Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Leaving TSBD?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

PM raises both hands in the animation and as I said - I know of no adult that needs to drink from a cup with both hands - that is something toddlers do a lot. I still think it is highly probable that PM took LBJ's photo when his car turned the corner and then lowered it after getting the pic.

To me it looks as if, though both hands get raised, the right hand rises more than the left hand does...

... as an alternative as to what is being held, I offer up it being a cup and saucer...

... maybe there was a wee cheeky biscuit on the saucer too. lol ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

... maybe there was a wee cheeky biscuit on the saucer too. lol ;)

Beaaa Haaaa Haa'

I love all your posts Alistair, this one made me bust a gut!

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

To me it looks as if, though both hands get raised, the right hand rises more than the left hand does...

... as an alternative as to what is being held, I offer up it being a cup and saucer...

... maybe there was a wee cheeky biscuit on the saucer too. lol ;)

Yes, the right hand going up is discernible but I didn't see the left hand.  I might need to study this more over tea and biscuits. :P

Edited by Gerry Simone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

A solid 5'9" I would say.

 

Guilty as charged!  (Thank you very much - now do we have something or Billy Lovelady?  I do have one of Harold Weisberg's book Whitewash which covers the BL issue, but it's stored in a box right now. He may have something in there about Lovelady's height.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

Guilty as charged!  (Thank you very much - now do we have something or Billy Lovelady?  I do have one of Harold Weisberg's book Whitewash which covers the BL issue, but it's stored in a box right now. He may have something in there about Lovelady's height.)

I have been kicking myself the past couple of days as I have been searching my files to see if I could find that info because it wasn't a couple of weeks ago that someone I was chatting on facebook with had attached Lovelady's height information. I have not found it yet, but it seems to me that he was 5'7" or 5'8". What I do remember was that he was shorter than Oswald.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

Guilty as charged!  (Thank you very much - now do we have something or Billy Lovelady?  I do have one of Harold Weisberg's book Whitewash which covers the BL issue, but it's stored in a box right now. He may have something in there about Lovelady's height.)

It was Robin who had this document ... he sent it to me again ...............  This was how I knew for certain that PM wasn't tall enough to be Oswald. To think that all the smack talk about PM being Lee was just nonsense.

Billy%20L%20height_zpsrlpguvfx.jpg

FBI_memo_zpsyzwbco2s.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

It was Robin who had this document ... he sent it to me again ...............  This was how I knew for certain that PM wasn't tall enough to be Oswald. To think that all the smack talk about PM being Lee was just nonsense.

Billy%20L%20height_zpsrlpguvfx.jpg

FBI_memo_zpsyzwbco2s.jpg

Thanks for your last two responses.  You're a scholar and a gentleman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

Thanks for your last two responses.  You're a scholar and a gentleman!

I wouldn't go that far.   :)      

However, the more we look at Prayer Man - the more we start finding out that there are plenty of reasons why he could not be Oswald. And those reasons do not need for us to call all the witnesses liars or conspirators in wanting to hide Lee's innocence. We start to understand why Buell Frazier wasn't able to say that he was standing next to LHO as the motorcade passed by.  Prayer Man was simply not Lee Oswald.

I have often said that anyone can make something out of nothing when using such poor faceless images. His height compared to others around him - his mid-section looking rather well fed were red flags. It was true that we couldn't see if Prayer Man had Oswald's face, but there were other comparisons that could be made with the information we had to work with. In the end it was Occams Razor that stands tall. The simplest theory that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities teaches us an important lesson and reminds us that it is a tool that should be introduced more often in our search for the truth. 

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I wouldn't go that far.   :)      

However, the more we look at Prayer Man - the more we start finding out that there are plenty of reasons why he could not be Oswald. And those reasons do not need for us to call all the witnesses liars or conspirators in wanting to hide Lee's innocence. We start to understand why Buell Frazier wasn't able to say that he was standing next to LHO as the motorcade passed by.  Prayer Man was simply not Lee Oswald.

