Greg Burnham

I don't get it. Every assertion, such as "Romney will not win the nomination", could be construed as ABSOLUTE, merely because, by asserting it, you are ASSERTING IT TO BE TRUE. That is a completely different question than the strength of the evidence that supports it. Since the identity of the Doorway Man is an empirical question, IT CANNOT BE KNOW WITH CERTAINTY. It is a matter of probabilities and likelihoods. I have explained this before. We all agree that new evidence or alternative hypotheses might show we are wrong. Our position--that the body and shirt are those of Lee Oswald--is obviously tentative and fallible. We could be wrong, but no one has shown that we are. I haven't even suggested that you were a "brainless twit", but this song and dance might qualify.

IF "it cannot be known with certainty" THEN STOP STATING absolutes! Even Wrone, whose work on the Z-film is extremely lacking, presented his case "that it is Oswald in the doorway" as a hypothesis. He didn't say things like: "Doorway Man is wearing Oswald's shirt, therefore either Lovelady is wearing Oswald's clothes or it is Oswald in the doorway."

I know you feel that it is established that Doorway man is wearing Oswald's shirt. But, it is not established. It is a subjective interpretation of the evidence. You need not force your subjective interpretation of the photographic evidence on the world even IF you turn out to be correct.

Persuasion is an art form. It is not a contact sport.

Tink,

There are numerous examples of "questions" in this case that have been under examination from about day one. Many of those were never resolved. Some have subsequently been better understood, if not resolved. In my view, IF there was compelling evidence that had not yet been studied or had not been studied from a relevant "novel" approach, then new evidence or a new approach could possibly shed valuable insight on the case.

However, in this instance, my objection to Cinque's study is not because I am convinced it is Lovelady. It could be Lovelady. If I was asked what I believe I would say it probably is Lovelady, but I really don't know. My objection is to the presentation of the study. My objection is to the ABSOLUTENESS of the assertions. My objection is that the assertions are not well supported unless I abandon principles of, yes, critical thinking. The premises being used to bolster the argument have NOT been established, IMO.

Jim obviously feels that the premises are solid. I do not. We disagree. That he believes I am now a "brainless twit" is unfortunate. But, that is his prerogative.

This whole question has been under examination since 1964 or 1965. It's been studied to death and the conclusion has alwways been: "It was Lovelady." Is there any new angle or piece of new evidence that explains why it should be discussed now?

JT

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

Jim,

I understand that the concept was novel to you. But, the reason that these things have not been accepted isn't because they have never been studied. Also, I am not disputing that the photo is unclear. I know it is. I don't claim to know why it is unclear, but in its present state, I don't find it sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

As I said in post #411:

=======

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

======================

Also, one of the points that Michael might have been making is the fact that Ralph Cinque was NOT the first person to study the shirt of the Doorway Man. Why you insist that it is because of Cinque's "novel" approach that discovery of the discrepancies and similarities has become evident is beyond me. It is not a new study. It is another look at the same evidence.

Well, David Josephs and Michael Hogan, not to mention Ricard Hocking and Don Jeffries, have all made important comments on this debate. So tell me: Which premises do you deny because of your lack of certainty about them? And which of the rest of the argument would be convincing to you, if only you could accept those premises, in particular?

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

Thanks for the well reasoned and civil response, Jim.

You said:

"Because he came at this with a fresh perspective and the background of someone who deals with bodies all the time, he got it right!"

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling.

Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO.

David,

IF Altgens was altered--and I am neither convinced that it was or was not--but, IF it was, then there are several factors to consider, some of which are NOT necessarily obvious.

I agree with you that it would have been a "simpler" solution to add Oswald to a photo of the 6th floor--IF--framing him for the crime was their ONLY (or their most important) goal.

But, what if an equally--if not more--important goal was to cause: confusion, infighting, the chasing of red herrings, mis-direction, doubt, fear, cognitive dissonance, and myriad other psyops "effects" that serve a more long term goal? If true, then we must look at the subject of alteration with a different eye altogether. For instance, the topic of Z-film alteration has led, understandably, to some skeptics asking the legitimate question: "If the conspirators altered the film why did they leave in some of the most damaging evidence, such as, the "back and to the left" motion that clearly indicates a shot from the front?" That question is similar in nature to the one you raised.

