+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School (/thread-8577.html)
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 30-05-2012
Parker forgets that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25, making his 1st floor theory unlikely.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Magda Hassan - 30-05-2012
Albert Doyle Wrote:You are inferring that because Lovelady could be mistaken for Oswald at a distance that therefore there's something sinister in that that suggests deliberateness.Don isn't saying it is Oswald. He just has doubts that it is Lovelady.
But none of this cancels or changes the fact all other evidence points towards it being Lovelady and none points towards it being Oswald. If you are going to suggest it is Oswald you have to walk your suggestion through all the other evidence. For it to be Oswald would mean that CIA forgers had to painstakingly locate and control all other photographic evidence and insert plaid shirts on Lovelady in each and every photo. At that point you are in the same looney wagon as Cinque and Fetzer.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 30-05-2012
Magda Hassan Wrote:Don isn't saying it is Oswald. He just has doubts that it is Lovelady.
Which still has to be inputted into what I wrote above.
Even Fetzer and Cinque admit the figure in the doorway has Lovelady's face on it.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 30-05-2012
I've deliberately stayed away from this prolonged exercise in self-defeatism, but now it's time to offer three observations in the form of questions:
1. How might our studies of the doppelganger tactic, long established as a prime component in the JFK meta-conspiracy, help place the Oswald/Lovelady controversy in deep political perspective?
2. How might appreciation of the so-called "trickster" phenomenon, observable throughout history and across cultures, help us to make sense of the Oswald/Lovelady puzzle?
3. How might the creation and testing of the hypothesis that the Oswald/Lovelady conundrum is in fact a "false dilemma" help us to resolve the issue at hand?
In re Question 3 above, I quote from The Third Alternative, by Eliezer Yudkowsky ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/ )
"[A] false dilemma [is] the fallacy of the excluded middle, or the package-deal fallacy.
"How can we obtain Third Alternatives? The first step in obtaining a Third Alternative is deciding to look for one, and the last step is the decision to accept it. This sounds obvious, and yet most people fail on these two steps, rather than within the search process. Where do false dilemmas come from? Some arise honestly, because superior alternatives are cognitively hard to see. But one factory for false dilemmas is justifying a questionable policy by pointing to a supposed benefit over the null action.
"The best is the enemy of the good. If the goal is really to help people, then a superior alternative is cause for celebrationonce we find this better strategy, we can help people more effectively. But if the goal is to justify a particular strategy by claiming that it helps people, a Third Alternative is an enemy argument, a competitor."
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 30-05-2012
Here are selected posts from 2007 as originally published on before-the-fall EF:
"Further - to continue on this bit - it would appear that the operation also made use of doubles - precedent with the doubling of Oswald -- Haven't been able to work that all out yet - but lookalikes may have been used for the purpose of both obfuscation as well as the protection of the identity of the operatives. Ever hear anything like that?"
- Lee Forman
_______________________________________
[B][B]The use of doubles for the purposes you cite is an absolutely key insight into the identities of the prime facilitators not only of the JFK assassination, but of other deep political operations across a broad swath of history.
From Richard Popkin through John Armstrong and beyond, the doppelganger gambit at play in the JFK conspiracy is well documented.
If the operation to kill the president is best understood as drama (or, if you prefer, a dramatic construct; Evica's original theory, one that I wholeheartedly endorse), then you would be well advised to find and read in full a copy of The Double in Literature, by Robert Rogers (Wayne State University Press, 1970).
Rogers, on "the functions of doubling," offers this:
"If a character is not what he seems to be in the sense of being a fragment rather than a whole, it may be asked if he is real ... [R]econsider [Angus] Fletcher's assumptions when he states that the allegorical hero 'is not so much a real person' as he is a 'generator' of secondary personalities, partial aspects of himself." (emphasis in original)
Later, discussing what he terms "doubling for dramatic conflict," Rogers notes, "In essence, doubling of characters does not simply make the representation of intrapsychic conflict possible; it allows for the potential development of that conflict in the most dramatic way possible ... a dynamic opposition of psychic forces permeates practically all modes of literature. Shaw's dictum, 'No conflict, no drama,' goes right to the heart of the matter for the genre he was most interested in. It is impossible to think of any play deserving the name drama which is without sharp conflict. What obviously holds for the drama might not seem to obtain for so-called nondramatic literature; but to say so is to mistake conventional label for literal fact."
I would argue that the primary (but by no means exclusive) function of the double in an intelligence operation such as the JFK assassination is to create cognitive dissonance -- or conflict, if you will -- in the minds of investigators and witnesses.
(As an aside: To the degree that John Armstrong buttresses the "two Oswalds" perceptions, he simultaneously exposes and abets the agenda of the author(s) of the LHO doppelganger play-within-a-play.)
