epistemic certainty, which is impossible for any empirical knowledge.

Jim,

Please. Both he and you have argued--from an ABSOLUTIST position from the very start--that IT IS OSWALD in the doorway. Of this there is no doubt. Anyone can go back and read what you and he wrote to that effect. To deny what is obviously THE TRUTH is beneath you. It is obviously NOT beneath HIM to do the same. I don't know him--so I am not surprised nor am I disappointed in him. However, I thought I knew you...

There are several steps or stages involved here, beginning with the Altgens. Robin Unger obtained (what is supposed to be) the best available copy known as "the Corbus copy": "I paid $250.00 Aus for the Corbis copy, and to be honest, i'm not completely happy, because it does lack Clarity in some area's especially around the doorway area."

Sorry. That is irrelevant.

Now the doorway area represents perhaps 1% of the total area of the photograph as a totality (more or less). The question thus becomes, (h1) assuming this photograph is authentic and unchanged, what is the probability that it would have a small area that is unclear, when the rest of the photograph is clear? The answer: very small, indeed.

The judgment that there even exists in this photo only a "small area that is unclear" (as opposed to other similar areas) is SUBJECTIVE, indeed. There are numerous areas in this photo that, when scaled to the same dimensions, are similarly obscured, all things be equal. So, I reject h-1 on its face--because you chose to associate it with the unestablished. Nice "grouping" Jim. But it won't fly--not on my watch and you should know better.

Consider the alternative, (h2) assuming that the photograph is not authentic but has been changed in one area of the image (around the doorway), what is the probability that that small area would be unclear, when the rest of the photograph is clear? The answer: very high. Which makes (h2) preferable to (h1) but not therefore acceptable.

But, that is not the only alternative. It is one alternative. Namely, alteration of the photo. It is NOT the ONLY other alternative. That you are making an argument suggesting otherwise is simply WAY beneath you.

You are forcing the premise on the subject. A pity.

What we need is further evidence that "settles down" or points in the same direction. We have that in this case with the discovery that the face and shirt of at least one figure in the doorway has been obliterated. And this point, the probability that the photo is authentic drops to zero and that it has been changed increases to approximately one.

Again, you are taking your best (or worst) guess, as the case may be, and then building on it as though it was established. You know better than that.

This is a composite from the Altgens (top row) with the Wigman (bottom row). In relation to the Altgens, figures A and B are the crucial images, because they have been obfuscated. My initial suspicion has been that B was Oswald, which was my position when I published "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then" on Veterans Today.

Shortly thereafter, Ralph contacted me to explain why he thought I was right about Oswald being in the photograph but wrong about which figure was his. When I discovered that shirt A has also been obliterated and because the shirt on F has many features that are more like those of Oswald's shirt than Lovelady's, I am now convinced that they took the face from B, who was actually Lovelady, and imposed it on F, who was actually Oswald, just as in the case of the backyard photographs, they imposed Oswald's face on someone else's body, which Jim Marrs and I have proven--building on the work of others, including Jack White, especially--in "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald".

Is Jim Marrs of the same opinion regarding Doorway Man? I hope it's not too late to call him tonight.

These are the first few stages in reasoning this through and that is our hypothesis. This is just the kind of fabrication of evidence in which the CIA specializes. It had a problem. Because B's shirt was distinctive--whether it was a checkered or a striped shirt--they had to remove it, too. Why should anyone be surprised that it happened here?

Are you serious? You can't see "shit from shinola" in that area of ALTGENS 6. No way. There is no way that anybody tried to obscure the doorway area because it just isn't definitive enough! C'mon, Jim!

Skipping the bullshit in between, we cut to the chase:

Please know that all assertions in science are tentative and fallible, which means that they are subject to revision on the basis of new evidence or alternative hypothesis and that, even though we accept them as true, they may nevertheless be false. Please do not mistake the assertion of a position with a declaration of infallibility. That's a tempting but simple blunder.

You would be much better off approaching any future presentations of your highly speculative endeavors from that standpoint initially. In other words: Get off your high horse! Stop the pontificating!

The only "concession" I made, if you really want to label it as such, is that IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED who is on the steps based SOLELY on Altgens 6! But, it also underscores the fatally flawed logic that you are employing.

That is not a concession in your favor. It is an honest assessment stated rather kindly due to my relationship with Jim Fetzer. On your own...make no mistake, you would be toast.

And even his rope is running out...