TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Charles Drago]

Don,

Your agenda on this forum is clear. You are here to disrupt it -- as your repeated pleas to my partners and others to chastise me so clearly reveal.

You care nothing about DPF. Its status and its future never have been of any concern to you whatsoever.

Your poorly written, simple-minded posts, like your claims that I have caused insult and injury to you, your short bus relative, and others with physical and/or mental impairments, are disingenuous and designed to foment discord.

I have no power to exclude you from participation on DPF. If I did, you and your feigned outrage would have been cast out long ago.

Again -- If what I write offends you, DON'T READ IT!

Now get back on the short bus and let the normal people get on with our lives.

And give Jim Fetzer a big, wet Christmas kiss for me.

So endeth -- I can but pray -- the Drool in the Sun.

Charles

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

Why would Lovelady go to the FBI and show them a red-and-white, vertically striped, short-sleeved shirt and tell them that it was the shirt he was wearing on 22 November 1963 IF THAT WAS NOT TRUE? You don't seem to have noticed that the man in the checkered shirt DOES NOT LOOK LIKE BILLY LOVELADY AT ALL. I am sorry, Albert, I have been trying to be kind. You have no understanding of this case at all--not even remotely! Give yourself an break and get out of the kitchen. It's too hot! You are persisting in making yourself look incredibly stupid. I'm trying to spare you.

Jim

That's an awfully thin thread to hang your theory on and also violates some of the logical precepts you often tout. The logical flaw in what you write is the invalid premise that since Lovelady wore the striped shirt to the FBI photo session that therefore it must have been the shirt he wore that day. But if you look at what you wrote you never really made any attempt to answer the main question. That question was why, if Lovelady had worn that shirt that day, would CIA forge-in another plaid shirt in all the other photographs of him that day at the Depository? Dr Fetzer, you don't hesitate to offer an unlimited Pandora's Box of other claims of bizarre coordination of alteration and reasons for it yet when it comes to why Lovelady wore the striped shirt to the FBI session you simply state that it must have been the shirt and that we are to accept this simple explanation despite all that counters it. In the end your answer is woefully inadequate and stands in stark contrast to the complex level of explanations you give in virtually every other instance of evidence regarding the doorway. In effect, what we have here is you offering one of the most bizarrely contrived theories in Assassination history on one hand yet then turning around and trying to ask us to believe Lovelady wore that shirt because it was the shirt he wore that day - despite the myriad of evidence showing otherwise. You then offhandedly refer to a lengthy Cinque-based theory as justification of this without realizing Dr Cinque is one of the most uncredible, blindly ignorant jesters to ever cross the Assassination threshold. And his logic is some of the most childish, idiotic, and laughable material to ever be offered seriously at the Assassination docket. No, you and your carnival-style contempt and reckless defensiveness are well across the line of credible Assassination material and need to be publicly disowned by the Assassination community. You are a very dangerous person because your insane insistence on wack theories is now a serious threat to the entire research community and will be used to dismiss the entire field by those with an evil interest to do so. Congratulations Dr Fetzer, you have now succeeded, whether by insanity or ill-intent, in lowering yourself to the level of other infamous Judases and scoundrels who brought shame upon both themselves and those who they pretend to represent.


After reviewing your classic overload of rubbish information I've concluded you've failed to answer why CIA would have forged a different shirt over Lovelady if he had indeed worn the striped shirt that day on the steps of the Depository. There's no logical reason for them to do that, therefore you forfeit both your theory and credibility. Assassination research is serious business Dr Fetzer. Violate it in contempt at your own risk, but don't shrug-off the consequences.

[Charles Drago]

The runners of the "Albert Doyle" operation are performing as expected.

They boldly post another thread clearly written in a style and with a vocabulary that the historic "Doyle" never previously exhibited.

This is exhilarating.

[Jan Klimkowski]

You then offhandedly refer to a lengthy Cinque-based theory as justification of this without realizing Dr Cinque is one of the most uncredible, blindly ignorant jesters to ever cross the Assassination threshold. And his logic is some of the most childish, idiotic, and laughable material to ever be offered seriously at the Assassination docket. No, you and your carnival-style contempt and reckless defensiveness are well across the line of credible Assassination material and need to be publicly disowned by the Assassination community. You are a very dangerous person because your insane insistence on wack theories is now a serious threat to the entire research community and will be used to dismiss the entire field by those with an evil interest to do so.

Correct.

[David Josephs]

Since we know the photo has been faked .....

(h1) If Doorman is Oswald, what is the probability that they would share the same right ear, the same left eye, and the large number of other features of their clothing and build, which, given the number, turns out to be extremely high approaching one.

