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.
Stay tuned
DJ
:popcorn:
DJ brilliant I am with Mags drooling with anticipation. I would love it if you explored the obscure reasoning why Oswald is supposedly proven innocent by photo purportedly tampered with, to isolate him in a doorway.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Charles Drago Wrote:Dearest Don "Miss Manners" Jeffries,
Again: If a man shoots you in the head because he believes it's the only way to cure your migraine headache, you still end up dead.
And he is still a murderer.
I have every reason to believe that the larger argument regarding the harm done to truth and justice for JFK by Fetzer and his embrace of "Cinque's" disinformation is beyond your ability to grasp.
THE IDENTITY OF DOORWAY MAN IS NOT THE GODDAMN POINT!
GOT IT?
I haven't the time or, clearly, temperament to conduct a Cover-Up Special Ed -- oops, sorry, didn't mean to offend the short bus brigades -- or, if you prefer, Cover-up 101 class.
So you just continue being Miss Manners, and those of us with sophisticated understandings of this case and its context all continue paying you no mind whatsoever.
Charles, you are embarrassing yourself. Your vehemence in opposing Cinque and Fetzer's work here is presumably because you believe it discredits the research community, and makes a laughingstock of all those who are collectively dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" by the msm. Yet you continue to engage in juvenile antics that would reflect poorly on your average elementary school student.
If you think Jim Fetzer brings disgrace upon the research community, what do you think your posts on this forum do? You deride me as "Miss Manners," but how do you expect to persuade those who don't know much about this subject by using such immature debating tactics? You win points and influence others by clearly delineating your arguments, not by personal ridicule, or by smug and cryptic inferences that you alone possess all the answers. Your whole persona here is that of an impatient ruler, unwilling to share the truth with the unwashed masses you grace with your presence.
And your willingness to infer that Jim Fetzer is some kind of disinfo agent, and probably always has been, is incredibly irresponsible. You can't possibly have any evidence to prove such a thing, yet you hurl these accusations about with apparent relish. We know that the government infiltrates all political movements, on both ends of the spectrum, and Cass Sunstein let us know exactly how much they want to get rid of "conspiracy theorists." That doesnt mean you can just cavalierly accuse someone you disagree with of being a disinfo agent.
As someone once said, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"
30-11-2012, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012, 01:05 PM by Seamus Coogan.)
Don, I think your being a bit selective here. I appreciate we are on a better level than we once were. Nonetheless, my own attack on JF was a pretty brutal ad hom. Indeed, they have been pretty scathing of Cinque (as you know lol). Is CD being something of a Captain Ahab in pursuing the great White Fetzer Dick? Maybe, but while I show some trepidation to CD's antics towards other individuals. I fully believe individuals like Cinque and Fetzer deserve it, thus in many ways I to am lashing myself to the deck on the DPF with him.
I also do not think CD is quite as bad as those he dumps on. I think CD is correct, JF provides agency for disinformation. I don't think he is a witting dupe-nonetheless, he is an agent of disinformation. Or is he unwitting Don? While I don't think he has the capacity for the accusations myself, nor did GB or CD say it was 'Fetzer' I am still open to the idea or at least one scenario, which may well be more revealing.
If someone could get to the bottom of who 'Ron' was on the bridge, we may have an idea of how duplicitous Fetzer potentially is or not. What annoys me a little is that simply because I have suggested having a look into that little quagmire, CD when not bellowing like a silver back. As we all know is a very, very capable researcher and excellent word-smith. Yet he hasn't bothered to take that rather simple route, wanna know why Don? It's simply because I suggested it, indeed I was the first person anywhere to my knowledge that has ever accused JF of impersonating someone else. That's what puzzles me about all this, rather than examining syntax, language and essentially relying on guess work of some 'Fetzer clone'. Why not explore the Ron avenue? I know for a fact Fetzer flat out lied to me about being in contact with nut ball Nico Haupt. He was also crazed enough to flat out lie on the EF he could do a Lancer or COPA gig if he so wanted. Now that's a bald faced lie, he was banned from those gigs a long time ago!
I cannot help but shake the feeling that Fetzer (at the very least) had something to do with the ideas behind the 'Ron' scene (even if it was not him). If I am wrong about it, I am wrong, I don't stake my rep on it. I do think beneath all of the verbosity CD, is indeed a decent bloke. He just does wonderful impersonations of an asshole sometimes. Sometimes I like him being one, sometimes I don't. It's just the way it is, if he wants to look a potential gift horse in his mouth with regards to Ron, ultimately that is his business. Thus Don I also put the challenge to you. Try your best to find out what JF had to do with that show. Who was Ron? Or how much of a role did Fetzer really have with that show? For Christ sakes not even Jim Di's looked at it enough for my satisfaction, yes I am also a little annoyed about that as well. He's in LA as well and he knows a lot of people in the industry.