I have often said that anyone can make something out of nothing when using such poor faceless images. His height compared to others around him - his mid-section looking rather well fed were red flags. It was true that we couldn't see if Prayer Man had Oswald's face, but there were other comparisons that could be made with the information we had to work with. In the end it was Occams Razor that stands tall. The simplest theory that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities teaches us an important lesson and reminds us that it is a tool that should be introduced more often in our search for the truth. 

Thank you, but I don't think this is a case about Occam's Razor since we aren't talking about two competing theories for the same explanation here (sometimes Occam's Razor is stated for the Rule of Parsimony as in the simplest explanation or solution to a problem is the correct one).

Occam's Razor can be applied to the SBT (to me, it takes too any assumptions to make it viable such that the alternative explanation that CE 399 was likely a plant is more plausible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

Thank you, but I don't think this is a case about Occam's Razor since we aren't talking about two competing theories for the same explanation here (sometimes Occam's Razor is stated for the Rule of Parsimony as in the simplest explanation or solution to a problem is the correct one).

Occam's Razor can be applied to the SBT (to me, it takes too any assumptions to make it viable such that the alternative explanation that CE 399 was likely a plant is more plausible).

When one breaks down the evidence by studying the Zapruder film frame by frame along with Conally's  statement - not to mention the near pristine condition of 399 - Occams Razor in my view points away from the SBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

When one breaks down the evidence by studying the Zapruder film frame by frame along with Conally's  statement - not to mention the near pristine condition of 399 - Occams Razor in my view points away from the SBT.

I agree 100%, as too many assumptions or conditions are required.

(BTW, Occams Razor is not a legal principle nor is it a substitute for evidence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

I agree 100%, as too many assumptions or conditions are required.

(BTW, Occams Razor is not a legal principle nor is it a substitute for evidence).

The way I see it ... Occam's Razor is a principle that says that if a handful of witnesses standing on the TSBD stairway claim they did not see Oswald as the shots rang out - then one should consider they are telling the truth before believing they all, as well as others, all joined into a conspiracy to allow Oswald to take the blame for a murder they knew he did not do.  :)

Definition of Occam's razor

  1. :  a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

The way I see it ... Occam's Razor is a principle that says that if a handful of witnesses standing on the TSBD stairway claim they did not see Oswald as the shots rang out - then one should consider they are telling the truth before believing they all, as well as others, all joined into a conspiracy to allow Oswald to take the blame for a murder they knew he did not do.  :)

Definition of Occam's razor

  1. :  a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Not sure if you're applying your definition of OR to your example for Prayer Man.  I think what you're referring to, is the evolved version of OR, which is the Law of Parsimony.

See => http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html => the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity.

To begin with, we used Occam's razor to separate theories that would predict the same result for all experiments.  Now we are trying to choose between theories that make different predictions.  This is not what Occam intended. 

What OR should be => The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Example for OR:   Prediction or result => The wounding of JFK & JBC      Competing Hypotheses => SBT or Conspiracy    Choice using OR => Conspiracy (or separate shooters)

However, when explaining Prayer Man, I can't apply OR but I think I can use the Law of Parsimony: 

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

Example for Law of Parsimony or Rule of Simplicity:

Phenomenon or Explanation 1. => Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Assumption or explanation => A bunch of people are lying or equally coerced into silence forever, that only the photo blur makes him look bigger and shorter, that when he said he was out with Shelley at the front, it meant the same time as the extant films or photo, etc., etc.

Phenomenon or Explanation 2. => Prayer Man is not Lee Harvey Oswald.

Assumption or explanation => Nobody saw him there because he was elsewhere.

Correct Answer under the LOP => Prayer Man is someone else other than LHO.

 

P.S.  I'm not arguing against Prayer Man above (I haven't ruled out PM as Oswald yet).

