TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Keith Millea]

So now we have Mark Stapleton who, by his own admission, is not much of a scholar on the JFK case as evidenced by his hanging his hat on the posts made by the likes of Rago and company on the EF--chiming in with his uninformed opinion that Fetzer is correct.

Yeah,I guess Mark wanted to try out them "Cheap Seats". :noblesteed:

[David Josephs]

(FJ in red) Sure, we MIGHT be wrong about one or more ofthese points of identification. But the basic argument remains, regardless:

ONE OR TWO Jim? Really. You give the other 48 items a 99% or better probability of YOU being correct in that they MATCH? You can match the White part of Oswald's Lefteye to the Atgens photo with 99% certainty? And we should just take your word?

(1) If Doorman is not wearing Oswald's shirt, what is the probability that his shirt would match Oswald's in 50, 49, . . . points?

First off let's at least agree that your 50 items are spread between the men and the shirt… there arenot 50 items of MATCH with the shirt alone based on that graphic.

Now, how are you measuring the"MATCH" Jim?
If you and I are wearing different shirts and posted photos on the web of them and they are both White, button down, single pocket, French cuff, size 16 and we stop there… what is the probability they are the same shirt? Let's use a WCR tactic: "From the evidence available… we can conclude with 100% certainty the shirts are the same" Understand?

What is the probability they are different shirts that LOOK the same in a photograph?
MUCH HIGHER than their being the same exact shirt given we already know they are of two separate people at two separate times.

As I explained… the only way to prove they are the SAME (in the photos) is by precise measurements AND proving that there are not two shirts that can have the same measurements and still be different shirts. Hold up two dress shirts that are "the same"… the MATCH in every conceivable way… but they are not the SAME SHIRT. Now take photos of them... ever HARDER to tell them apart... now take a rust one and a rudder red one and take a color photo... even closer yet know we KNOW they are different....

I am not saying Doorman and Oswald wore two versions of the same shirt. I AM SAYING the shirts in the photo provided have a VERY LOW CHANCE of being the same based onthe arguments and MATCHES you offer… I found a few items that don't MATCH… and will get back to how that affects the odds, later.

If the probability of matching in one respect BY CHANCE at say, 1/10, thenthat probability is equal to 1/1 with 50, 49, . . . zeros.

Again Jim… it seems you reply without bothering to read my reply first. The odds that two collared shirts MATCH on the ONE criteria that there is a collar is 100%, it will NEVER be 10%. Item 1 of the list is a shadow caused by a collar.... What are the chances that two collared shirts would create a shadow when lit? Pretty good... let's say 100%

Now measure the length of the collar in each photo correctly… are they EXACTLY the same? Now you have TWO MATCHING CRITERIA… and we can feel better about Item #1 being indicative of a match.... but what if they measure differently... your 100% MATCH for the shadow is now meaningless.... what matters is your criteria and how EXACT you want to get Jim.…

You are trying to claim that with better than 90% probability the white part of Oswald's left eye is thesame as seen in a different photograph… that they MATCH… how do you quantify that with anything substantial?

I also said that statements like… "what is the probability, by chance, they match if they are the same shirt" are far too complicated with the number of variables that need to be considered to be answered… 10% sounds nice… but as I've shown.. there is a 100% chance they are both collared shirts that give a shadow… besides PROVING they are the same is infinitely harder than KNOWING they are.

if I can identify even ONE CRITERIA with a 0% chance of MATCH… your proof is gone… 50 or 50,000 matches… if one is green and the other blue… they aint the same

(2) If Doorman is wearing Oswald's shirt, what is the probability that hisshirt would match Oswald's in 50, 49, . . . points?

Since they are, BY HYPOTHESIS, the same shirts,the probability they would match is equal to one (minus any chance oferrors).

No Jim… sorry, that's not how it works when analyzing two separate events to determine if they are one. If, by DEFINITION they arethe same, yet are being depicted in two different setting with different variables whether they VISUALLY MATCH OR NOT is not the point… by definition they are the same… your (minus any chance of errors) is a simple way to express a VERY complicated set of variables that represent a LARGE chance of errors…

In fact I ID'd 6 items that illustrates how the PHOTOS of both the shirt and person are of two different entities (actually 4 2 shirts and 2 men)… Do you have any clue what that does to your reliability in determining a MATCH?