Two Oswalds. Two Zapruder Films. Two brains. Two brain exams. Two sets of autopsy notes. Two sets of X-rays. Two sets of autopsy photos.
And the granddaddy of them all: TWO conflicting conclusions by official United States government panels investigating the assassination.
Another common element of the doppelganger phenomenon is termed bi-locality -- a character impossibly being in two places at the same time.
Thus the "impossibility" of LHO being in Mexico and the U.S. simultaneously, for one of many examples, fits the doppelganger gambit's design and serves its ends quite neatly.
Further, I would suggest that this and related condundra, far from revealing flaws in the assassination plot (in both senses of the word), rather are well-designed, intentionally executed, critically significant elements of that plot.
So we are prompted to ask: Was LHO in Mexico or elsewhere?
We are prompted to choose A or B. (And as a consequence of so doing, we remain mired in an "endless" mystery that in fact was solved a long time ago.)
In fact, it is the NULL A, NULL B option -- or the third alternative -- that leads us to the truth.
Was LHO in Mexico or elsewhere?
The answer is YES, if the persona in question is the dramatic character LHO.
Pre-Oswald? Take a look at the case of Gordon Lonsdale.
As far as JFK is concerned: Who had the literary background to create such a drama? Who were the writers among the suspects?
Charles Drago
One could go on at some length to draw comparisons between the JFK dramaturgy and, for instance, characters from Shakespeare and their dramatic functions.
Ruby as Falstaff.
Angel and Leopoldo as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Playwright Barbara Garson went TOO far, I'm afraid, with MacBird -- but nonetheless, that satire did have its moments.
Back to the matter at hand: Dual identities, or aliases, or war names, are but distant cousins to the vastly more sophisticated and ravaging (to the psyche) doppelganger game as I try to understand and explain it.
An operation like the JFK murder by definition and before tampering -- as a product and representation of creative human consciousness -- contains all of the elements critical to the classic story form (main and supporting characters, rising and falling action and denouement, sub structures [or acts], irony etc. etc. etc.).
As such, it is subject/vulnerable to deconstruction and other analytical approaches not unlike those brought to bear on more traditional literary and dramatic forms.
The best way to defeat the analysts of the literal tale is to create what is called -- and not by accident -- a cover story -- one with more compelling, confusing, contradictory, and seductive elements than that of the original.
Peter, I agree that LHO's doubles were numerous; any argument would be of a semantic nature. For me, all the "others" equal one other -- the Non-Oswald.
Pick just one "doubled" element of the JFK story -- for the sake of argument, let's stipulate the two-casket gambit. Show me how exposure and analyses of this element of the plot (again, in both senses) have done anything but serve the purposes of the plotters.
Permit me to conclude by returning to a point I've made repeatedly in the past: This line of inquiry is designed to answer the "who" question -- not the HOW.
How = conspiracy.
Masterful uses of the arts of the storyteller, fabulist, dramatist, novelist, and even, if we look far enough back into time, the magician (in the Giordano Bruno sense; the murder of Ioan Culianu is of enduring relevance to our inquiries) were beyond the overwhelming majority of JFK assassination suspects.
Who were the conjurers of these dark arts? On whose behalf were they conjured?
The answers will lead to the tops of the "facilitators" and "sponsors" ranks, respectively.
[/B]
And the magic words for Dealey Plaza ...
Abra Cadaver!
Seriously. I commend to the attention of this Forum's correspondents Eros, Magic, and the Murder of Professor Culianu, by Ted Anton, published by the Northwestern University Press in 1996.
It is simultaneously an accessible primer for a challenging area of scholastic inquiry and an investigation into what the author makes a convincing argument for being the first political assassination of a professor on American soil.
Contemporary science (social and otherwise) dismisses "magic" as fantasy or stage trickery. Culianu and his mentor, the legendary Comparitive Religions scholar Mircea Eliade, understood the word in its accepted Renaissance definition: what we today term "behavior modification," but based on the identified and manipulated erotic motivations of subjects.
They referred to the "art" of memory as the primary tool used to manipulate intellects, imaginations, and ultimately free wills.
The "magician" of the past, Culianu would argue, is the publicist, advertising executive, and psychologist/psychoanalyst of today.
And the magic words for all the contemporary world ...
Artichoke. Ultra. Mockingbird ...
Charles [/B]
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10440
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Phil Dragoo - 30-05-2012
In the work of John Armstrong is a thesis that Lee Harvey Oswald is a Janus with Harvey, meticulously created, perhaps from age 13, circa 1952, in the manner of a classic method of intelligence tradecraft.
Certainly from John Newman, e.g., Oswald and the CIA, as well as Lisa Pease, and George Michael Evica and L. Fletcher Prouty, we find the Mexico City gambit and the corollary World War III virus to have been the exclusive creation of one in a position of familiarity, mastery, and control of the agency files, no doubt one James Jesus Angleton, famously croaking he wasn't privy to who struck John, the mansion having so many rooms.
