Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

There is no difference between these two sets of men in terms of the degree of certainty that they involve different individuals. 

On a practical basis, there is no difference at all, and that's because each goes well past the threshold of individuality, and that's all that matters. 

We all know how unique and distinct human beings are. We all know that one variation- of any magnitude- is all it takes to rule out same man/same day. The standard of alikeness for same man/same day is so high that it only takes one disconnect, one disassociation to rule it out. And when I say rule it out I mean wipe it out from the realm of possibility.  In this case, we have multiple disassociations between each man.    

That puts it way over the top. Even if you think the top set is more divergent, it doesn't matter. The bottom set is equally certain to be different men. It's not even close. It's way beyond certainty.

I could make an analogy with drowning. If you can't swim, and you're adrift in water of 200 foot depth, you're going to drown. If the water is only 20 feet deep, you're still going to drown and with as much certainty. You're not in any less trouble. That's because the threshold of depth has been met and exceeded in both cases, and the difference is immaterial. 

Well, it's the same way here: the depth of the manifestation of individuality has been met and exceeded in both cases, and the difference is immaterial. 

And the names don't mean a thing. The fact that some say that the men in the bottom set all have the same name is simply a way of stating that the official story has it that they're all the same man. But, that's the thing that we are examining. So, you can't assume it. Mentally, that would be the same as saying:

"Officialdom says that they are the same man, and I do not question officialdom. Official decrees trump the evidence of my senses, including my vision, and the application of my common sense, which includes my ability to visually distinguish different men. I close my mind to such evidence because official decrees are absolute and final. It is not for me to question them or challenge them."

So, those who claim that the bottom set have the same name are just stating the above paragraph in a way that sounds a little less subservient; that's all. 

Threshold of individuality is the key. And since the bottom set involves the comparison of not just the men but the clothes and the lay of the clothes since it's supposed to be the same day, it is miles and miles past that threshold. To even suggest otherwise is to engage in a childish and stubborn denial of reality. 

That's the way it is. I don't make the rules. Reality does. I just cite them.