So I reckon both you and CD need to cut a lot of the bullshit between you and find answers to some rather black and white questions. I really hope more sensible heads like Dave Josephs and Phil Dragoo, Keith Millea, LR, Monk or Jan could do some real digging into the Ventura show. Len has some information, but he was hardly told the truth. The lies and distortions presented in that program means they could have told him bloody anything. So Len (as much as I dig the dude), is not necessarily a good place to start. Shows have cameras, sound, lights, make up, transport, at least eight or so people would have been involved that embarrassing night on the bridge. Why has Fetzer never sought fit to find out who the person was who looked like him on the bridge? Either way one looks at it Fetzer's credibility takes a massive hit with Ron, and he doesn't even need to be him...yet, I would give my left arm to find out who that fraud was.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
David Josephs Wrote: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"][FONT=Arial][size=12][COLOR=#000000]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
So what? That enormous number is also the probability that all the points of identification are wrong.
Charles Drago Wrote:Dearest Don "Miss Manners" Jeffries,
Again: If a man shoots you in the head because he believes it's the only way to cure your migraine headache, you still end up dead.
And he is still a murderer.
I have every reason to believe that the larger argument regarding the harm done to truth and justice for JFK by Fetzer and his embrace of "Cinque's" disinformation is beyond your ability to grasp.
THE IDENTITY OF DOORWAY MAN IS NOT THE GODDAMN POINT!
GOT IT?
I haven't the time or, clearly, temperament to conduct a Cover-Up Special Ed -- oops, sorry, didn't mean to offend the short bus brigades -- or, if you prefer, Cover-up 101 class.
So you just continue being Miss Manners, and those of us with sophisticated understandings of this case and its context all continue paying you no mind whatsoever.
Charles, you are embarrassing yourself. Your vehemence in opposing Cinque and Fetzer's work here is presumably because you believe it discredits the research community, and makes a laughingstock of all those who are collectively dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" by the msm. Yet you continue to engage in juvenile antics that would reflect poorly on your average elementary school student.
If you think Jim Fetzer brings disgrace upon the research community, what do you think your posts on this forum do? You deride me as "Miss Manners," but how do you expect to persuade those who don't know much about this subject by using such immature debating tactics? You win points and influence others by clearly delineating your arguments, not by personal ridicule, or by smug and cryptic inferences that you alone possess all the answers. Your whole persona here is that of an impatient ruler, unwilling to share the truth with the unwashed masses you grace with your presence.
And your willingness to infer that Jim Fetzer is some kind of disinfo agent, and probably always has been, is incredibly irresponsible. You can't possibly have any evidence to prove such a thing, yet you hurl these accusations about with apparent relish. We know that the government infiltrates all political movements, on both ends of the spectrum, and Cass Sunstein let us know exactly how much they want to get rid of "conspiracy theorists." That doesnt mean you can just cavalierly accuse someone you disagree with of being a disinfo agent.
As someone once said, "At long last, sir, have you no decency?"
David Josephs Wrote: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.
CD Wrote: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
David Josephs Wrote: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.
CD Wrote: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?
30-11-2012, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012, 10:18 PM by David Josephs.)
Mark Stapleton Wrote:
David Josephs Wrote: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"][FONT=Arial][size=12]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
So what? That enormous number is also the probability that all the points of identification are wrong.
You haven't proved a thing.
Huh? What was it you think I was trying to prove Mark? Do you agree with JF about Doorman being Lovelady or not?
Yes Mark.. BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTION AS STATED WAS 50% CHANCE OF BEING RIGHT (or wrong) the odds I posted are for either... Which was my point... the reciprical of RIGHT is indeed WRONG
the higher each item's odds of a match are, the LOWER the odds of them being wrong... simple.
I simply showed how JF is wrong in is presentation about probability. His point was that the odds were astronomical that all these points of matching would occur NATURALLY unless the shirts were the same.... and then offered his 10% solution.... problem being there is no such thing as a 10% chance of MATCH as he stated.... only a 10% chance of correctly identifying a match.... or whatever % they, you, anyone would like to give it....
Since this % is completely subjective (JF will tell you they are 99% right on all 50 items) while someone else would not be as generous.
So, do you understand that the only probability that matters here is the probability that JF and RC are correct about EACH "MATCH" times 50 items and NOT the astronomical odds AGAINST 50 items matching with 10% surety per item... unless that's the % he gives himself and RC as to THEIR matching correctness...
Starting at the beginning, let's remember this all started based on a line from Fritz's notes...