Again, sometimes motivations are not as obvious or "simple" as all of that. The events in Dealey Plaza, in my view, were not just the murder of the president, a coup, and a frame-up of a patsy so the perps could get away with it. It was much more than that.

It was psychological warfare on a very deep level perpetrated against the sovereignty of the PEOPLE of the United States. I believe that the perpetrators were fully capable of completely covering up this crime to the point of it being Case Closed--accepted by everyone--within a few months.

IMHO:

THAT the official story is still being doubted by the vast majority of Americans is by DESIGN.

Although I don't qualify as a "heavyweight" still I regret any appearance of bickering to which I have been a party. That was not my intent.

.

Cinque on chin shadows (and I am simply posting for Ralph; the issue was settled long ago, in my opinion; and I can't believe you are still trading in certainty, when I have explained that no empirical knowledge is certain, which makes your position a blatant straw man by imposing a standard of proof no empirical knowledge can satisfy):

Are you kidding me, Jim! I am trading in certainty? Me? No, I am responding to the ABSOLUTE claims of certainty being advanced by Cinque. Recrimination will not work here.

Cinque says in his very last post to me:

CINQUE: "The shirt on Doorman's back is Oswald's, and that means he was Oswald. And that trumps any eye-witness testimony."

Now, THAT is the language of one who is trading in certainty!

And you can knock off the condescending attitude as though you are "teaching me" something I didn't already know about the limitations of empirical knowledge. Indeed, if Cinque, and you by extension, would refrain from making ABSOLUTE claims, as above, we would not even be disagreeing here at all!

...

Cinque replies to Burnham (but I do agree that an empirical hypothesis can also be defeated by new evidence, should it be undermined thereby, as the requirement of total evidence implies; and I do like the colorizing, which is a nice touch even though the original is not a color photo and its weight may therefore remain open to debate):

Greg, I know you're attracted to flashing colors, but take a look at that light show again, and try to find the point of his shoulder. Shoulders have outermost "points," and we should be able to see the point of his shoulder, but it is missing. It's like it's been shaved off.

And don't you know that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable? Why do you think so many death row inmates have been released due to DNA evidence? It's because eye-witnesses were wrong.

The Altgens photo shows very well that the Doorman was Oswald. He's wearing Oswald's outer shirt. He's wearing Oswald's t-shirt. And he's got Oswald's build.

Here are three right collars: Doorman's, Oswald's, and Lovelady's. You can see that Doorman's and Oswald's match perfectly, with the collar and the natural curling over of the material beneath the collar into a small pseudo-lapel. On Lovelady, what you see is a rigid pressing over of the material that in no way matches the other two.

The shirt on Doorman's back is Oswald's, and that means he was Oswald. And that trumps any eye-witness testimony.

Doorman's right cuff-lapel:

That you are discounting eyewitness testimony is interesting given the amount of weight that Fetzer has always given it prior to his relationship with you. Fetzer has always insisted that eyewitness testimony, particularly that which is corroborated by other reliable eyewitnesses and is given soon after the event being reported, should not be discounted out of hand. Moreover, he has often posted names of those who claim that the limousine stopped and used the list as a proof or at least as a strong indicator that the Zapruder film was altered. He has repeatedly posted a rather large list of all of the medical personnel at Parkland who reported a blow out to the rear of the head, etc.

Now, IF the Altgens was of higher quality given the rather small area with which we are dealing, then perhaps it would constitute enough new evidence to raise a question as to the reliability of multiple eyewitness' testimony. As it is, it does not persuade. Your burden of proof is not that low under these circumstances. I am not moving goal posts or changing the height of the bar.

And before you make the claim, let me say again: Your analysis of this photograph does NOT constitute physical evidence. It is not DNA evidence.

I should re-iterate my stance: ALTGENS 6 provides insufficient data to determine with certainty the claims that are being advanced by Cinque. Also, it provides insufficient data to determine with certainty the alternate claims being advanced by others.

CONCLUSION:

ALTGENS 6 cannot be used to determine the identity of the Doorway Man. Beyond that we must rely on eyewitness testimony. All eyewitnesses identified the individual in the doorway as LOVELADY. Even his own wife stated it was LOVELADY.

Now, perhaps it was not Lovelady, and it was Oswald. However, the evidence presented in support of that assertion does not persuade. The photographic image is INSUFFICIENT of itself to make a judgment that would over turn the evidence in support of the man being Lovelady.

