Ralph Cinque Wrote:Hey Coogan,

Why do you want "a united kick-ass group"? Why can't each individual think for himself and form his own opinions?

Don took my side, and yet, you were mighty patronizing to him. Hmmm. I've seen brown-nosing before, but, you're really good at it.

But let me point out to you, Coogan, that you didn't say one thing that addressed any matter of substance in anything that I have said. You discouraged him from supporting me because, after all, you want a united kick-ass group, but you didn't delve into any point of contention that I make, not one fact that is at issue, and not one controversy. In other words, you really didn't say anything.

And that makes me wonder about your motives. What exactly do you care about? Where does the truth about JFK's murder place in your hierarchy? You don't seem to want to talk about the details of it, certainly not with me. If I raise an issue, you just go mum and get rotten and nasty.
Well, I don't know Don, but I have a feeling that your brown-nosing is going to bounce off of him. And that's because he's not going to just read that; he's going to read everything. Don addressed my issues. He dove into the discussion, the whole inquiry about Doorway Man. You didn't. You haven't. You have only disparaged me from the beginning. Hey, if you had argued something materially, it might have been respectable. I certainly would have respected you more than I do now.

You know, the idea that Oswald was Doorway Man is not preposterous. It's not like I am the only one who says it. You hardly have the right to be dismissive about it. And like Don says, what does it hurt to look at it again? Would it kill you? I, for one, will never understand your attitude and that of others here.



What are you afraid of, Coogan? You've called me a punk, but I know punks when I see them. My interest is in looking at and discussing the evidence.

Albert Doyle Wrote:Perhaps this response was better placed in the Drago thread?


My mention of Dr Fetzer in the title was mainly aimed toward Cinque as being a product of reckless research.


The topic was the claimed forgery in Altgens 6 of the "Doorway Man" figure.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Why should it come as a surprise that Albert Doyle (once again) has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about? But then, that appears to be the modus operandi on this forum. When some of you want to kick someone around because you can't cope with their arguments, just make up a position that no one would believe, attribute it to them, and then ridicule it! There are many past masters of this technique on this form, where The Education Forum looks like a paragon of rationality compared with the rubbish that is dominating the Deep Politics Forum. Let me add that a change of names might be in order, since there is nothing "deep" about the kinds of exchanges going on here.

Ralph Cinque has been standing up for himself completely admirably, by any reasonable standard. For CHARLES DRAGO to refer to him as "a fool" is now exactly what I would expect from the likes of him. He is THE preposterous, pompous and arrogant, petty-tyrant of the DPF! He is so impressed with himself that he cannot bother to take the time to do research about the actual positions of those whom he attacks here. WHEN CHARLES SPEAKS, THE FORUM SWOONS! Just as I have demonstrated with regard to the "mastermind" issue, the Zapruder film and video fakery on 9/11, he has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! If ever there was a false idol on JFK research, it has to be Charles Drago! Let me demonstrate again why I can no longer respect the man, even though I once actually admired him. Shame on me!

New eyes often see things that past students have missed. In this case, the subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man had been missed by several generations of student. But Ralph realized that it was a very distinctive shirt and that it had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady was supposed to have worn that day. If that WAS the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. Not only has Ralph done a brilliant job of making his case, but there is a complementary argument that I have made, namely: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about it that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright strips--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

Indeed, the argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other figure--who now appears to have been the actual location of Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." So, I am sorry to say, the vicious attacks on Ralph are no more justified than the unfounded--and equally vicious--attacks on me. I have demonstrated that they have no foundation. It is only by fabricating evidence--by attributing to me a position that I provably do not hold--and by ignoring the different kinds of proof that the positions I have advanced on the Zapruder film (that it was fabricated) and video fakery in New York (that it took place) have gathered any traction at all. I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position Charles was defining was the position I defend, which it manifestly is not. Continuing these equally unwarranted attacks on Ralph only reaffirms that this forum is not serious about research on JFK.

Albert Doyle Wrote:Perhaps this response was better placed in the Drago thread?


