29-11-2012, 06:17 PM
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4148[/ATTACH]
Deep Politics Forum
›
Deep Politics Forum
›
JFK Assassination
TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?
TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?
|
TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?
|
29-11-2012, 11:17 PM
Ralph Cinque Wrote:I am under no such obligation to definitively answer such questions- certainly no more so than those who argue that Doorman is Lovelady. Altgens' film was in the hands of the AP, and they released it to the news wires. You are obfuscating. THE ARGUMENT MADE: "The likenesses between Doorman's and Oswald's shirts, that I point to, stand on their own merit" If we are to believe anything that Fritz writes in his notes... one of them is: "Changed shirts + tr. Put dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr." and "Home by bus changed britches" SHIRTS? The doc below is the inventory taken from Beckley... check the last two items Bookout hears and records the same thing http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=37 Roberts says he comes in with SHIRTSLEEVES... Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket. Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen him wear that jacket before? Mrs. ROBERTS. I can't say I did---if I did, I don't remember it. Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt? Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves. shirtsleeves: The state of wearing no coat, jacket, or other outer garment over one's shirt Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=138188 Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket? Mr. BALL. Yes---it has a zipper down the front. Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe it was Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on? Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what color his trousers were? Mrs. DAVIS. I think they were black. Brown jacket and trousers. Mr. BELIN - Anything else you can think of about the man after you saw him? What was he wearing? What did he look like? Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, he was kind of, well, just about your size. Mr. BELIN - About my size? I am standing up. Mr. BENAVIDES - You are about 5' 10"? Mr. BELIN - I am between 5' 10" and 5' 11". Closer to 5' 11", I believe. Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight. Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember? Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket. Mr. BELIN - What color was the trousers? Mr. BENAVIDES - They were dark. Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what kind of shirt he had on? Mr. BENAVIDES - It was dark in color, but I don't remember exactly what color. Mr. BELIN - Was he average weight, slender, or heavy? Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was average weight. Mr. BELIN - What color hair did he have? Mr. BENAVIDES - Oh, dark. I mean not dark. Mr. BELIN - Black hair? Mr. BENAVIDES - No. Not black or brown, just kind of a---- Mr. BELIN - My color hair? Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Mr. BELIN - You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair? Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier. Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him that looked like me. Mr. BENAVIDES - No. that is all. Mr. BELIN - What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned? Mr. BENAVIDES - He wasn't dark. Mr. BELIN - Average complexion? Mr. BENAVIDES - No; a little bit darker than average. Mr. BELIN - My complexion? Mr. BENAVIDES - I wouldn't say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine. Mr. BELIN - His skin looked ruddier than mine? I might say for the record, that I was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Mr. BENAVIDES - No, just your size. Mr. BELIN - Did he look like me? Mr. BENAVIDES - No; your face, not your face, but just your size. (DJ: 5'11" of AVERAGE build... yet all we have in custody is a 5'9" 140lb man NOT wearing a v-neck t-shirt... Why all this time comparing Altgens' which occurs BEFORE he changes his clothes... to his ARREST SHIRT(s) which he changed out of and was found in his room AFTER he was arrested.... There is of course NO CHANCE these shirts got mixed up after the fact - since the shirt sent to the FBI was not numbered like the other stuff.... Does anyone believe THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT is Oswald talking to a policeman? It is from one of the THREE TRAMPS photos. Cheers DJ
30-11-2012, 02:45 AM
So you think these 50 points of identification, the similarity in their right ears, in their left eyes, in the shape of their skulls and their hairlines IS A MATTER OF COINCIDENCE? What would the probability be? If we assume similarity would occur BY CHANCE one time in 10 for each of these features, then we are talking about an improbability of 1/10 to the 54th power or 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 more or less. I infer you are no student of probability, but the probability of 54 points of similarity if they were the same shirt would be approximately 1!
