Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An assessment of the HSCA anthropologists
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
Apr 28, 2013, 10:21:50 AM4/28/13
to
Let's look closely at the work of the HSCA anthropologists. Were they honest brokers? No, they were not: not even close.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscalove.htm
The above link is how the HSCA wrote up their results.
First, note how they were described. They were described as "the board of forensic anthropologists" of the "photographic evidence panel." But, were they photo experts or anthropologists? They were anthropologists. They had no training in photo analysis whatsoever.
Second, they spoke of examining multiple images of Oswald and Lovelady, but they also made it clear that they relied mostly on one of Oswald's arrest pictures, and the one image of Young Lovelady, and both of those images were flipped images.
http://tinypic.com/r/4sjoxx/5
It seems doubtful to me that taking minute measurements from photographs would be at all accurate. That's because we are talking about human anatomy, and the very process of converting that anatomy from a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional image involves distortion. Also, in this case, they relied on a current image of Oswald and an earlier image of Lovelady. Wrong, because facial anatomy changes throughout life. Here is how they described the flipped image they used of Lovelady:
FIGURE IV-70.--Billy Nolan Lovelady circa 1959-63
What a crock of bull that an image of such a young man would be given a 4-year time frame. Circa '59 to '63? This was their subtle way of claiming that the picture represented how Lovelady looked in 1963. It didn't:
http://tinypic.com/r/2mkk0/5
I'll point out that in the above collage, the image of Young Lovelady is properly oriented- unlike the one they used.
Furthermore, even that wide range of '59 to '63 is probably incorrect. At least, I think it's wrong. I don't think that Young Lovelady looks any older than 20 years old in that picture. He was born in 1937, so that would make the year of that photo 1957.
And, if I'm worng, maybe it was 1958, but I dare say I don't think it could have been any later than that.
But, they had the FBI photos, which were from February 1964, which was within 3 months of the assassination. So, why didn't they just use those? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
Well, they must have had a reason not to, and the reason must have related to the pre-determined outcome that they were shooting for. Relying on that earlier, outdated image of Lovelady when more recent pictures were available was totally corrupt and completely unjustified.
It is important to remember that they took NO measurements of the Doorway Man. They only took measurements of Oswald and Lovelady. They admitted that their finding for Lovelady was based entirely on a "subjective assessment" that went unspecified.
So, what was the point of taking precise measurements of Lovelady and Oswald when they weren't able to do the same for Doorman? Didn't that defeat the purpose?
The point is that it made no sense to get MATHEMATICAL about Lovelady and Oswald if you couldn't also get MATHEMATICAL about Doorman. It should have been kept the same for all three.
So, why did they get mathematical with Lovelady and Oswald? It's because it looks good to get mathematical. It looks scientific. It looks precise. It looks technical. It sells.
So, even though, according to them, the results couldn't be compared to Doorman, let's look at some of their results. I want you to see why I say they were not honest brokers.
For example, in regard to chins, they claimed that Lovelady had a longer chin than Oswald. LONGER? It's true, but the first thing that anyone with sense is going to say about a chin is the SHAPE of it. And that's what our anthropologist, Ricard Hooke, got us to look at:
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
Can you see that Oswald's chin is square, Doorman's chin is square, and Young Lovelady's chin is not square? I'll let Richard put up his collage with multiple images of both of them.
So, they overlooked the most important thing about the chin, which is the shape of it.
They said that Lovelady's face was wider, had more breadth, than Oswald's. Oh really?
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
Doesn't look that way to me.
They pointed out that the end of Lovelady's nose was more bulbous than Oswald's. That's true, but compare it to Doorman. I'd say the noses match better between Oswald and Doorman. I'm seeing more pointedness and sculptedness on Doorman's nose than bulbousness. In other words, it looks like Doorman has Oswald's nose.
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
They claimed that Lovelady had a longer forehead due to hairline recession, but they didn't know the half of it. He didn't have the same hairline in 1963 that he had in 1957 or even 1959. He was a rapidly balding young man. So, it was totally bogus and corrupt of them to use an image of Young Lovelady to represent his hairline in 1963.
They said NOTHING about the ears. But you look at them. Oswald's and Doorman's match perfectly. But, Lovelady had a larger and longer lobule. The lobule refers to the lower, fleshy part of the ear, where the ear ring goes. Compare the lobules on Oswald, Doorman, and Lovelady.
