+- 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 - Jan Klimkowski - 04-01-2012
Ralph Cinque Wrote:My apology, Mr. Kimkowski. I am not related to, nor have I ever heard of, Donald DeFreeze. Ralph Cinque
Apology accepted - even if the second letter of my surname is 'l'....
"Field Marshal Cinque" was the nom de guerre of Donald DeFreeze, the controlled controller who was allowed to "escape" from the Phoenix Program wing of Vacaville as part of the false flag experiment known as the Symbionese Liberation Army.
There are many researchers on DPF who have spent decades investigating crimes against humanity and against our blue planet. We welcome new information, fresh insights - where they are supported by evidence and analysis. And where they are offered in the spirit of dialogue and dialectic.
We do not welcome being hectored or being told that things are obvious when they are opaque, or meaningful when they are trivial.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 04-01-2012
If we could bring your "photographic analysis" to this board we would see it is more of the same offerings from you of insisting features of Oswald's shirt are visible in blurry pictures of Loveday's shirt seen in Altgens. I don't see those features in your blow-ups. In the end, all it is is you insisting those features are there and using the same fractured logic you use in these posts to prove it. You are taking advantage of the similarity in the overall look of Lovelady's open shirt and tee shirt to Oswald's. This is exactly what those who insist Greer shot Kennedy do. They take advantage of the timing and movements between Greer turning around and Kennedy's head shot.
You failed to answer my points about Black Tie Man's face being half shaded by the lintel shade-line.
Oswald's russian was probably explainable by Armstrong's theory.
It wasn't risky at all for Oswald to lie. You have it completely backwards. If you did competent study of Oswald and his doings he made a career out of lying, and since he was a CIA asset there was very little downside to it. Your petty reasoning above grinds against the real curve here with Oswald. Oswald was lying at the Dallas police station. At the most critical time of his life he was coolly maintaining operational cover. Oswald's lies were just as risky as the Warren Commission's, for they were one in the same.
If Oswald was the Lone Nut shooter they wouldn't need to identify a bystander floors below. You seem to be ignoring what other evidence the Warren Commission ignored.
Good, you seem to be displaying awareness that it would be unlikely Oswald would wear a shirt with all the top buttons ripped-off to work, and that the scuffle at the theater would be the most likely place where those buttons would be torn off. Also, Oswald's landlady took care of Oswald's laundry. She probably would have mended such a shirt.
Realizing there would be a Depository roll-call Lovelady buttoned-up his shirt.
It is logically false to say Hoover's refusal to investigate Lovelady proves a CIA forgery of Altgens.
I'd say there's about 50/50 odds your intention of returning to your lemonade stand seminar on Altgens makes it past site standard enforcement.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Peter Lemkin - 04-01-2012
Was the first thing I thought of too Jan....see my post above. On internet there is a Dr. Cinque, Physcist and others with other occupations listed with his name...but only one related to JFK I found - leading to that video.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Phil Dragoo - 04-01-2012
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3479[/ATTACH]
Nelson
Riddle
Billy Lovelady or Oswald
Oswald was in the lunchroom.
Billy Lovelady looks like Billy Lovelady, not Oswald.
A doorman has epaulets and white gloves.
Except in the realm of magic history.
Wardrobe malfunction
Exposes
boob
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Ralph Cinque - 04-01-2012
Mr. Doyle,
You ignore questions of mine that you don't like. You just answer the ones for which you think you have a clever answer. Well, don't think that evasive behavior goes unnoticed.
You say I am "taking advantage of 'Lovelady's' open shirt and tee shirt" in their similarity to Oswald's? Yes, indeed I am. That is precisely the point. Their "similarity" is too close to be accounted for by chance alone. Consider: Both shirts wide-open/unbuttoned? Check. Both seem big, loose-fitting? Check. (although that is not true of Lovelady. I am speaking of Osawld and Doorman). Both have have a collar and small lapel on the right? Check. Both have a long lapel on the left? Check. Already that is a lot of similarities for two random men, and more than chance would allow. Because of the presence of Black Tie Man, we can't see Doorman's left collar, but tell me: Why is Black Tie Man facing sideways? Kennedy has already passed going the other direction. If you are right that he is a "military intelligence agent" or "mafia guard" shouldn't he be keeping his eye on the action? Why is he facing the wrong way?
I will tell you why. It's because he isn't real. They inserted him in there that way because it was a practical means of covering Doorman's (that is, Oswald's) left collar while keeping Black Tie Man relatively obscure and inconspicuous.
You ask why BT Man's face is "half-shaded." It isn't half-shaded. It's half-missing. Again, they made it that way so that it wouldn't stand out too much. People had seen the original Atlgens photo, and they reported seeing Oswald, but they did not report seeing Oswald glued to some weird guy.
Notwithstanding Armstrong's theory, the fact remains that the Lee Harvey Oswald from that day, the one who was arrested and later shot and killed by Jack Ruby, spoke Russian very well. He was no stupid guy. So, you can't dismiss it with a glib remark about Armstrong.
