TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[David Josephs]

Bringing to light that a crazy person is crazy does not "resolve" the madness Charles
DJ

I never stated or implied any such thing.

You stay tuned, too.

Soon this Fetzer madness will be resolved.

Really too bad you did not quote the rest of my post CD... I thought I made myself pretty clear....

and I'm sorry if my use of metaphor, repeatedly, is not delivering my intended result...

You DID POST the line above though.... "Fetzer madness" is not so far a throw from "crazy person"... and since it was in response to my showing JF the error of his mathematical ways
I thought we were on the same page.

My saying "stay tuned" was not a threat... but an invitation... I'm sure you are just as qualified to identify 50 things about those two images that DONT MATCH with the same or better skill as JF and RC.

What I would like to know though, is where are the explanations for the 50 matching items as to WHY they match and how it was determined...

Where is THAT presentation? As I have yet to see it, only the numbered comparisons

Thx
DJ

Don't misunderstand me, David. I'm no statistician, but your challenge to Fetzer's "50 points" business intrigues me. I'm on your side in this matter.

And no, I'm not qualified to conduct the photo and biometric analyses necessary to find scores of non-matches. My observations would be fatally flawed by this fact and by the grainy, poorly detailed version of Altgens 6 that is available to me on this computer.

Speaking of the latter: Am I right to conclude that comparing the poor Altgens 6 image to the relatively superior LHO-in-custody image itself represents yet another fatal flaw in the "Cinque"/Fetzer disinformation campaign?

I here you CD... we're on the same page.

FLAW may be a bit strong... but the quality of the images being compared HAS to play a part in determining their probability of correctly identifying a MATCH....

Understanding the assumptions of the analysis is important too...

1) we do not have a photo of Oswald prior to the arrest
2) we have evidence with the same weight as "out front with shelley" that states he changed his clothes, spefically the SHIRTS he was wearing
AND we have inventory lists from Beckley with the same description as the clothes discarded
3) therefore, we are left comparing a poorly detailed photographic image of a person in shirts... to another photo of a person in shirts and concluding by nothing other than personal examination they "match"
4) no photogrammetry measurements of the images were ever compared to the actual measurements of the real people and objects in the photos
5) "MATCH" is about as subjective as a conclusion gets... and should help determine a starting point for % of correctness...
6) consensus and coroborration of these MATCHES increases the probability of correctness OF THE ANALYSIS

Let's look at #1... "Overshirt rt collar frnt edge inner rise"

BOTH men were wearing shirts with a collar
Both men's shirts had patterns

Here is a close up without all the other numbers in the way of MATCH #1 - This section of the shirt MATCHES Oswald's shirt...

(See below)

Like my earlier example... 2 Medium, white shirts will have MATCHING details...
What is the probability that two collared shirts will both show a collar in two different photos? 100% (sounds like a Specter question, lol)

What is the probability that THAT MATCH indicates the photos are of the same shirt? Not QUITE 0% but very very close... (we presuppose both shirts have collars, THAT is a match but only raises the probability that the shirtws are the same by a very small fraction... i.e. as we look and can say that the PATTERNS on the shirts are NOT the same and we are 95% sure of this....
there is a 100% chance they are NOT the same shirt if I am right with my 95% conclusion... (100% x 95%)
and only a 5% chance that I am wrong about it and they DO MATCH in PATTERN....

So - again, if two shirts have the same PATTERN, what is the probability they are the same shirt? 20%? 50%? How many shirts AVAILABLE had patterns that would LOOK SIMILIAR in a crappy enlargement?
So you can see how this particular analysis cannot have "what are the chances" type questions answered with any real accuracy...

it's tautological, again like Specter's "assume this was an exit wound, would you now conclude - with those assumptions - that the wound was of exit?"

That one item alone cannot allow us to conclude the shirts MATCH... only that both shorts have collars and that there is SOME PROBABILITY GREATER THAN ZERO that the shirts match.
What weight would you give it? What would Fetzer?

I would EXPECT to see a collar on both shirts in both photos.. expect it 100%... but only give it a 1% weight in determining the shirts being IDENTICAL....

So #1 has a 1% probability of determining whether the shirts are the same (same goes for the person's features NOT related to the shirt - this adds yet another layer of probability since SHIRT and PERSON are two seperate Subjective judgements and just cause the SHIRTS MAY MATCH it does not follow that the PEOPLE match - until you go thru the same exercise...