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
Oswald and Doorman both had a small, tapered lobule, in contrast to Lovelady's prominent lobule. I'll let Richard put up his ear collage too, which is excellent.
So, after all that and more, what they said was:
"Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady."
The above is just a pile of bull crap from a bunch of liars. Those anthropologists were just paid shills of the state, brought in to lie in technical jargon. It was all a show, a complete charade. Like Robert Groden, they started with the conclusion that Lovelady was Doorman and then figured out how to sell it. There was no honest brokering at all.
This is truly a disgrace. It's bad enough that politicians lie, but when they get scientists to lie for them, then they really distort reality. And it happens a lot. Global warming, for example.
Paid shills, paid shills, paid shills. That's all those anthropologists were. Let's stop pretending that there was any honest attempt to study anything. Warren Commission II: that's all the HSCA was. They just gave it a twist at the end by saying that there was an ineffectual second shooter on the Grassy Knoll who shot and missed. What bull! They were just throwing us a bone.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscalove.htm
The above link is how the HSCA wrote up their results.
First, note how they were described. They were described as "the board of forensic anthropologists" of the "photographic evidence panel." But, were they photo experts or anthropologists? They were anthropologists. They had no training in photo analysis whatsoever.
Second, they spoke of examining multiple images of Oswald and Lovelady, but they also made it clear that they relied mostly on one of Oswald's arrest pictures, and the one image of Young Lovelady, and both of those images were flipped images.
http://tinypic.com/r/4sjoxx/5
It seems doubtful to me that taking minute measurements from photographs would be at all accurate. That's because we are talking about human anatomy, and the very process of converting that anatomy from a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional image involves distortion. Also, in this case, they relied on a current image of Oswald and an earlier image of Lovelady. Wrong, because facial anatomy changes throughout life. Here is how they described the flipped image they used of Lovelady:
FIGURE IV-70.--Billy Nolan Lovelady circa 1959-63
What a crock of bull that an image of such a young man would be given a 4-year time frame. Circa '59 to '63? This was their subtle way of claiming that the picture represented how Lovelady looked in 1963. It didn't:
http://tinypic.com/r/2mkk0/5
I'll point out that in the above collage, the image of Young Lovelady is properly oriented- unlike the one they used.
Furthermore, even that wide range of '59 to '63 is probably incorrect. At least, I think it's wrong. I don't think that Young Lovelady looks any older than 20 years old in that picture. He was born in 1937, so that would make the year of that photo 1957.
And, if I'm worng, maybe it was 1958, but I dare say I don't think it could have been any later than that.
But, they had the FBI photos, which were from February 1964, which was within 3 months of the assassination. So, why didn't they just use those? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
Well, they must have had a reason not to, and the reason must have related to the pre-determined outcome that they were shooting for. Relying on that earlier, outdated image of Lovelady when more recent pictures were available was totally corrupt and completely unjustified.
It is important to remember that they took NO measurements of the Doorway Man. They only took measurements of Oswald and Lovelady. They admitted that their finding for Lovelady was based entirely on a "subjective assessment" that went unspecified.
So, what was the point of taking precise measurements of Lovelady and Oswald when they weren't able to do the same for Doorman? Didn't that defeat the purpose?
The point is that it made no sense to get MATHEMATICAL about Lovelady and Oswald if you couldn't also get MATHEMATICAL about Doorman. It should have been kept the same for all three.
So, why did they get mathematical with Lovelady and Oswald? It's because it looks good to get mathematical. It looks scientific. It looks precise. It looks technical. It sells.
So, even though, according to them, the results couldn't be compared to Doorman, let's look at some of their results. I want you to see why I say they were not honest brokers.
For example, in regard to chins, they claimed that Lovelady had a longer chin than Oswald. LONGER? It's true, but the first thing that anyone with sense is going to say about a chin is the SHAPE of it. And that's what our anthropologist, Ricard Hooke, got us to look at:
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
Can you see that Oswald's chin is square, Doorman's chin is square, and Young Lovelady's chin is not square? I'll let Richard put up his collage with multiple images of both of them.
So, they overlooked the most important thing about the chin, which is the shape of it.
They said that Lovelady's face was wider, had more breadth, than Oswald's. Oh really?
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
Doesn't look that way to me.
They pointed out that the end of Lovelady's nose was more bulbous than Oswald's. That's true, but compare it to Doorman. I'd say the noses match better between Oswald and Doorman. I'm seeing more pointedness and sculptedness on Doorman's nose than bulbousness. In other words, it looks like Doorman has Oswald's nose.