(h2) If Doorman is Lovelady, what is the probability that he would have Oswald's right ear, Oswald's left eye, and such, and that Lovelady would repeatedly deny that he was wearing Doorman's shirt to the FBI and others, which approaches zero.

Jim... please get some help already... you cant even state the QUESTION correctly....

"IF" is a conditional statement.... If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather... doesn't make it so since the CONDITION is not possible.

The way you state your analysis is completely wrong... there is no SHOULD in probability... there are results that lead to a conclusion....


To correctly state your question:

(h1) What is the probability that, if two images CAN BE SHOWN TO "share the same right ear, the same left eye, and the large number of other features of their clothing and build", they are of the same person?

You cannot assume the conclusion in the question. Furthermore, as I've tried to explain repeatedly to you, you have to mitigate all the NON MATCHING ITEMS to 0% probability... as well as assign a % to each of your 50 items....

So, to address this probability problem we need a few more bits of data. Since we are looking at two IMAGES... what is the proof that YOU are 100% correct about these features? Have you used photogrammetry* to determine they are EXACTLY the same? or is this eyeballing?
"the same right ear, the same left eye" - so first off you feel the image quality is good enough to compare and measure - or is this eyeballing?
You are of the opinion that you are 100% correct about those TWO ITEMS.... yet you offer nothing to support such a conclusion beyond "eyeballing"

How can you be 100% sure about a MATCH Jim other than producing the math that shows the dimensions of such items IN THE PHOTO are indeed "exactly the same" If I can point out ANY differences... 100% surety drops... and continues to drop until you reach a RELIABLE % for you conclusion. Just saying so does not make it so....

Read this again Jim... carefully: Even with 10,000, 100% documented MATCHES, a single 100% MISMATCH (ie blue v red shirt) completely negates the 10,000 items and proves they are NOT the same item or person. In addition, any reduction in any of the 10,000 100% conclusions, reduces the probability of them matching... As I showed you, even a 50/50 of your 50 items creates astronomical odds AGAINST them being the same

So Jim.... btw, this is not personal Jim... this is black and white mathematics... argue the MATH, not the messenger.

The ONLY WAY to prove that the matching approaches a 100% probability is to PROVE each item's 100% conclusion. to Prove YOUR OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS using subjective methods - ie photogrammetry*. until then you're pissing in the wind and just stomping around and waving your hands WANTING us to believe your EYES are better than math as well YOUR CONCLUSIONS before the experiment even begins....

"Since we know the photo has been faked...." is a conclusion, not a priori knowledge... you have to PROVE that Jim.... and you haven't. Have you computed the PROBABILITY the photo was altered? do you even know HOW to attempt that?

From what I've seen, you repeatedly massacre the realities of probability with an arrogance that is legendary. And then promote such lies as indicative of your conclusions...

but you can't fool all the people all the time.... only the sheep you hope to convince
no matter how often you lean in and speak louder hoping for comprehension of your completely wrong, childish gibberish.

Talk to ANY of your math friends Jim and find a clue already... your fighting to maintain that "the world is FLAT" makes you out to be a fool...
Was that your desire?



*Photogrammetry is the practice of determining the geometric properties of objects from photographic images. Photogrammetry is as old as modern photography and can be dated to the mid-nineteenth century.
In the simplest example, the distance between two points that lie on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane can be determined by measuring their distance on the image, if the scale (s) of the image is known. This is done by multiplying the measured distance by 1/s.
Algorithms for photogrammetry typically express the problem as that of minimizing the sum of the squares of a set of errors. This minimization is known as bundle adjustment and is often performed using the LevenbergMarquardt algorithm.

[Greg Burnham]

I am in no way agreeing with anything you just cited. I referenced that link to show only your continued display of odd thinking. I am of the opinion that the 9/11 official story is flawed, but also that the truth lies nowhere near what you and others (even those with whom you disagree) allege. I hope others visit that link NOT to agree with anyone posting there, but rather to observe the similarity in styles. It is eerily similar to watching you and Ralph Cinque feign an argument with Albert(s) Doyle.

So Greg is finally coming out of the closet and agreeing with Alfred about DARPA "Jump Rooms", time travel, and Barack Obama having traveled to Mars with Andrew Basiago, where they were nearly eaten by carnivorous Plesiousaurs?

"Now it can be told: The Real Reason Obama was Nearly Devoured by Carnivorous Plesiousarus on Mars" by Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/01/...s-on-mars/

Webre and Basiago think the Loch Ness Monster is a
plesiosaur, and that carnivorous martian plesiosaurs devour humans who teleport to Mars in CIA "jump rooms"

"The Vancouver Hearings: Subversion from Within" by Jim Fetzer and Don Fox
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/09/...om-within/

"Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD: 9/11 Disinfo Op?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/21/...isinfo-op/

Signs of "difficulty" are abundant with Fetzer. Not only in JFK research, but elsewhere, as well. That is not to say that his over all conclusions are necessarily incorrect, just that his means to arrive at said conclusions are rife
with ill conceived notions, poorly reasoned argumentation, and too conveniently positioned spells of apparent mental deficiency to be legitimate.