Edited by Gerry Simone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

Not sure if you're applying your definition of OR to your example for Prayer Man.  I think what you're referring to, is the evolved version of OR, which is the Law of Parsimony.

See => http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html => the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity.

To begin with, we used Occam's razor to separate theories that would predict the same result for all experiments.  Now we are trying to choose between theories that make different predictions.  This is not what Occam intended. 

What OR should be => The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Example for OR:   Prediction or result => The wounding of JFK & JBC      Competing Hypotheses => SBT or Conspiracy    Choice using OR => Conspiracy (or separate shooters)

However, when explaining Prayer Man, I can't apply OR but I think I can use the Law of Parsimony: 

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

Example for Law of Parsimony or Rule of Simplicity:

Phenomenon or Explanation 1. => Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald.

Assumption or explanation => A bunch of people are lying or equally coerced into silence forever, that only the photo blur makes him look bigger and shorter, that when he said he was out with Shelley at the front, it meant the same time as the extant films or photo, etc., etc.

Phenomenon or Explanation 2. => Prayer Man is not Lee Harvey Oswald.

Assumption or explanation => Nobody saw him there because he was elsewhere.

Correct Answer under the LOP => Prayer Man is someone else other than LHO.

 

P.S.  I'm not arguing against Prayer Man above (I haven't ruled out PM as Oswald yet).

My use of Occams Razor applied to the single question as to whether Oswald was standing next to Frazier or not around the time of the shooting. I had two choices - one was to believe Frazier when he said he had not seen Lee during the parade because Lee wasn't really standing outside the main entrance to the TSBD beside him or Frazier didn't mention seeing Lee outside the main entrance to the TSBD because he was immediately intimidated/threatened by sinister individuals who not only got to him, but others as well, to frame Lee as Kennedy's killer.

I found that the simplest of the two competing theories made more sense than believing that so many witnesses conspired to frame an innocent man while not caring that the real killer(s) of the President went free.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone here brought to my attention the following statement by a guy named Doyle -  " ............ Miller has now stolen my height argument without attribution ................. over on the Education Forum with it. That's pretty dirty and dishonest."

For the record - I do not know "Doyle", nor am I aware of his thoughts on the JFK assassination. If he has said the same thing as I, then all I can say is that we agree that PM is too short to be Oswald. Until coming back to the ED forum - I had never heard of Prayer Man. The equation I used in my inquiry was simple ....... If Prayer Man = Oswald, then Prayer Man should be taller than Lovelady when both are standing on the landing atop of the stairs leading into the TSBD. I then laid out how I reached my conclusion. At best - my conclusion may have been the same as someone named Doyle and counless other researchers who have looked into this matter.

I see no stroke of genius on my part in the way I approached this. It was as simple as checking if 2 + 2 = 4 - then 4 - 2 = 2. I also don't know the name of the first person was who ever came up with this method of checking one's work, but I am reasonably certain that it was established long before Mr. Doyle was born. I can say there were three JFK Assassination researchers who I sought information from so to apply the method I chose to use and none of them were named Doyle. I will add that there were two other things that I looked at in this inquiry and one was the hairline on the right side of PM's head and the physical appearance of of him compared to Lee Oswald on the day of the assassination. I don't know if Mr. Doyle looked at this as well, nor do I know who was the first investigator on record who ever thought to compare physical appearances of suspects to one another.

So I wish to say thanks to all those people who assisted me which would include the person who typed the report that detailed Lovelady's height - the individuals who took the photos of Oswald's measured height - those researchers who supplied me with the information I had requested - the individual who built the laptop I used to type my posting - the person(s) who created the software for me to apply images to my post - the individual who came up with the method on how to check one's work - and all those who are responsible for there being a forum where I and others can work together on these various issues. And last but not least - I wish to give credit to any and all petty glory seekers who I was not aware of that feel they deserve credit for any findings mirroring their own.  :)

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...