===PART ONE=== Due to popular request (LETS HOPE NO MORE OF THIS!): A REPLY TO ZACH JENDRO AND TRISH FLEMINGS ERROR-FILLED AND INACCURATE ARTICLE CALLED “An Analysis of Judyth Baker’s Pixelation Study” The article you and Trish posted is filled with assumptions, misinterpretations, and errors, You failed to post all the photos involved, and you seem to have accessed a mere summary of the report. If only youd shown it to me before posting it under your debunked title. Earlier, I posted: Fleming and Zendro began with this INACCURATE STATEMENT: In July of 2014, Judyth Vary Baker ... released a study that she and others stated was both scientific and conclusive. She asserted that she was able to prove, once and for all, that this figure was most certainly Oswald based upon her research involving a technique she referred to as “pixelation... CORRECTION:,.. I did NOT claim this study proved ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT THIS FIGURE WAS MOST CERTAINLY OSWALD... I stated this study proved, once and for all, that the doorway figure was not wearing the shirt that Billy Nolan Lovelady claimed he wore. Therefore, it could NOT be Lovelady standing in the doorway.== Such an error makes it hard to understand why you didnt message me with questions if you intended to write an entire essay in this adversarial manner. Next, you mishandled the hypothesis :.Baker’s hypothesis seems to be, based on her description of her experiment, that Oswald was standing in the doorway, not Lovelady. An analysis of the clothing worn by Doorman in Altgens 6 might determine identity. You saw no hypothesis because this was just a summary on Facebook, so you invented one. MY HYPOTHESIS WAS: Would a particular degraded pixelation analysis of the pattern of the shirt worn by the Doorway Figure, compared to patterns found by using the same method on the shirts supposedly worn by Billy Lovelady and Lee Oswald, tell us anything about who was standing there? After all, what if the figure wasnt Lovelady What if it wasnt Lee Oswald? It was really an open question. In fact, I privately told some people I thought the figure in the doorway was Billy Lovelady. Next, you misrepresented the possible outcomes to consider: 1) Were there any matches, or not? 2) If there were any matches, were they definitive, or would the differences be too great to be significant? 3) What would be considered a significant difference? 4) Any subjective assessment of similarities would need a mathematically sound treatment unless the similarities were obvious to an unwitting, naive observer. (short answer). NOTE: I did not write a scientific paper for Facebook. I wrote a brief report. Whether purposely or because you looked no further than the summary that Richard Charnin posted, YOU MISLEADINGLY SHOWED READERS ONLY A FEW OF THE MANY PHOTOS I ORIGINALLY POSTED, SO WHAT READERS SAW MADE NO SENSE. And you told them it didnt make sense. You also failed to mention that I also analyzed many other shirt and fabric samples from other places in the Altgens6 photo, incl even an American flag, to see if there were any patterns similar to the Doorway Figures shirt pattern anywhere else in the photo. Next, you complained that i didnt explain the methodology well enough: Reading her study gives us no idea of what she did, other than vague descriptions and explanations, some of which are technically unsound. Where are all the photos and descriptions i posted even for Facebook? You also mention technically unsound methodology, but never prove it, except by innuendo and by using a false statement about Brownian motion that you failed to comprehend. == What is technically unsound about stating that the resolution of all photos was made equal, just for starters? The resolution, or sharpness, of a picture is determined by the number of pixels and all photos were the result of adjusted geometrically measured area and contained the same number and size of pixels as per selected area at selected magnification (there are many programs available on the Internet to count pixels over any given area of a photo). The tiny area selected on the Doorway Figures sleeve, or anywhere else on the shirt, for example, was matched as to the same area -- made equally tiny and adjusted for pixel count -- on photo sections from the Oswald and Lovelady shirts. All selected sample areas at the same particular enlargement had the same number of pixels. When enlarged (degrading the bitmap) distinct unique patterns resulted that could be compared to each other. Further, all enlargements were made on the same grids for all samples. You can easily do it, too, using a Word grid and pasting your worked-up samples there. It is important that any sample from the Doorway Figures shirt is to be compared to a sample taken from exactly the same position on the Lovelady/Oswald/any other shirt. Black and white is preferred for all samples to reduce noise. YOU WROTE; Also, the precise portion of the Altgens image that she analyzed (..is only identified as the sleeve)... ==Not true--that is all you showed the reader. You LEFT OUT everything between the beginning and the end in photos and also apparently never saw a more detailed part of the study. You could have nicely messaged me for information, as others did. YOU FURTHER WROTE: When asked to point out which specific area of the image was used, she did not respond. Thats because I either didnt see your question on FB or left due to the hostility you and others expressed. YOU WROTE: Therefore, without knowing which tools and initial measurements she used, as well as what she was measuring, there is no possible way to reproduce her study.==You seem to have failed to understand what same resolution same number of pixels same area (think geometry and mathematical precision, not a general area) and same places on all three shirts was all about. As for measurements,they were identical at all times, for these standardized samples, so call them inches, mm, whatever, it makes no difference unless youre uptight. As i explained. If you want data, just do what I did ---then measure away, using whatever suits you. The crux of your inquiry reveals you do not have a scientific mind. You are certainly good dealing with testimonies..
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:00:59 +0000