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
They claimed that Lovelady had a longer forehead due to hairline recession, but they didn't know the half of it. He didn't have the same hairline in 1963 that he had in 1957 or even 1959. He was a rapidly balding young man. So, it was totally bogus and corrupt of them to use an image of Young Lovelady to represent his hairline in 1963.
They said NOTHING about the ears. But you look at them. Oswald's and Doorman's match perfectly. But, Lovelady had a larger and longer lobule. The lobule refers to the lower, fleshy part of the ear, where the ear ring goes. Compare the lobules on Oswald, Doorman, and Lovelady.
http://tinypic.com/r/352gbkm/5
Oswald and Doorman both had a small, tapered lobule, in contrast to Lovelady's prominent lobule. I'll let Richard put up his ear collage too, which is excellent.
So, after all that and more, what they said was:
"Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the man in the doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady."
The above is just a pile of bull crap from a bunch of liars. Those anthropologists were just paid shills of the state, brought in to lie in technical jargon. It was all a show, a complete charade. Like Robert Groden, they started with the conclusion that Lovelady was Doorman and then figured out how to sell it. There was no honest brokering at all.
This is truly a disgrace. It's bad enough that politicians lie, but when they get scientists to lie for them, then they really distort reality. And it happens a lot. Global warming, for example.
Paid shills, paid shills, paid shills. That's all those anthropologists were. Let's stop pretending that there was any honest attempt to study anything. Warren Commission II: that's all the HSCA was. They just gave it a twist at the end by saying that there was an ineffectual second shooter on the Grassy Knoll who shot and missed. What bull! They were just throwing us a bone.
elpdr...@gmail.com
Apr 28, 2013, 4:06:24 PM4/28/13
to
that you enjoy abuse.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 28, 2013, 4:07:49 PM4/28/13
to
On 4/28/2013 10:21 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Let's look closely at the work of the HSCA anthropologists. Were they honest brokers? No, they were not: not even close.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscalove.htm
>
> The above link is how the HSCA wrote up their results.
>
> First, note how they were described. They were described as "the board of forensic anthropologists" of the "photographic evidence panel." But, were they photo experts or anthropologists? They were anthropologists. They had no training in photo analysis whatsoever.
>
> Second, they spoke of examining multiple images of Oswald and Lovelady, but they also made it clear that they relied mostly on one of Oswald's arrest pictures, and the one image of Young Lovelady, and both of those images were flipped images.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/4sjoxx/5
>
> It seems doubtful to me that taking minute measurements from photographs would be at all accurate. That's because we are talking about human anatomy, and the very process of converting that anatomy from a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional image involves distortion. Also, in this case, they relied on a current image of Oswald and an earlier image of Lovelady. Wrong, because facial anatomy changes throughout life. Here is how they described the flipped image they used of Lovelady:
>
Good tactic. When you read a scientific study, attack the credentials of
> Let's look closely at the work of the HSCA anthropologists. Were they honest brokers? No, they were not: not even close.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscalove.htm
>
> The above link is how the HSCA wrote up their results.
>
> First, note how they were described. They were described as "the board of forensic anthropologists" of the "photographic evidence panel." But, were they photo experts or anthropologists? They were anthropologists. They had no training in photo analysis whatsoever.
>
> Second, they spoke of examining multiple images of Oswald and Lovelady, but they also made it clear that they relied mostly on one of Oswald's arrest pictures, and the one image of Young Lovelady, and both of those images were flipped images.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/4sjoxx/5
>
> It seems doubtful to me that taking minute measurements from photographs would be at all accurate. That's because we are talking about human anatomy, and the very process of converting that anatomy from a three-dimensional object to a two-dimensional image involves distortion. Also, in this case, they relied on a current image of Oswald and an earlier image of Lovelady. Wrong, because facial anatomy changes throughout life. Here is how they described the flipped image they used of Lovelady:
>
the scientists. Never deal with the facts.
Ralph Cinque
Apr 28, 2013, 10:19:23 PM4/28/13
to
I didn't say a word about their credentials, and facts are all I dealt
with. You are hapless, Marsh.
with. You are hapless, Marsh.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 2, 2013, 1:00:57 PM6/2/13
to
Also, they used the FBI 1964 photo of Lovelady in their study!
BTW, Hooke is an anthropologist is he? Got any proof of that?