Little downside to lying to the police? How do you figure? Name one lie that he told and provide proof that it was a lie. I don't doubt that there was plenty that he withheld. But withholding information and lyng are two different things. I know you think he lied to Will Fritz about his whereabouts during the assassination. But, I dispute that that was a lie. I think he was telling the truth. And let the record show that you have NOT addressed my objections to your 2nd floor hypothesis. You did not address the fact that Carolyn did go outside herself during the motorcade and was not on the 2nd floor to observe Oswald there at the crucial time. You shrewdly avoid questions for which you have no answers.
So, besides this issue of his whereabouts during the shooting, which I consider a truth and you consider a lie, name another lie he told. You used the plural "lies."
"If Oswald was the lone nut shooter they wouldn't need to identify a bystander floors below?" Then, you are making my point of why they deliberately did not account for Black Tie Man. But, my question is how did they get with that, appearance-wise? Didn't they have to pretend to be an honest investigation? Let me put it this way: How could they investigate and ask a lot of questions about Doorway Man without even mentioning the guy that was glued to him? You know, if you see an elephant in the room, and you don't mention him, something is wrong. It's an obvious evasion. What they did was an obvious evasion. And I know that they ignored a lot of other evidence, but why doesn't it bother you that they ignored this piece of evidence? After all, you think this guy was a "military intelligence agent" or a "mafia guard." So, he was very much involved in the crime. You should be as outraged as I am that they didn't identify him. So, why are you defending them and attacking me? Cogitate: Military intelligence agent, Mafia guard, Military intelligence agent, Mafia guard, Military intelligence agent, Mafia guard.
How dare you just assume that Oswald's buttons got ripped off in the scuffle? You have no right to do that. That was never reported. The scuffle was described in some detail. Oswald tried to punch a cop, and another cop hit him and he was injured over his left eye. There was no mention of pulling on his shirt and ripping through any buttons. YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE STUFF UP. I demand that you provide a credible, independent reference for that or otherwise retract it- with an apology. Just the fact that you said, in reference to the buttons, that they "would be torn off" proves that you were speculating. Would, my ass.
Depository roll-call? Speaking of asses, whose did you pull that out of? Go ahead and tell me your source for the "Depository roll-call." I read through the WC testimony of Lovelady, and he never said anything about a Depository roll-call. And you just said it! You are amazing. I have to repeat it:
"Realizing there would be a Depository roll-call, Lovelady buttoned up his shirt."
No probably. No maybe. No perhaps. No possibly. Just you and your glibness. Everything just rolls off your tongue, doesn't it? Whatever hits your brain goes right to your fingers on the keyboard without the slightest pause, without the slight reservation, without the slightest review, without the slightest thought. I bet you type a mile a minute.
Hoover's refusal to investigate Lovelady may not prove forgery of Altgens, but it sure raises suspicion about Lovelady being the Doorway Man. And you are on record for accepting forgeries and manipulations of other evidences in the case. So, why are you categorically denying the possibility of corruption of this particular piece of evidence? If Lovelady WAS the Doorway Man then Hoover had NO REASON not to investigate him. Why didn't he do it just to appease the public and the naysayers? It was harmless from his perspective, right? because Lovelady WAS the Doorway Man. But apparently, Hoover wasn't as confident about it as you are.
Site standard enforcement? So, is that what you are counting on and hoping for? That they'll kick me out and end the agony for you? Well, maybe you are right. And in that case, I had better present that evidence now. Refer to this image of the Altgens photo.
http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/5.jpg
What is that white blotch at the level of the right armpit of Black Hole Man? It is obviously distinct from his white t-shirt, so it can't be that. And there seems to be the outline of a man's face around the white blotch. Do you see it? What is it?
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 05-01-2012
When being interrogated by such a wise official as the grand field marshall of The Fetzeranian Banana Republic one has to be very careful lest he spy what you are doing with his clever eye.
Your assertion that you see the same loose-fit to Doorway Man's shirt as Oswald's was something I didn't see in your examples. I watched your video and that claim was made quickly amongst a typical run of suggestive remarks without any real proof. I think the shirt is simply Lovelady's unbuttoned flannel shirt. Your "lapel" is simply Oswald's button hole strip inverted. The comparable "lapel" you try to show on Lovelady is simply the same strip on Lovelady's shirt. Your image of it is almost not visibly detectable. If we got expert photo analysis you would see Black Tie Man is NOT blocking Lovelady's collar. His dropped arm has been explained ad nauseam. You keep throwing the same handful of crap and it keeps failing to stick. Personally I'm getting sick of this crap-throwing contest. The motorcade had many following cars bearing officials. Black Tie Man was probably looking at them. You once again offer extremely weak credulous reasoning. Asking unending spurious questions does not proof make!
When did the arrested Oswald speak russian?
I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you Ralph. Your suggestion that Oswald would have to worry about getting caught in a trivial lie defies his entire existence.
