Albert Doyle Wrote:I say it is questionable whether the Doorway Man forgery issue was designed to be a source of conflict. I think its existence is due to a certain crackpot professor who won't argue honestly or admit when he's wrong. While it could be true that it has now become a useful tool of the conspirators by which to cause disruption and disagreement in the JFK Assassination community, my view is that the shortest route to resolving this is not to ignore it but to disprove it using the best abilities of that research community.

I don't think this was a purposely "designed to be discovered" forgery. Most likely it is now an issue because a certain professor wants to be known as the person who proved the conspiracy once and for all. In this particular case I don't think this photo was designed to mislead for purposes of causing confusion. I don't think the Doorway area was altered at all and the only reason it is being suggested is because of some overactive imaginations in the JFK research community.

In the end the deep politics position of not engaging in this debate may be the wisest route. What I can't stand is how those making this false claim take the lack of any functional opposition to their claims as consent or even proof.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:I say it is questionable whether the Doorway Man forgery issue was designed to be a source of conflict. I think its existence is due to a certain crackpot professor who won't argue honestly or admit when he's wrong. While it could be true that it has now become a useful tool of the conspirators by which to cause disruption and disagreement in the JFK Assassination community, my view is that the shortest route to resolving this is not to ignore it but to disprove it using the best abilities of that research community.

I don't think this was a purposely "designed to be discovered" forgery. Most likely it is now an issue because a certain professor wants to be known as the person who proved the conspiracy once and for all. In this particular case I don't think this photo was designed to mislead for purposes of causing confusion. I don't think the Doorway area was altered at all and the only reason it is being suggested is because of some overactive imaginations in the JFK research community.

In the end the deep politics position of not engaging in this debate may be the wisest route. What I can't stand is how those making this false claim take the lack of any functional opposition to their claims as consent or even proof.

I agree 100%

Albert Doyle Wrote:Let truth be the compulsion and the rule. And let those who wage against it, whether that be by philosophy or creed, be the fools...

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Let truth be the compulsion and the rule. And let those who wage against it, whether that be by philosophy or creed, be the fools...

Cmon CD Lighten up. This has less to do with Fetzer than the abstract premise of evidentiary falsification you so fondly discuss.
It's not an angle I am entirely averse too by the way. What is of concern here irregardless of JF is the idea of evidence being faked. How much was and how much wasn't? There is nothing 'foolish' nor am I being a JF obsessed 'fool' for being skeptical like Martin Hay and others at CTKA that all of the evidence photographed or otherwise was not authentic. Is Jim Di also a fool? If querying the notion of falsifying photographic evidence in the Altgens or any photo makes myself Fetzer obsessed that is extremely dissapointing. I see no need to alter the Altgens images nor deliberately alter all the Nix, Muchmoore and Zapruder films.

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Let truth be the compulsion and the rule. And let those who wage against it, whether that be by philosophy or creed, be the fools...

Cmon CD Lighten up. This has less to do with Fetzer than the abstract premise of evidentiary falsification you so fondly discuss.
It's not an angle I am entirely averse too by the way. What is of concern here irregardless of JF is the idea of evidence being faked. How much was and how much wasn't? There is nothing 'foolish' nor am I being a JF obsessed 'fool' for being skeptical like Martin Hay and others at CTKA that all of the evidence photographed or otherwise was not authentic. Is Jim Di also a fool? If querying the notion of falsifying photographic evidence in the Altgens or any photo makes myself Fetzer obsessed that is extremely dissapointing. I see no need to alter the Altgens images nor deliberately alter all the Nix, Muchmoore and Zapruder films.

Oh but how the point is being missed!

The hypothesis in part has everything to do with the deliberate falsification of evidence for the purpose of obfuscating even that which would otherwise be knowable by creating doubt that any of the evidence is reliable and/or that differentiating between the two is even possible. Therein lies a motive for alteration even in the absence of "something they needed to obscure for a very good reason" -- There was motive to alter even innocuous photos.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:Let truth be the compulsion and the rule. And let those who wage against it, whether that be by philosophy or creed, be the fools...

Cmon CD Lighten up. This has less to do with Fetzer than the abstract premise of evidentiary falsification you so fondly discuss.
It's not an angle I am entirely averse too by the way. What is of concern here irregardless of JF is the idea of evidence being faked. How much was and how much wasn't? There is nothing 'foolish' nor am I being a JF obsessed 'fool' for being skeptical like Martin Hay and others at CTKA that all of the evidence photographed or otherwise was not authentic. Is Jim Di also a fool? If querying the notion of falsifying photographic evidence in the Altgens or any photo makes myself Fetzer obsessed that is extremely dissapointing. I see no need to alter the Altgens images nor deliberately alter all the Nix, Muchmoore and Zapruder films.

Oh but how the point is being missed!

The hypothesis in part has everything to do with the deliberate falsification of evidence for the purpose of obfuscating even that which would otherwise be knowable by creating doubt that any of the evidence is reliable and/or that differentiating between the two is even possible. Therein lies a motive for alteration even in the absence of "something they needed to obscure for a very good reason" -- There was motive to alter even innocuous photos.

Nope what we have is a failure to communicate. Have I ever said that there was no evidence falsification? I simply do not go along with the train of thought that the entire chain of evidence was falsified. Even the small stuff GB. While there's evidence the physical evidence of the case was manipulated and planted on Oswald, I ask where is the evidence in so far as the complete photographic record in Dealey that day? Where's the evidence the Altgens films were altered do we have a comparison? Call me conservative on the issue, if you may. Call me wrong. But GB while I am open to yours and CD's position not to mention 'Deep Political' discourse. I see this all as more or less a discussion in semantics and possibilities. It's not based on any evidence of anything, I can discern in the Altgens picture which makes up the banner to this thread. I think Vasilios made some good points concerning Salandria early on. I think Evica has made some interesting points as well. But, hey I'll leave you guys to dance around the Mulberry bush on this one. I dont think anybody can see the wood for the trees.

In terms of good threads I am enjoying the 9/11-Israel thread at the moment. Some good back and forth there. That'll probably be where you will find me.