Indeed he used Eliot's Gerontion line in regards to a wilderness of mirrors. Loki's likeness making use of such a mirror. And some say Loki was set up, a patsy:
http://www.nordic-life.org/nmh/loki.htm
Two insist the figure is Oswald and the world is wrong. They are willing to add as many epicycles as there are counters to their arguments.
For many or most but not all others, the figure is Lovelady.
Perhaps Arlen Spector's Scottish Law citation applies as a third alternative:
The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. The not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bs4mDFwBthgJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02710.pdf+scottish+law+not+proven+verdict&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShYUAfa5QQmYXpiKsnYiY_Y4cf1V24unl8WXlxeqkGGq2TGLMWEzWYzUOwVXXcmWEbuiU889AIav_5NfHv5azs4JehpGcDQM6rDZvx1QQo9-ZK0UW48FSB6dbv23RneDtOcm8n6&sig=AHIEtbRZTSZrqaDnDStsp3VDEoN042QnRQ
Was Hunt a tramp? Was Hunt crossing Elm in trenchcoat and fedora and shades?
One: Perhaps a doppelganger in either or both cases.
Two: A bit of trickery, tricksterism. Just one Witt of poseurismo.
Three: It was, and it wasn't; beyond proof, and not relevant vis-Ã -vis the clear nature of the termination with extreme prejudice on behalf of sponsors not identified.
In the last gasp the lying spy indicts the dead terra cotta Texan.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3827[/ATTACH]
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Dawn Meredith - 30-05-2012
Charles Drago Wrote:I've deliberately stayed away from this prolonged exercise in self-defeatism, but now it's time to offer three observations in the form of questions:
1. How might our studies of the doppelganger tactic, long established as a prime component in the JFK meta-conspiracy, help place the Oswald/Lovelady controversy in deep political perspective?
2. How might appreciation of the so-called "trickster" phenomenon, observable throughout history and across cultures, help us to make sense of the Oswald/Lovelady puzzle?
3. How might the creation and testing of the hypothesis that the Oswald/Lovelady conundrum is in fact a "false dilemma" help us to resolve the issue at hand?
In re Question 3 above, I quote from The Third Alternative, by Eliezer Yudkowsky ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/ )
"[A] false dilemma [is] the fallacy of the excluded middle, or the package-deal fallacy.
"How can we obtain Third Alternatives? The first step in obtaining a Third Alternative is deciding to look for one, and the last step is the decision to accept it. This sounds obvious, and yet most people fail on these two steps, rather than within the search process. Where do false dilemmas come from? Some arise honestly, because superior alternatives are cognitively hard to see. But one factory for false dilemmas is justifying a questionable policy by pointing to a supposed benefit over the null action.
"The best is the enemy of the good. If the goal is really to help people, then a superior alternative is cause for celebrationonce we find this better strategy, we can help people more effectively. But if the goal is to justify a particular strategy by claiming that it helps people, a Third Alternative is an enemy argument, a competitor."
False dilemma is the key for me. So many have been created in this case and have lead to so many waste -of -time arguments. And falling for these arguments helps in no way to resolve the issue at hand. It's like a kid's top, spinning aimlessly, leading nowhere. I totally question the motives of Cinque and Fetzer. For some time I believed it was all ego, now it has gone way past that point. Bottom line for me is that it does not matter who is in the doorway. It's a totally false dilemma and tells us nothing of substance about this case. Yet they go on and on and on...as if it actually lead somewhere.
Dawn
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 01-06-2012
If those dummies on EF just drew a line between Lovelady's collars they could disprove Fetzer's missing shoulder crap.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 02-06-2012
Both Mr Gordon and Fetzer are wrong. That is Lovelady's white T-shirt.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Jan Klimkowski - 02-06-2012
I see the grammatically challenged part of the "Leni Colby" entity is currently stirring the waters of the Swamp, firing its duck hunting gun randomly, in a voice which seems distinctly unfamiliar.
I wonder what kind of games the Military Censor will play with the Boys from Brazil?
"Colby" opines thus:
Quote:Do the Forum's Apply to the Moderator's As Well or Just Us Mortals?
Many forums were controversial subjects are debated are completely unmoderated, threads on them tend to be exchanges of insults more than worthwhile discussions, others are heavily moderated which tends stifle the free exchange of ideas, normally views which go against the party line' tend to be repressed. Good forum's, like this one, strive for an ideal balance, it doesn't matter what you say but how you say it. We are lucky to have a good group of moderators and administrators (herein after moderators' or mods.') who normally rise above their own biases and fairly apply the rules. However one moderator does not always follow the rules and his colleagues have yet to do anything about it.