Jim,

Are you simply repeating everything this guy is feeding you?

Are you actually thinking critically about his claims before you are posting them? If so: WOW.

I see what Craig is describing--at least as clearly, if not more clearly, than what this guy is attempting to describe.

Hey, and I still don't even like Lamson at all!

...

I have only agreed with Lamson twice in my life. This is one of those times.

I withdraw from this debate. I concede exasperation.

Jim,

I don't believe you have lost your way. I know that I have not lost mine. However, I disagree with your INITIAL conclusions. That's it. Don't get mad. The problem I have with your reasoning (again, don't get mad--listen up) is that some of your premises are not yet established. You are not allowed to be the sole judge of your own work! The problem is that "not yet proved" conclusions have become yet new premises upon which you have built your overall conclusion (LHO is seen in Altgens because he was standing on the steps). So, even if it turns out that LHO was where you claim he was, your argument in support of that assertion does not persuade.

You see, the actual topic of this thread has become a side issue at this stage. We haven't even gotten there yet. We can't go there until we address some unresolved assertions.

The conclusions (become premises) with which I disagree include the following:

"The quality of the Altgens (altered or not) is sufficient to impart enough information to make a definitive determination of, including but not limited to...", the following:

a) its authenticity *

b ) facial details

c) clothing detail, beyond the general

d) the "slightness or stockiness" of build of the subject

e) the shape of the T-shirt's collar

f) the status of the pocket

g) the shape of the outer shirt

h) the pattern of the outer shirt

* This is a big one. Authenticity. Even if--indeed, especially if--you're right and the Altgens has been altered, then it is--by definition--UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE! It is very probably INADMISSABLE for use in this manner, as it would be self impeaching.

Now, granted, IF the Altgens is provably altered, then THAT'S your story! You don't need anything more. IF it is that OBVIOUS then run with that. Because building a case that you can positively identify an individual in a PROVABLY faked photograph will not fly--nor should it.

...

Monk

Thanks for the comments.

I know that you would not have posted what you did WITHOUT good reason.

I was also a member on Rich's forum.

Rich and others like Bernice new that i was not an Alterationist, but they always treated me respectfully, as i did with them.

You're welcome, Robin. And thank you for your good work. You have always seemed to be "about the evidence" and not

inclined to pass judgments on people no matter if their opinions differed from your own. You have shared evidence even

when it tended to support an opposing view. I call that fair minded and honest.

Speaking of alteration...the MAIN reason I know the Z-film was altered is only because of what I witnessed. I would not be

nearly as sure as I am without that experience. So, I understand the skepticism. There are few things that I am similarly that

convinced of because I don't have the luxury of first hand knowledge. Still, the blur issues seem compelling. But, that is a

different topic.

Based on his posts both here and at Rich's forum, Greg Burnham is a class act.

Anyone that places enough value on integrity, honesty, intelligence and, yes, truth would be proud to call Greg their friend. Of that I'm sure.

Thanks Mike. You are very kind.

Monk,

What's going on with you? Neither Ralph nor I have ever suggested that Lovelady was not there! (SNIP)

I understand that you didn't suggest Lovelady was not there. I didn't say that you did. I am saying, HYPOTHETICALLY that IF it was determined that Lovelady needed to be right where Doorway Man is standing in order for him to have witnessed the limo stop--and hypothetically IF testimony was found from Lovelady in which he stated he witnessed the limo stop, THEN would you abandon this exercise in "photo analysis" and defer to his statement that he was Doorway man based on the fact that he said he saw the limo stop? This is an important question and one that I fully expect you to ignore. But, that is essentially how you came to the conclusion that Louis Witt was Umbrella Man. Up until your having found out that Witt's testimony to the HSCA included witnessing the limo stop you were rather convinced that TUM was Hargraves and DCM was Santiago. Indeed, you argued that their features were altered in order to obscure their identity, but it was "highly probable" that TUM was Hargraves and DCM was Hargraves' long time Cuban associate, Santiago. Well, that is a lot of "highly probables" to abandon. I understand and allow for the modification of beliefs based on the introduction of new evidence. But, your presentation of hypotheses is not consistent with fallibility. It comes across as pontification. It is offensive, rude, beligerent, and ill received. And when, in the final analysis, you prove to yourself that you were mistaken, you fail to see, let alone acknowledge, the serious etiquette blunder.