Frankly, Ralph, your OIC theory fails on the grounds of logic (your wilful misinterpretation of what Ball said to Lovelady) and science (your rejection of the scientific work of the HSCA panel).
All you really have is emotion and blind belief in what you think happened.
Lovelady didn't just tell Ball that he was Doorman, Ralph. He told others as well. Like Jones Harris.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Ralph Cinque
Jun 2, 2013, 2:47:44 PM6/2/13
to
I am well aware that Lovelady changed his story and started claiming to be
Doorman, the first time being in May 1964 to Jones Harris. But, that was 6
months after the assassination, which means that for 6 months, Lovelady
was truthful in that he did NOT claim to be Doorman.
The HSCA used an image of Lovelady from the 1950s. They arbitrarily
assigned a date to it of 1959, but judging by how young he looks, I'd say
it was more like 1957. And yes, Doorman's hairline does match closely to
the hairline that Lovelady had then as a very young man. But, he was a
rapidly balding young man, and between 1957 and 1963, he lost a lot of
hair, as we can see when we compare him to the photo taken by Mark Lane's
photographer a few months after the assassination.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1259/collage253.jpg
The collage above shows the reality of the advance of Lovelady's baldness
between 1957 and 1963, therefore, the matching hairlines between Young
Lovelady and Doorman is actually a smoking gun.
Doorman, the first time being in May 1964 to Jones Harris. But, that was 6
months after the assassination, which means that for 6 months, Lovelady
was truthful in that he did NOT claim to be Doorman.
The HSCA used an image of Lovelady from the 1950s. They arbitrarily
assigned a date to it of 1959, but judging by how young he looks, I'd say
it was more like 1957. And yes, Doorman's hairline does match closely to
the hairline that Lovelady had then as a very young man. But, he was a
rapidly balding young man, and between 1957 and 1963, he lost a lot of
hair, as we can see when we compare him to the photo taken by Mark Lane's
photographer a few months after the assassination.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1259/collage253.jpg
The collage above shows the reality of the advance of Lovelady's baldness
between 1957 and 1963, therefore, the matching hairlines between Young
Lovelady and Doorman is actually a smoking gun.
tims...@gmail.com
Jun 3, 2013, 5:21:03 PM6/3/13
to
On Monday, 3 June 2013 04:47:44 UTC+10, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> I am well aware that Lovelady changed his story and started claiming to be
>
> Doorman, the first time being in May 1964 to Jones Harris. But, that was 6
>
> months after the assassination, which means that for 6 months, Lovelady
>
> was truthful in that he did NOT claim to be Doorman.
>
BZZT! Cinque FACTOID Alert! Lovelady identified HIMSELF to the FBI on 25
> I am well aware that Lovelady changed his story and started claiming to be
>
> Doorman, the first time being in May 1964 to Jones Harris. But, that was 6
>
> months after the assassination, which means that for 6 months, Lovelady
>
> was truthful in that he did NOT claim to be Doorman.
>
November, 1963, as DOORMAN, Ralph!:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10845&relPageId=5
This was a link supplied by YOU, Ralph! How could you possibly MISS it?!!
>
>
> The HSCA used an image of Lovelady from the 1950s. They arbitrarily
>
Lovelady, at least ONE of which must have been from the FBI photos of
1964, given it was INCLUDED in their report:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=294
> assigned a date to it of 1959, but judging by how young he looks, I'd say
>
> it was more like 1957. And yes, Doorman's hairline does match closely to
>
> the hairline that Lovelady had then as a very young man. But, he was a
>
> rapidly balding young man, and between 1957 and 1963, he lost a lot of
>
> hair, as we can see when we compare him to the photo taken by Mark Lane's
>
> photographer a few months after the assassination.
>
>
>
> http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1259/collage253.jpg
>
>
>
> The collage above shows the reality of the advance of Lovelady's baldness
>
> between 1957 and 1963, therefore, the matching hairlines between Young
>
> Lovelady and Doorman is actually a smoking gun.
the FBI 1964 photo of Lovelady shows how weak your case is, Ralph.
Your case simply DOESN'T stand up to scrutiny.
The FBI photos ABLY demonstrate Lovelady's *widow's peak* that is also
EASILY discernible in the Altgens photo, Ralph.
Evidentially, Ralph, you simply have NO leg left to stand on.
It's as simple as that.
Corrective Regards,
0 new messages