My mention of Dr Fetzer in the title was mainly aimed toward Cinque as being a product of reckless research.


The topic was the claimed forgery in Altgens 6 of the "Doorway Man" figure.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Why should it come as a surprise that Albert Doyle (once again) has shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about? But then, that appears to be the modus operandi on this forum. When some of you want to kick someone around because you can't cope with their arguments, just make up a position that no one would believe, attribute it to them, and then ridicule it! There are many past masters of this technique on this form, where The Education Forum looks like a paragon of rationality compared with the rubbish that is dominating the Deep Politics Forum. Let me add that a change of names might be in order, since there is nothing "deep" about the kinds of exchanges going on here.

Ralph Cinque has been standing up for himself completely admirably, by any reasonable standard. For CHARLES DRAGO to refer to him as "a fool" is now exactly what I would expect from the likes of him. He is THE preposterous, pompous and arrogant, petty-tyrant of the DPF! He is so impressed with himself that he cannot bother to take the time to do research about the actual positions of those whom he attacks here. WHEN CHARLES SPEAKS, THE FORUM SWOONS! Just as I have demonstrated with regard to the "mastermind" issue, the Zapruder film and video fakery on 9/11, he has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! If ever there was a false idol on JFK research, it has to be Charles Drago! Let me demonstrate again why I can no longer respect the man, even though I once actually admired him. Shame on me!

New eyes often see things that past students have missed. In this case, the subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man had been missed by several generations of student. But Ralph realized that it was a very distinctive shirt and that it had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady was supposed to have worn that day. If that WAS the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. Not only has Ralph done a brilliant job of making his case, but there is a complementary argument that I have made, namely: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something about it that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he was ACTUALLY WEARING--with its broad and bright strips--it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

Indeed, the argument also applies to the checkered shirt, because its presence, too, on this other figure--who now appears to have been the actual location of Lovelady--would similarly "have given the game away." So, I am sorry to say, the vicious attacks on Ralph are no more justified than the unfounded--and equally vicious--attacks on me. I have demonstrated that they have no foundation. It is only by fabricating evidence--by attributing to me a position that I provably do not hold--and by ignoring the different kinds of proof that the positions I have advanced on the Zapruder film (that it was fabricated) and video fakery in New York (that it took place) have gathered any traction at all. I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position Charles was defining was the position I defend, which it manifestly is not. Continuing these equally unwarranted attacks on Ralph only reaffirms that this forum is not serious about research on JFK.

Albert Doyle Wrote:Perhaps this response was better placed in the Drago thread?


My mention of Dr Fetzer in the title was mainly aimed toward Cinque as being a product of reckless research.


The topic was the claimed forgery in Altgens 6 of the "Doorway Man" figure.

Nope you got it wrong. By the looks of Jan, CD and the majority of the forum we seriously don't want you and Cinque here Ron.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:I let Charles attack stand as an IQ test of the research abilities of the members of this forum. No one bothered to ask if the position that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not.

Ralph Cinque Wrote:Beaten me? Intellectually? You haven't even addressed anything I have said.

And as for your size, yes you're bigger than I am. A lot bigger. Isn't that brave of you to threaten me, a smaller man, with physical harm. But, I'm going to tell you something that is a fact. I got hit in the eye once by a guy your size. It happened right on the street in Austin, Texas. He knocked me down to the ground, blackened my eye. I didn't see it coming. I wasn't expecting it. We were arguing, but it was a city street in a residential neighborhood about 12 Noon, little kids riding their tricycles.

But, I got up and I hit him squarely in the mouth. I split him open from his lip to his chin. Somebody rushed him to the ER. I don't know how many stitches it took to sew him up, but it was quite a few. And now he gets to see my handiwork every time he looks in the mirror.

And I wasn't young at the time. I was in my 50s. Now I'm in my 60s.

So yes, it's dispicable of you to threaten to harm me, a smaller man, or even to raise the issue of physical violence. And now it's out there, so you can't take it back. But, if it came to it, if you assaulted me, I would fight. I would intensely fight.