TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[James H. Fetzer]

This is very bad, Monk. I am sorry, but this must be the least rational and most poorly reasoned post that I have ever seen from you.

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...

Well, if you don't understand that scientific assertions are both tentative and fallible, then I am not quite sure what to tell you. You seem to think that making an assertion--say, "It's raining outside!"--is ABSOLUTISTIC because it is an ASSERTION. But that's just silly. We expressed our conclusion in the title: "Oswald was in the doorway, after all!", because that's what we are arguing. He believes it. I believe it. You don't. That doesn't show we are wrong. Why don't you explain what you mean by "ABSOLUTISTIC", because I think you are confused between the ASSERTION OF A CLAIM AS TRUE and CLAIMING THAT THAT ASSERTION COULD NOT BE FALSE. Of course, we are not infallible and we might be mistaken. Our only guide is logic and evidence. Challenge it as much as you like.

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.

"Sorry. That is irrelevant."? That the best copy of one of the most important photographs from the assassination has an unclear area around the doorway IS IRRELEVANT? Perhaps you don't understand the concept. A factor qualifies as RELEVANT to a conclusion when its truth or falsity (presence or absence) makes a difference to the conclusion. A well-respected student of the case, Robin Unger, has found a lack of clarity in the doorway area. That matters for the reason that, as I explained, it makes it more likely that it was altered than not. An unaltered photograph would be uniform in its clarify and sharpness throughout. This one is not. It qualifies as evidence the photo is altered.

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.

Well, that was Robin Unger's judgment. He is an expert on photographs. And the relative area of the doorway is quite modest in relation to the area covered by the photograph. I was only hazarding a guess in terms of the actual percentage. THAT ANY AREA OF THE PHOTO IS UNCLEAR IS WHAT MATTERS. "When scaled to its own dimensions?" It is not my opinion that matters. You are attempting to create subjectivity when there is no good reason for doing so. I suppose I could ask Robin. But I am familiar with him and have no reason to doubt him.

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.

This is simply silly, Monk. After all, I go on to observe that the face and the shirt of a figure, A and B, have been obfuscated, which makes your earlier argument rather pointless. Since the photo has been altered, why are you contesting it? This is very strange, Monk. Are you denying that the face and shirt, A and B, have been obfuscated?

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.

No, I am not guessing at all. It is obvious. If you can look at the photo and deny its been altered, I am stunned.

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

Please call him. We have talked about it. But I am not going to represent his views on this. Please do call him.

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!

I am at a loss as to what you think you are saying. What do "shit" or "shinola" have to do with anything? Really?

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!

Egad! I am not on a "high horse" and if anyone is "pontificating", it is you, my friend, not me. This is bizarre.

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...

And just for the record, if you have actually read our study, we do not claim that IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHO WAS ON THE STEPS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ALTGENS. Why, if you have read it, would you attribute that to us? Did you mistake the first three or four paragraphs for the 20 page article? Have you actually read it? Because this characterization is completely absurd. You are grotesquely exaggerating our position for rhetorical purposes. Why resort to a blatant "straw man"? That is embarrassing. I would never have expected this from you.