ANY MISMATCH severely reduces the probability you are correct about any one item, let alone 50… since we are already providing reasonable support that the shirts DON'T MATCH. I.E if they MATCH on 700 points of similarity…yet are different colors, just 1 point of difference, what does that do to the probability that your 700 items conclude a match?

I will tell you, it reduces it to ZERO. So the FACT the sleeves are too long in one of my 6 items to represent a MIS-MATCH between the two photos OF THE SAME SHIRT (supposedly) , we reduce the probability they are the same to 0% unless you can prove we are less than 100% correct about the MISMATCH…. Just like we prove you are less than 100% on your MATCHES… get it?

But it is not difficult to determine by visualinspection that there are few, if any errors, among those 50 points ofidentification.

Your argument, in other words, is simply silly, but there are weak minds herewho will grasp after any reed, no matter how slender.

[B] LAUGH OUT LOUD

Jim, deluding yourself into believing you can objectively evaluate your and Ralph's work by simply stating that visual inspection reveals few if ANY errors… IT'S YOUR WORK, of course you're going to say it's "spot on"…

It is obvious that you count on WEAK MINDS to believe the snake oil you and Ralph are selling. Minds - I guess - like yours that will believe the probability BS you peddle as reality.

Reality dictates that YOU need to prove the MATCH's a 100% probability PER ITEM. Or at least find a few supporters who can help with the weight of correctness on each….

NOT TO MAKE THE OBVIOUS POINT, but this guy does not even dare touch the factthat the photo displays a missing left shoulder,
a man in front of and behind another, an obfuscated face, and the profile of ablack man in an anomalous position. So what is the
probability that a photograph would display these features and not be faked? ordisplay these features if it actually were authentic?

Jim, the more you open your mouth and ask probability questions the more ridiculous you sound.
Let's talk about subjects not touched upon… On the same notes that led to your BIG DISCOVERY we learn that Oswald tells Fritz TWICE he changed his clothes when he got home… TWICE.

Since you give a 100% probability that what Fritz wrote was 100% accurate… why do you dismiss OSWALD also saying he went home and changed his clothes and was specific to the color and typoe of each item... AND they were found in his room by Rose/Stovall/Moore AND listed on their inventory?
Cherry picking?

Jim… what are the chances that there was some bleed of the WHITE SHIRT to the DARKER AREA OF THE PHOTO on a section of the image whichis HOW BIG on the negative? That there is a "photographic" anomaly that has nothing to do with anything ? Prove it's not. [/B]

And why not consider the damage being done by DENYING OBVIOUS PROOF THATALTGENS6 HAS BEEN ALTERED AND THAT LEE
OSWALD WAS ACTUALLY STANDING IN THE DOORWAY AS THE MOTORCADE PASSED BY? Youlook like a group of nuts and loons.

"Obvious proof" is obviously in the eye of the beholder (or creator) in this case Jim. UNTIL you can adequately address MY SIX POINTS OF MISMATCH and mitigate them to a ZERO PROBABILITY and support why you are even better than 50/50 on your Items... you can have a thousand matching items and STILL they would not be the same shirt….

You're reaching for straws with an argument that is terribly inaccurate to the point of misleading….

One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose.

DJ

[Charles Drago]

You're reaching for straws with an argument that is terrible inaccurate to the point of misleading….

One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose.

DJ

[/B]

Thank you, David.

[David Josephs]

my pleasure CD

now let's see how much the "resolution" improves....

If history teaches us anything....
JF will let me know with eloquent ad homs how I personally make the science of probability incorrect....
and how such an accomplished author/educator should not have to PROVE anything to anyone....

Just keep publishing and diluting the credibility of the JFK researcher community with this tripe which any 8th grader who has taken Stats can rip apart...

That's one spit-shine we could do without.

[Phil Dragoo]

Greg, fascinated by your relating David Mantik yesterday:

David Mantik just told me yesterday that he enjoyed a very informative presentation in Dallas last week at the Lancer conference. Striking was the fact that the numerous witnesses out front on the steps corroberated each other's story with an extremely high degree of consistency--nearly 100%--which indicates truthfullness. And not even one single witness mentioned seeing Oswald out front during the shooting. Not even one.