Get serious. There is no good reason to believe this nonsense. The official account has always been that he returned to his rooming house to pick up his jacket and his .38. Words are cheap. Why are you quoting Ralph Cinque, by the way, when this study was done by Richard Hooke? Maybe Richard didn't say what you wanted him to say, so you are putting words in his mouth? It's not just the shirt but the build, the jaw, the right ear, the left eye, the shape of the skull, and much, much more. Plus we have many proofs that this cannot be Lovelady. So this is SOMEONE ELSE altogether? No one believes that. My last academic book is co-editing THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). One hypothesis in science is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood than the other, given the same evidence, where the likelihood of an hypothesis is the probability that it confers upon the evidence (as an effect) if it were true (as its cause). The hypothesis you advance has close to zero likelihood, while our hypothesis has a probability approximating one. Not only is the identity hypothesis over-whlemingly probable, but the more research we do the stronger our proof. Get over it. Oswald was Doorman. David Josephs Wrote:Ralph Cinque Wrote:I am under no such obligation to definitively answer such questions- certainly no more so than those who argue that Doorman is Lovelady. Altgens' film was in the hands of the AP, and they released it to the news wires. You are obfuscating.
30-11-2012, 03:33 AM
Quote:James H. Fetzer First off Jim, I do probability for a living... your "inferences" as I've read over the years leaves much to be desired. The 10% by chance has only to do with the ABILITY TO CORRECTLY CONCLUDE THEY MATCH... not whether they do or not... If you have two shirts and one is a buttoned shirt and the other a Tshirt and both are white and size M... I can say with 100% accuracy that of the 2 items that were looked at to see if they match 100% of them match - Color and Size... so they MUST be the same shirt.... right? of course not... there are other variables but you CAN CLAIM that on these two items your MATCHING ABILITY is 100% accurate. YOU or RALPH stating something is a MATCH has it itself odds of you even being right to begin with... What are the odds that you've incorrectly "matched" any two items on the different PHOTOGRAPHS of the two shirts (one of them from HOW SMALL AN AREA on that photo?) Shall we say 50%?, 25%? or are you of the opinion that y'all got it right 50 out of 50 times? and that it is part of the tautological argument that you are assumed right in each case? Your 10% BY CHANCE statement has no bearing on the probability of YOU AND RALPH being right about the analysis... THAT's the % that matters Jim... how RIGHT are you and how do you substantialte any claim of 50%, 75% 99% correctness? If the chances are 50% on any ONE ITEM then the CHANCES of YOU AND RALPH being right about 2 of the items is 25%, 3 items? .5 to the 3rd... 50 items? [TABLE="width: 481"] [TR] [TD="class: xl63, width: 641, bgcolor: transparent"]1,125,899,906,842,620 : 1 are the odds that YOU AND RALPH are correct on ALL 50 items if you are correct 50% of the time in your matches... 50% to the 50th power When you can give a % to the probability of you being RIGHT about the match, for each and every one of the 50 items... you then multiply ALL THOSE %'s to get the probability of you being right... for ALL of them. Or you can pick two items like I did above, and with 100% certainty claim a MATCH... but just cause they are both white and size M, it does not follow they are the same shirt. Does not prove the shirt is the same... the COLOR may even be just a little off... would that make you wrong about the shirts being THE SAME - yes, it does. So list the 50 items, and give each a % of correctness in your matching ability.... Since we do not know ahead of time whether the shirts are the same OR whether YOU AND RALPH are correct even about a SINGLE ITEM.... Let's say you are 90% sure on ALL 50 items... the chances are still 194:1 that you are indeed right about all 50.... Obvioulsy if you are 100% right... they'd have to be the same shirt... So you see Jim... the question is not whether the SHIRTS ARE THE SAME OR NOT... The QUESTION is how reliable is your MATCHING on each and every item looked at? and HOW many items can we find that DO NOT MATCH... which is evidence on the other side - like my example above (buttons versus none) that helps dtermine if the two "shirts" are the same... Next time you want to make probability statements call me... the CA Lottery and LAPD, among a number of others, already do.... Cheers DJ [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
30-11-2012, 04:36 AM
David Josephs Wrote:Quote:James H. Fetzer Nicely done, David.