(snip) And the point I was making about Umbrella Man, which I explained to you several times over the phone, is that if Tink is right about Witt having been the Umbrella Man, then, since Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, he has thereby defeated his own arguments for Zapruder film authenticy--just as he has done before in endorsing Gary Aguliar's chapter in MURDER (2000), which confirms the blow out in the back of the head, which is not visible in the early frames where it should be visible (though it can be seen in frame 374). Or is this another case where you deny the obvious?

I understand your point about Tink's blunder and I agree with you on that point. However, you are so busy pointing out his blunder that you fail to see your own!

The Altgens has been altered, which I demonstrated in an earlier post.

Sorry, that is not proof. Now, is it possible? Absolutely. But, even I am not persuaded by your argument. Jim, you inappropriately discount the importance of PERSUASION in making your arguments. The burden is on YOU to persuade. The burden "to be persuaded" is not on your "audience". If you were a prosecutor in a trial in which the guilty party was found not guilty by the jury, all things being equal, who is ultimately responsible for that verdict?

Jack and I made up, Monk. But your conduct here is simply bizarre. You seem to have lost your way. I am dumbfounded.

No, you made up with Jack. He did nothing wrong to deserve your ire in the first place. My conduct here is HONEST. It is all I know.

The compromise of an otherwise man of integrity is surely a sight to behold. When an individual's ego begins to become more important than friendship, it is perhaps sad. But, when that individual's ego causes him to hide behind the guise of being engaged in a search for the truth in order to justify the dismissal of arguments for which he has no rebuttal, that is rather entertaining albeit in a disappointing way.

What if someone finds testimony where Lovelady states that he saw the limo come to a complete stop? What then? Would you then claim he must have been there to see it clearly from in front and therefore it is Lovelady and not Oswald? That's what happened with your ABSOLUTE conviction that TUM was not Louis Witt, but was instead Roy Hargraves. "Oh, he said he saw the limo come to a stop? Well, then it must be Louis Witt after all!"

That is shoddy reasoning.

In an effort to refrain from engaging in the same manner as I have witnessed you engage others in the past who have disagreed with you, I will withdraw from this debate. It serves no purpose for those of us "on the same side" of the big picture to engage in bickering amongst ourselves. It is petty and pretty pathetic.

I saw you disown your friend, Jack White, a couple of years ago because "truth comes before friendship" you said.

Jack dedicated 47 years of his life to the pursuit of truth in this matter. You are not the only dedicated seeker of truth. You are just the one with the fewest social skills and the largest ego.

Jim,

You are building upon premises that you have not proved to make your broader conclusion. THAT you claim to have proved, for instance, alteration of the ALTGENS is untrue. You may have proved it to your own satisfaction, but not to anyone else's save for that of Ralph Cinque. Until that premise is accepted as established it is fallacious to build to conclusions that rely upon its accuracy.

Earlier in the thread you said:

-- "The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is

approximately zero." --

Now, I agree that IF (it was proved that) ALTGENS is altered THEN it would have been

deliberately done and for a VERY GOOD reason, indeed. However, the burden of

proof THAT Altgens was altered has not been satisfied. You might think that it

has, but....

If you are conducting this debate in a vacuum with not a care as to whether or

not anyone else is ever persuaded, then you should carry on the way you are.

However, what is the point to such a self involved exercise?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, in this case, and assume you are

correct, the fact remains WHO CARES IF YOU ARE CORRECT IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE

OF PERSUADING ANYONE ELSE?

Discovery of the truth should benefit humanity or else it is not worthwhile. You

behave as a stubborn, egotistical man, Jim. It gets in the way of you seeing your

own shortcomings, which may have nothing at all to do with logic.

BTW: Attacking me personally is ad hominem, ugly, and discredits you.

Best frame I could find.

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

Who is the fellow in the cowboy hat--and has someone identified any (or perhaps all) of these people?

Thanks.

DSL

I was thinking the man in the hat might be Ochus Campbell, VP of the TSBD.

I think that is correct, Pat.

OCHUS V. CAMPBELL, 7120 Twin Lakes Lane, Dallas, Texas, furnished the following information:

He is the Vice President of the Texas School Book Depository Company, with offices located on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas.