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground...39076.html

[James H. Fetzer]

They opportunistically sized on the presence of a man in a checkered shirt in the vicinity of the doorway and pretended that he was Lovelady, even though he looks nothing like him. They used him in footage taken in the DPD when Oswald was taken through to be booked, but anyone who compares them will see that, while Lovelady had a normal (even slightly flat) facial profile, this guy--who is much heavier than Billy and who was busting out of his shirt--looked like a gorilla. We have done a great deal of research on this matter, Albert, but you appear to be familiar with none of it. Try "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!", which you can find in this very thread on page 31, which includes comparisons such as the following, which I would like to believe will convince you they are not the same man:




You have misunderstood the logic of the situation, which I will explain again. We have two options: Doorman was Oswald or Doorman was Lovelady. We have advanced multiple proofs that the features of Doorman, including of his shirt, are overwhelmingly the same as those of Oswald and his shirt. Call this the "direct argument". We have also shown that the features of Doorman, including of his shirt, are overwhelmingly different from those of Lovelady. Call this the "indirect argument". If Doorman was not Lovelady, then Doorman was Oswald. And if Lovelady was wearing the red-and-white vertically striped shirt he told the FBI he was wearing then OF COURSE he was not Doorman, since Doorman is not wearing a red-and-white vertically striped shirt.

It is only because the government has claimed that this man in the checkered shirt was Lovelady that there is anything to talk about. But as you can see, their profiles (Lovelady's and the checkered shirt man's) are completely different, as I have already explained. It is rather fascinating (and more than a little revealing) that the collage that appears on McAdams' web site includes both the fake Lovelady and the real Lovelady, because the attempt is being made to convey the impression that they are the same person, when they clearly are not. Here is the image from, "Was Oswald in the Doorway of the Depository at the time of the JFK Assassination?", of John McAdams, perhaps the world's leading proponent of the long-discredited Warren Report:



This appeared to be striking confirmation that Oswald's reply to Fritz had been true. After all, surely the only reason to have altered this photo would have been because someone was there who should not have been there. While I initially believed that the obfuscated face was that of Lee Oswald, our research has supported the alternative hypothesis that it was instead Bill Shelley, no doubt because, if Shelley was in the doorway, that lends credence to Oswald's statement that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Harold Weisberg, WHITEWASH II (1966), who was not a part of our research on the Altgens photo, of course, has confirmed that the commission was very ginger about handling this question, which it did in an oblique way, where, as he explains, they were concerned that it would come out that Billy was wearing the red-and-white vertically striped shirt--which was also short sleeved!

I believe you are sincere, Albert, so if you have more questions, please let me know. I recommend that you obtain WHITEWASH II to read Chapters 13 and 16 at your first opportunity.

Albert,

Why would Lovelady go to the FBI and show them a red-and-white, vertically striped, short-sleeved shirt and tell them that it was the shirt he was wearing on 22 November 1963 IF THAT WAS NOT TRUE? You don't seem to have noticed that the man in the checkered shirt DOES NOT LOOK LIKE BILLY LOVELADY AT ALL. I am sorry, Albert, I have been trying to be kind. You have no understanding of this case at all--not even remotely! Give yourself an break and get out of the kitchen. It's too hot! You are persisting in making yourself look incredibly stupid. I'm trying to spare you.

Jim

That's an awfully thin thread to hang your theory on and also violates some of the logical precepts you often tout. The logical flaw in what you write is the invalid premise that since Lovelady wore the striped shirt to the FBI photo session that therefore it must have been the shirt he wore that day. But if you look at what you wrote you never really made any attempt to answer the main question. That question was why, if Lovelady had worn that shirt that day, would CIA forge-in another plaid shirt in all the other photographs of him that day at the Depository? Dr Fetzer, you don't hesitate to offer an unlimited Pandora's Box of other claims of bizarre coordination of alteration and reasons for it yet when it comes to why Lovelady wore the striped shirt to the FBI session you simply state that it must have been the shirt and that we are to accept this simple explanation despite all that counters it. In the end your answer is woefully inadequate and stands in stark contrast to the complex level of explanations you give in virtually every other instance of evidence regarding the doorway. In effect, what we have here is you offering one of the most bizarrely contrived theories in Assassination history on one hand yet then turning around and trying to ask us to believe Lovelady wore that shirt because it was the shirt he wore that day - despite the myriad of evidence showing otherwise. You then offhandedly refer to a lengthy Cinque-based theory as justification of this without realizing Dr Cinque is one of the most uncredible, blindly ignorant jesters to ever cross the Assassination threshold. And his logic is some of the most childish, idiotic, and laughable material to ever be offered seriously at the Assassination docket. No, you and your carnival-style contempt and reckless defensiveness are well across the line of credible Assassination material and need to be publicly disowned by the Assassination community. You are a very dangerous person because your insane insistence on wack theories is now a serious threat to the entire research community and will be used to dismiss the entire field by those with an evil interest to do so. Congratulations Dr Fetzer, you have now succeeded, whether by insanity or ill-intent, in lowering yourself to the level of other infamous Judases and scoundrels who brought shame upon both themselves and those who they pretend to represent.