They took statements from Lovelady. He even pointed to himself as being on the door step. At that point your grand assumption that the Warren Commission would have to scrutinize Lovelady when they already had their Lone Nut is preposterous.
How did Oswald get a shirt with missing buttons past his landlady who testified she looked after Oswald's laundry? Would Oswald have donned such a shirt for work that morning?
Cinque: "Lovelady's shirt being buttoned after the shooting proves a complex CIA forgery of Altgens".
Hoover had his Lone Nut. The authorities had their statement from Lovelady. You have to show why they would need to hyperscrutinize Lovelady from that point on.
Ralph, The white blotch is your credibility as fully exposed in a Fetzerian rorschach test...
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Ralph Cinque - 05-01-2012
Well, I appeal to the members to look at that white blotch in the Altgens photo. It is a distinct, amorphous, and aberrant white patch below the right armpit of the man whose arms are raised around his non-existent head. Here is the link:
http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/5.jpg
Mr. Doyle said that the white blotch is my "credibility as fully exposed in a Fetzerian rorschach test." But, I must point out that he completely evaded the question and brushed me off.
How do you all feel about that? I am sincerely trying here to delve into substantive issues. The question of whether the Altgens photo was altered is a legitamate question. Is it not? I know that many of you reject the Lone Gunman hypothesis, as does Mr. Doyle. And the issue of altered evidence has been raised and accepted by conspiracy theorists of all stripes. It is not a Ralph Cinque thing. So, if I raise the question of it in relation to the Altgens photo, I am not being preposterous.
And the thing I point to does look strange. Does it not? I mean, it's a white glob that looks totally out of sync with the other elements of the picture. Is that not right? Does it not warrant some inquiry? Is it OK to ask about it? And should you be any less dissatisfied than I am with Mr. Doyle's answer?
I really want to know what it is. Mr. Doyle thinks it's nothing. But, it has to be something. Does it not? There has to be some explanation for it. Clever sarcasm is great, but for a minute, let's get serious. I am asking the members, seriously, to look at it and tell me what they think it is. Not you, Mr. Doyle. You have already rendered your opinion, and let's leave it at that. But, to the others, please render a serious opinion as to what it is. I thank you in advance.
Regarding Oswald's "lapel" please take a look at this youtube video. It isn't mine. But, it shows his lapel very well. Was that "shirt" rather different or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhLqaDt5l9Q
But, continuing my response to Mr. Doyle, you think that lying to the police about his whereabouts during the assassination was "trivial?"
Yes, Lovelady pointed to himself on the steps, but you don't really know what picture they showed him, and you don't know to whom he pointed. There was no statement in the Warren Report such as:
"Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady was shown the Altgens photo, and in identifying himself, he pointed to the figure who is generally known as the Man in the Doorway. He was wearing an open, unbuttoned outer shirt and v-necked t-shirt and standing next to the white column."
Just because somebody washes your clothes doesn't mean that they repair them. Doing laundry and doing alterations and repairs are two different things.
Who said anything about hyperscrutinizing? I'm talking about asking to see his shirt. The one they hyperscrutinzed was Oswald, and of course, they were framing him. But the point is that, for appearances sake, Hoover should have gone through the motions of investigating Lovelady. Remember: if for any reason the Doorway Man wasn't Lovelady, then it had to be Oswald. There was no one else. And the thing about a frame-up is that you don't want it to actually look like a frame-up. In this case, it looked like a frame-up, and you, a conspiracy advocate, don't even care. You're not even willing to find fault with it from a forensic/legal perspective.
Is there a way for me to post pictures on this forum? I would like to fulfill Mr. Doyle's request and have you all look at my pictures.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 05-01-2012
ENOUGH!
This nonsense belongs in what, when I was a kid, was called the "ungraded room."
You know -- the short bus.
Stop wasting bandwidth on Cinque.
I'm beggin' ya!
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Ralph Cinque - 05-01-2012
I don't beg, but I do request that someone weigh-in on that pic, on that anomaly I pointed out. What are you afraid of? Why are you making this so personal?
I'll tell you what: You don't have to kick me out. I will leave. I will go. I will go willingly.
But before I do, could some of you just give me an honest take on that pic? Here it is again. What is that white blob?
http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/5.jpg
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Seamus Coogan - 05-01-2012
Charles Drago Wrote:ENOUGH!
This nonsense belongs in what, when I was a kid, was called the "ungraded room."
You know -- the short bus.
Stop wasting bandwidth on Cinque.
I'm beggin' ya!
As Lisa Pease told me Al don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk (great americanism that one). This thread is about Jim Fetzer.
Lets engage the good doctor on why he loves JF so. Further why has Mr Fetzer run a mile from his comments he made about myself and Mr Hankey. I love that line of yours 'The Fetzeranian Banana Republic'. Hahahahahhaha That's as good as Dragoos entry here. Seen that one? It's very funny.