On November 22, 1963, he was present at his office at the above named building and at about 12:30 PM on that day, he and several other associates were together stationed about 30 feet in front of this building facing away from the building observing the passing motorcade containing President KENNEDY. At this time, he heard a loud report, which at first he considered to be a fire cracker or some object set off by a crank and believed the noise came from away from his building. This illusion, he explained, may have been due to the sound bouncing off the building and other objects in the vicinity. After hearing two more such reports, he realized they must have been rifle shots and since President KENNEDY's car had advanced just out of his vision, he went forward a few feet to observe this automobile, inasmuch as he feared that the rifle shots were in connection with an attempt upon President KENNEDY's life. He then observed the car bearing President KENNEDY to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the scene. He then immediately rushed into his building without having seen anything unusual from any window of his building. Inside he was told shortly thereafter by the warehouse superintendent, Mr. TRULY, that all the employees of the company had been rounded up and one employee, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, was missing.

Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, bearing New Orleans, Louisiana No. 112 723, and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he is not personally aquainted with him and has never seen him. He advised that he has always given Mr. TRULY the responsibility for hiring employees for the warehouse.

on 11/24/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

By Special Agent EDWARD C. HARDIL & PAUL L. SCOTT Date Dictated 11/24/63

Thank you, David. Effort only goes so far, though. The Art of Persuasion is King...

This is embarrassing. How would you know you were eating an orange if you could not see it, feel it, taste it? But it is possible you are only having an especially vivid dream. Philosophers have acknowledge the logical uncertainty of even our direct experiences since Descartes, so you are really missing the boat, BIG TIME! Your fixation on certainty is entirely misplaced. No empirical knowledge is certain. We are dealing with likelihoods and probabilities. I have explained all of this in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". Just read the first few sections and you might obtain a better idea how this works. The probability that the Altgens would be altered for no good reason is approximately zero. The only good reason for altering it would be if someone were there in the crowd who should not have been. The only candidate for that role is Lee Oswald. One figure has both its face and its shirt obfuscated. Surely that is because otherwise they would have given the game away. That person must have been Lovelady, where the upper part of his face has been transferred to Doorway Man, just as Lee's face was transferred onto Backyard Man. The shirt is Oswald's. So unless Billy was wearing Lee's shirt, Lee was in the doorway. There is no better explanation for the available evidence. But none of this is certain.

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

—William K. Clifford (1879)

I was the first guest on Black Op Radio. I met Len through the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty.

Len and I have been friends and collaborators for 15 years. Although I have my issues with Jim DiEugenio, I'm certain that Len is not in Jim's "chokehold" at all.

As for Seamus Coogan. Yes, well that is interesting. I am assured that his caustic style is due to his being from New Zealand. However, the jury is still out on that one. I've been to New Zealand several times. I have friends in New Zealand. I have yet to meet any other Kiwi with such a vitriolic tendency.

That said: Welcome to the forum, I guess...

One more comment:

Perhaps you are right James Fetzer. It is not technically a circular argument to claim that "I know it is a Vee-neck because it looks like a Vee-neck."

But, what is the fallacy in that argument, Jim? C'mon, you know what it is. I can cite it for you if you would like, but you already KNOW what it is!

The key word in the assertion is "KNOW" -- as in: I AM CERTAIN.

I am certain it is an angel in the sky because it looks like an angel in the sky! It looks like an angel in the sky and therefore it IS an angel in the sky!

What's that you say? Those are clouds? No...no, no, no, no, no--I have studied it with FOCUSED OBSERVATION and those are not clouds. Those are angels.

NOTE TO MONK FROM JIM: No, Monk. It is not circular to say that you know something is a vee-neck (an orange, an elephant) BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A VEE-NECK (AN ORANGE, AN ELEPHANT).

That is weak AND YOU KNOW IT--

LOGIC DOES NOT LOSE CONTEXT!

My "fake dog" is still a fake dog even though you couldn't tell from FOCUSED OBSERVATION! Claiming otherwise is total rubbish. If you took a photograph of my fake dog you would not be able to tell if it was fake or not! Making claims that it was either real or fake with certainty are both equally erroneous positions if there is compelling evidence to the contrary in either or both scenarios. In such an instance, the only HONEST statement is that the evidence is unsettled.

I do not know who is in the doorway. But, the arguments that Cinque, and now you by extension, are promoting are beneath your intellectual capacity. To be fair, those who claim that it is Lovelady with absolute certainty are also over extending what they can possibly know.