GO_SECURE
monk "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep." James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968) 
30-11-2012, 04:38 AM
Greg Burnham Wrote:David Josephs Wrote:Quote:James H. Fetzer Indeed. Soon this Fetzer madness will be resolved.
30-11-2012, 04:59 AM
Bringing to light that a crazy person is crazy does not "resolve" the madness Charles
the crazy person will forever be crazy... and not be aware of it. The only way this resolves is if Jim Fetzer comes back down to earth and listens to the scores of people who have been his friends and supporters, sounding boards and confidants for years. Some will brown nose the famous man and ride coat tails, some will be genuine, some will vehemently disagree... A TRUE RESEARCHER understands the difference and welcomes the counterpoint without venom or hatred, or fear of not being the MOST RIGHT. We will never get a true or accurate % of "correctness in a match" and there no such thing as probability of a match when one item is an actual shirt while the other is a poor photographic reproduction.... ....the true definition of SUBJECTIVE Add to this the real concept of photogrammetry and the difficulty it is to perform and I truly hope Jim and group seriously reexamine the NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS to the JFK RESEARCH COMMUNITY of so public a declaration with such a low probability of accuracy... Give me a few days and I will compile a list of NON MATCHING ITEMS with the same level of care and % of correctness as our dear comrades. Stay tuned DJ
30-11-2012, 05:05 AM
David Josephs Wrote:Bringing to light that a crazy person is crazy does not "resolve" the madness Charles I never stated or implied any such thing. You stay tuned, too. 
30-11-2012, 05:12 AM
Professor Screwball, why don't you do a photo examination of that guy 'Ron'. You remember the dude on the bridge that everybody thought was you in that dodgy Ventura JFK show? At least to clear your name. I can believe it is not you, however the fact that so many people 'believed' you capable of doing such a dumb ass stunt, is a terminal indictment of your reputation. Thus, I lose nothing in regards to you being Ron or not. For all extents and purposes you symbolize that pathetic fool, indeed you actually congratulated Ventura's son on the entire show and the introduction.
Every thing you have touched has been so badly tainted no one goes near it. I cannot think of one bad idea you have not embraced, one horrific researcher you have not had a hard on for, nor any lie or distortion from government agencies you have not fallen for. Unlike some on this forum, I am incredibly proud to say I have always thought you were full of s###. The way you have smeared and berated those who once respected you is also disgusting. I don't think of you as a 'witting' 'provocateur'. Your ego, imagination, naivety and lack of intelligence (I mean how on earth you and John McAdams ever earned PHD's shames academia). Has made you a perfect mark for any two-bit spook. What makes me laugh is when you boast about being on TV, you have never had the abstract thought to think "Why are they getting me up here?". They put you up there to make us all look as bad as you, you are a straw man and a kook. The only idiots proud of the degrading term 'conspiracy theorist' are 'conspiracy theorists' tin foil hat wearing schleps themselves. Indeed, Mr Fetzer you are an arch conspirahypocrite, one of the worst I have ever come across. A joke in his own lifetime even...not a legend. Don't for a minute think your B.S will be recognized one day by inspired researchers. It'll be dug up an championed by some government schlep, while real researchers will be going "That's the same old Fetzer crap". I take great pleasure informing you that the retrospective visage of you, will not be one of a triumphant orator of truth. No, it will be tied in with a fellow called 'Ron' on a bridge, hocking of BS CIA documents.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
30-11-2012, 06:07 AM
David Josephs Wrote:Give me a few days and I will compile a list of NON MATCHING ITEMS with the same level of care and % of correctness as our dear comrades. :popcorn:
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her. “I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)