"OUT WITH BILL SHELLEY in FRONT"
Fetzer Wrote:"Out with Billy Shelley in front"
It was astonishing to me to learn only last year, 2011 that the Assassination Records Review Board had discovered the [COLOR=#0f72da]handwritten interrogation notes of Will Fritz, the DPD Homicide Detective who had interrogated Lee Oswald, notes that had been released way back in 2007, that said Oswald told Will Fritz that he had been "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the assassination. This discovery led me to take a second look at Altgens6 and to revist the question of whether Doorman could have been Oswald.
On a previous page of the same notes Fritz tells us:
Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr.
On the SAME PAGE AS THE LOVELADY reference is: home by bus changed britches
(britches being clothes btw)
Roberts tells us Oswald came in in SHIRTSLEEVES...
He also correctly identified Jarman and Norman as they went thru the domino room to ultimately get to their 5th floor positions (and I have proven how Full of it these three men were... what needs to be explored is the DEEPER aspect of why and how they were put into a position to lie.... proof? 10 feet from a 140dB rfiel shot will make a person temporarily deaf and create such loud ringing in the ears to follow as to make it difficulkt to know even how long it lasts... and there there were two more shots? the CLINK of a hull and working of a bolt? please)
So if the NOTES FRITZ TOOK are reflective of what was said and is to be believed (Bookout confirmed the clothing comment in his report) why do these men believe that the shirt they are comparing to Altgens 6 is the same shirt Oswald was wearing AT WORK?
So now you tell me looking at their analysis... #39 compares the "LOWER PORTION OF THE WHITE OF DOORMAN's LEFT EYE, to OSWALD in custody"
They are claiming with some % of correctness that they can MATCH the lower white portion of Oswald's left eye to the Altgens photo... and claim this as proof the image is of Oswald....
What % of "correctness" would YOU give to that observation?
Now look at the 50 items and see the level of granular detail in comparing one image to the next.... as I asked JF/RC... do the same, apply a real % to each of the 50 items... and multiply...THAT is your probability of THEM being right about the shirts matching... NOT that the shorts actually match or not....
BIG difference.
Now my turn.
Here are 6 things I find indicative that Doorman is Lovelady....
Apply a % of correctness to each of my six to arrive at the probability that MY EVIDENCE CORRECTLY indicates that Doorman is Lovelady.... NOT the probability that it IS Lovelady...
David Josephs Wrote: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.
CD Wrote: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
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...
30-11-2012, 10:33 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012, 10:48 PM by Greg Burnham.)
The Abuse of Statistics: A Brief, But Humorous Study
On 3 occasions back in the 1990's I decided that it would be exhilarating to attempt stand-up comedy. While it was exhilarating, to be sure, it was also terrifying.
My attempt was made on three occasions, but one occasion stands out. I was observing that it is not very wise to quote statistics to teenagers regarding the
dangers of drinking and driving because, unless you are brutally honest with yourself about the statistics, you will not persuade them to refrain from the practice.
Indeed, one must be very careful with how they interpret statistics and must resist the temptation to interpret them in a sloppy manner or with ascertainment bias
run amok.
As you might imagine this did not get any laughs. Then I said, "Each holiday season we hear on the news that there were, for example, 1109 deaths on the highway
in California and that a full 20% of them were alcohol related. Then some spokesperson for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers basically wags her finger in the face of
the camera. But, statistically this means that 20% were alcohol related and 80% were SOBRIETY related! And, if we believe the statistics, it is indicated that those who
are under the influence are so much more relaxed than those who are sober, that they rarely get more than minor injuries, while the sober drivers often get killed.
Moreover, as for collisions with other drivers, there are only statistics relating to sober drivers colliding with drunk drivers, as well as sober drivers colliding with each
other. There are so few drunks colliding with other drunks as to make it statistically insignificant. So, what's the moral of the story using this MADD statistical model:
Never drive unless you've had at least 2 drinks otherwise you are at risk because the odds of you having a collision goes from 1 in 5 when drunk to 4 in 5 when sober
and if you're sober when in an accident you probably will get hurt or killed!"
It got a big laugh, but there is a point to the story and it's not to go ahead and drink and drive. The point is to resist the urge to manipulate and/or misinterpret statistics
even if for all the right reasons.
I went on with my analogy: "I've read statements by prosecutors and journalists who report that they asked heroin addicted inmates being held at the county jail if
heroin was their first illegal drug or if they started first with marijuana. In more than 85% of the cases the answer was answered affirmatively. The authors of these
studies therefore concluded that marijuana usage leads to heroin usage. Moral of the story: Don't smoke pot because you will end up on heroin. Oh, and by the way,
don't breast feed because nearly 94% of the heroin addicted inmates had been breast fed. Don't breath oxygen either because 100% of the heroin addicted inmates
started off on oxygen..."
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