After reviewing your classic overload of rubbish information I've concluded you've failed to answer why CIA would have forged a different shirt over Lovelady if he had indeed worn the striped shirt that day on the steps of the Depository. There's no logical reason for them to do that, therefore you forfeit both your theory and credibility. Assassination research is serious business Dr Fetzer. Violate it in contempt at your own risk, but don't shrug-off the consequences.

[James H. Fetzer]

What could be a more glaring illustration of your complete incompetence at research than for you to cite a rubbish attack on me for having exposed Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD. who attempted to subvert The Vancouver Hearings. You did not bother to figure out the issues, much less who was right and who was wrong, which has been your pattern here. You have no idea about this because you are utterly incompetent. And where are your answers to my questions? Do you think you can fake your way through those, too? You are simply disgracing yourself, again and again.

I am in no way agreeing with anything you just cited. I referenced that link to show only your continued display of odd thinking. I am of the opinion that the 9/11 official story is flawed, but also that the truth lies nowhere near what you and others (even those with whom you disagree) allege. I hope others visit that link NOT to agree with anyone posting there, but rather to observe the similarity in styles. It is eerily similar to watching you and Ralph Cinque feign an argument with Albert(s) Doyle.

So Greg is finally coming out of the closet and agreeing with Alfred about DARPA "Jump Rooms", time travel, and Barack Obama having traveled to Mars with Andrew Basiago, where they were nearly eaten by carnivorous Plesiousaurs?

"Now it can be told: The Real Reason Obama was Nearly Devoured by Carnivorous Plesiousarus on Mars" by Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/01/...s-on-mars/

Webre and Basiago think the Loch Ness Monster is a
plesiosaur, and that carnivorous martian plesiosaurs devour humans who teleport to Mars in CIA "jump rooms"

"The Vancouver Hearings: Subversion from Within" by Jim Fetzer and Don Fox
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/09/...om-within/

"Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD: 9/11 Disinfo Op?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/21/...isinfo-op/

Signs of "difficulty" are abundant with Fetzer. Not only in JFK research, but elsewhere, as well. That is not to say that his over all conclusions are necessarily incorrect, just that his means to arrive at said conclusions are rife
with ill conceived notions, poorly reasoned argumentation, and too conveniently positioned spells of apparent mental deficiency to be legitimate.

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground...39076.html

[Greg Burnham]

Again, Fetzer is not chasing windmills, indeed he is attempting to slay them! That he is dueling with a contrived adversary, in the form of "Albert(s) Doyle" is either pathological or operational.

I can't decide which one I prefer. Either way it is disruptive.

Get the B-52's in the air, scramble the fighters, and advise the White House...

[James H. Fetzer]

So I guess you think no one will notice that you have not responded to my questions from post #472? What's wrong with you? They are simple questions:



Given this Groden copy, please affirm or deny the following questions:

(1) the face of a man in the Altgens6 has been obfuscated: YES or NO

(2) the shoulder of Doorman is missing, completely gone: YES or NO

(3) the Black Tie Man is both in front of and behind him: YES or NO

(4) the profile of a black man appears around mid-torso: YES or NO

Based upon your knowledge of the Fritz notes from his interrogation:

(5) Lee told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front": YES or NO

Based upon your knowledge of the FBI document and photographs:

(6) Billy told the FBI he was wearing a different shirt: YES or NO

(7) Billy showed the FBI the shirt he had been wearing: YES or NO

(8) It was a red-and-white, vertically striped shirt: YES or NO

(9) It is not the shirt that Doorman is wearing: YES or NO

You aren't leaving a lot of latitude for choice about your conduct here. Either you are unwilling to admit you are wrong or you are completely incompetent.

Again, Fetzer is not chasing windmills, indeed he is attempting to slay them! That he is dueling with a contrived adversary, in the form of "Albert(s) Doyle" is either pathological or operational.

I can't decide which one I prefer. Either way it is disruptive.

Get the B-52's in the air, scramble the fighters, and advise the White House...