Dawn Meredith Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Good. I no longer trust you with any aspect of this forum,
where you have proven to be willing to distrort arguments,
suppress evidence, and trash those who disagree with you.

Charles Drago Wrote:See post # 20.

Could it be that people are genuinely concerned for you? I mean the post is right there, no-one removed it. Yet you said it was gone.
CD can be abrasive, but you can be as well. And you are aligning with people we do not trust here. Is this new post just to annoy?
I mean seriously, what is your game? Because it is certainly beginning to appear to BE a game. Will you be teaming up with "Colby" next?
This is becoming very sad and quite beneath you.

Dawn

Greg Burnham Wrote:Jim,

I am unconvinced of the assertions regarding Doorman. Unfortunately, I also observe that Jack White's expertise in this (and other) area(s) is sorely missed due to an extended convalescence. When one or two researchers believe that they have made a break through discovery, especially one that flies in the face of decades of research conducted by over a dozen fellow researchers (all of whom have repeatedly demonstrated their bona fides and integrity, including Jack), I would think that a peer review of sorts is precisely the reason that this potential discovery should be shared in its infancy.

It is not advised, IMHO, to share a new discovery of this nature that is still in its untested stage in a manner that pontificates to fellow respected researchers. If peer review is unimportant to you, then why even share the information now? Seems like the information could instead be placed in a new book if one is that convinced of its validity, rather than on a forum whose purpose is to vet such claims as these--particularly when they run contrary to previously validated studies. Is it possible that the new information will eventually supersede what we already know? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But, as of now--it has yet to be proved.

Bottom line: One should EXPECT harsh criticisms when posting work of this nature on a public forum. One should roll with the punches and prove their case, if possible. One should remain properly dispassionate, but not aloof.

On a final note...these recommendations are much easier for me to say since I am not the one sharing my work. I am not intending to preach either. My apologies if it came out that way.

Albert Doyle Wrote:I think those who give the undeserved possibility that this Doorway Man theory might have some validity do so because they haven't done the basic homework to show why it is garbage. If you'll notice there's a direct relationship between those who give this crap theory the theoretical benefit of the doubt and those who didn't participate in the discussion of why it's apocryphal. It's useless to referee methodology when what is being refereed is obvious crap to begin with, in my opinion. Once Lovelady was shown standing off to the side in the exact same shirt opened in the front and exposing the white t-shirt underneath the exact same way, that should be enough for most people. Most people with common sense should see all "Dr Cinque" offers is stubbornly-defiant ignorant rubbish.


By the way, Dr Fetzer, during your self-proclaimed persecution did you take the time to view the photo of the Vincennes being scrapped? Or was that forged too?

Charles Drago Wrote:Is there no depth to which Jim Fetzer will not sink?

Is there no trap into which Jim Fetzer will not sashay?

With each successive embrace of a fool, charlatan, and/or agent provocateur, the once-beloved and respected Jim Fetzer distances himself from and diminishes the noble quests for truth and justice for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Elsewhere in our cyber world, Jim currently is spatting with a former ally -- yet another in the long list of ignorati he champions and then abandons. I speak of the sex-obsessed Texan who long ago was exposed -- he'd like my use of that word -- on these pages as a perverted intellectual lightweight. "You call yourself a historian," Jim recently wrote to him in full derision mode.

Oh well ... Better late than never.

So is it only a matter of time before Jim dumps the savage disinformation agent who promotes the LBJ/"Mastermind" ruse and the snake oil salesman (literally!) Cinque?

The extremely significant issues relating to the identity of the controversial figure in Altgens 6 have been dragged through the mud of Cinque's mind here and elsewhere to the extent that they have been taken off the serious discussion table. In other words, provocation accomplished.

When we at DPF sent Cinque packing, that was the cue for the vengeful egomaniac Jim Fetzer to jump into Cinque's cesspool. "I'll fix those DPF bastards!" Jim likely told himself -- over and over again.

We are left to wonder which of the Boobsie Twins initiated contact. Oh, to have been a bug on the electronic wall when that call was made ...

The decline and fall of Jim Fetzer is heartbreaking to all of us who still love and who, once upon a time, respected the man.

Jim, where once you stood with Mantik and Aguilar and Evica, you now choose to stand with Cinque and Nelson and Morrow.

If you are still in command of your faculties, shame on you.

If your are not, may you find and accept the loving help you so desperately need.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

P.S. -- Jim, you are destroying your good name within the community of those who seek truth and justice for JFK. The process is accelerating. Which is, of course, your business.

But as you loom ever larger as a major vulnerability in our war against the killers of John and, by extension, Robert, Martin, Malcolm, and the countless millions of souls who might have lived full lives had the assassins been prevented from striking, your de facto hostile actions will not go unredressed. Not on my watch.

By the same token, I will not permit your exemplary work of years gone by to be tainted by the horrendous errors of judgment that characterize your dotage. The great good you have done will live after you. Despite what you do today.

Please get help while you still can.

Please.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The White Queen only believed six impossible things before breakfast...

For the avoidance of doubt, this is directed at the Emeritus Professor and his snake oil salesman sidekick.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:The latest intel I have received is that the Vincennes is in the Mediterranian lobbing shells to test the "Iron Dome" that we have contsructed for the Israelis when the missile barrage begins after they attack Iran. One woman wrote to tell me she could not share our article with her because her husband was serving aboard the Vincennes. Some people will believe anything, where you appear to be among them. What you are admitting here is that the argument is too subtle and complex for you to follow. That does not surprise me, Albert. Admit you have no idea who is right or wrong instead of persisting in making a fool of yourself. Someone is writing "obvious crap", but it is not Ralph Cinque or Jim Fetzer.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Albert,

Ralph has seen something no one else has noticed for nearly 50 years--and it is decisive! What I cannot understand is why you should be so up in arms over a major advance in JFK research. Why is that? If you care about the truth of the assassination, you should be celebrating, not making these petty, unwarranted and disparaging remarks about a man who intellect exceeds your own by some considerable measure. But then I digress.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Let me ask a parallel question. Ralph and I do not see things EXACTLY the same way, because I believe Billy Lovelady when he went to the FBI and showed them the shirt he was actually wearing. Now I must ask, do you know ANYONE who would go to the FBI and claim that they had been wearing a shirt IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN WEARING THAT SHIRT? I don't know anyone like that. Maybe you do. I ask: WOULD YOU DO THAT?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Because not only has Ralph shown that the shirt on the man in the doorway was Oswald's shirt--based on the texture, the lapel, the way it lies, the missing buttons--but I have shown that the shirt on the man in the doorway IS NOT LOVELADY'S SHIRT. And that is the case whether you accept the SHORT SLEEVED, VERTICALLY STRIPED SHIRT or the BRIGHTLY CHECKERED SHIRT. Is that really SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEE?

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Let me know when you have an argument that shows we have something wrong.
We have proven Oswald was the Doorway Man. If there is a disproof, present it.