The base image in question above presents as 1904 X 1435.

Upon examination of the allegations it appears the preponderance are in no way supportable by the indistinct Altgens6.

The daisy chain of if,then gets only so far as: there were two men in Dallas in long-sleeved shirts.

The End.

There's satisfactory evidence Lee was in the lunchroom, getting change, drinking a Coke, not on the stair, not in the nest.

If for no other reason than Gerald McKnight relates the Dallas parrafin test for Lee's cheek was confirmed by AEC's Oak Ridge Lab which also tested seven men who actually fired a Mannicher Carcano and all tested positive.

The man still had nitrates on his hands (which may have come from boxes, ink) yet he supposedly washed it off his cheek--so that paraffin didn't pull it.

The expert (?) Cunningham claimed the weapon was too tight to leave GSR but the seven men at Oak Ridge and anyone familiar with it told him he was smoking his socks.

Here's that McNote:

Breach of Trust p 422 note 83

Assassination researcher Harold Weisberg sued both the FBI and the AEC to gain disclosure of the results of the December-January Oak Ridge National Laboratory tests on the paraffin casts. He made no headway with the FBI, but the AEC's successor, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), anxious to avoid litigation, turned over the results to Weisberg in July 1981. The ERDA file can be found at the Weisberg Archive. The Commission turned to FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham, whose testimony was buried in Appendix X of the Warren Report under the rubric "Expert Testimony" to explain why Oswald's negative paraffin test on his right cheek was of no evidentiary value. Ignoring the results of the FBI's own authorized AEC tests on the rifle as well as Dr. Guinn's report to Gallagher, Cunningham testified that the chamber of the Mannlicher-Carcano was so tightly sealed that it prevented any blowback. It was Cunningham's professional opinion that given the construction of the weapon, "personally" he would not expect to find "any residues on a person's right cheek after firing" it. See WCR, 561

[Greg Burnham]

Breach of Trust p 422 note 83

Assassination researcher Harold Weisberg sued both the FBI and the AEC to gain disclosure of the results of the December-January Oak Ridge National Laboratory tests on the paraffin casts. He made no headway with the FBI, but the AEC's successor, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), anxious to avoid litigation, turned over the results to Weisberg in July 1981. The ERDA file can be found at the Weisberg Archive. The Commission turned to FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham, whose testimony was buried in Appendix X of the Warren Report under the rubric "Expert Testimony" to explain why Oswald's negative paraffin test on his right cheek was of no evidentiary value. Ignoring the results of the FBI's own authorized AEC tests on the rifle as well as Dr. Guinn's report to Gallagher, Cunningham testified that the chamber of the Mannlicher-Carcano was so tightly sealed that it prevented any blowback. It was Cunningham's professional opinion that given the construction of the weapon, "personally" he would not expect to find "any residues on a person's right cheek after firing" it. See WCR, 561

Sounds like a McWhitewash to me...

[Mark Stapleton]

So now we have Mark Stapleton who, by his own admission, is not much of a scholar on the JFK case as evidenced by his hanging his hat on the posts made by the likes of Rago and company on the EF--chiming in with his uninformed opinion that Fetzer is correct.

That's good. Nice and haughty.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Upon examination of the allegations it appears the preponderance are in no way supportable by the indistinct Altgens6.

The daisy chain of if,then gets only so far as: there were two men in Dallas in long-sleeved shirts.

The End.

Yup.

Finito.

Koniec.

Das Ende.

[Charles Drago]

So now we have Mark Stapleton who, by his own admission, is not much of a scholar on the JFK case as evidenced by his hanging his hat on the posts made by the likes of Rago and company on the EF--chiming in with his uninformed opinion that Fetzer is correct.

That's good. Nice and haughty.

And right on the money.

[Charles Drago]

Upon examination of the allegations it appears the preponderance are in no way supportable by the indistinct Altgens6.

The daisy chain of if,then gets only so far as: there were two men in Dallas in long-sleeved shirts.

The End.

Yup.

Finito.

Koniec.

Das Ende.

Not to mention finished. Which in Finnish is päättynyt.