The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Ralph Cinque]

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.

[Seamus Coogan]

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.

Well it's such a pity I come across tough talking faceless 'punks' on the internet. That are so very, very far away. Because judging by ill logic I can tell you are intellectually challenged. I've obviously beaten you there merely by thinking. Physcally well, hey I am 6ft2 about 100 kgs played rugby and rugby league not very well lol and I'm mid 30's. So likely younger than you Dr Cinque. I am sorry to offend my American pals, both sports are tougher than NFL and yeah I've played that before as well.

If I hit the states I would love to don some gloves, headgear and have a sparring session. I doubt tough talking punks like yourself would have the Kahone's to do such a thing. Further it's not a good look hitting up a vegetable. I don't think you will be impressing Don with your turn here. And I really don't care what Don thinks of me. And yes a united front of JFK pugilists united finding truth and steam roll turkeys like yourself is a great idea.

[James H. Fetzer]

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 of 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 have been missed by several generations of JFK students. 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 that Charles was attacking was the position I was defending, which it manifestly is not. Continuing these equally unwarranted attacks on Ralph only reaffirms that this forum is not serious about research on JFK.

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]

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.

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]

More confirmation, if any were needed. Seamus views the forum as a social club, not as a research forum. No wonder he is welcome here! He fits right in.

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.

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.

[Seamus Coogan]

:dancingman:nort::happyweed:

God has us 'snorted' out CD!!!!!!

[Ralph Cinque]

Thank you, Jim. Believe it or not, Doyle has finally come around to admiting that there is some "object" associated with the wild hair of the African-American woman in the Altgens photo. For a long time, he denied it completely.

But now he admits that there is "something" there besides her hair, and that it may be a "hat" or an "arm" of another person. I don't think he meant that the African-American woman herself was wearing a hat. I'm sure he was referring to someone else. But, I pointed out to him that you can't claim such a minor feature of another person because you have to account for the whole person. You can't just assume that the rest of the person got lost in the picture somewhere. You just can't make that kind of assumption.

So, I think that our assumption- and I want to point out that it started with you because I didn't arrive at it until I read your article in Veterans Today-that there is a whole, intact figure there, a man, where the "white blotch" in the vicinity of the right armpit of Black Hole Man is his obfuscated face, and the "black blotch" below it which merges with the hair of the African-American woman is his obfuscated torso. And his shirt was deliberately blackened precisely to cover up the distinctive pattern of his shirt. And that man, whom I shall call from this moment forth "Obfuscated Man" is most likely the real Lovelady.

Doyle actually had the nerve to suggest that the white blotch is a "shirt or jacket thrown over the shoulder of Black Hole Man." Now do you see the kind of lunacy I have been dealing with? It is obviously not that. We have all had jackets and shirts thrown over our shoulders, and we know what they look like. And what about the outline of a man's head that you can see there? You, Jim, even described the guy's hairline. Doyle made no mention of it, like he didn't see it. There is something underneath the white blotch, Doyle, and you don't need x-ray vision like Superman to see it.

I am posting the picture again just so that all honest viewers can see for themselves. Look at the white blotch, and then look around it. Look particularly at the top of the white blotch because the whiteness tapers off and more of the head is exposed. That ain't no jacket, Doyle.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YwYqFBoL3ZA/Sj...velady.jpg

[Ralph Cinque]

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.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Thanks, Jim, and God bless.

Now get some rest, old friend; you've earned it.

[Seamus Coogan]

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.

Man if you listen closely you can hear the sound of the worlds smallest violin playing all the way down in NZ. Why justify myself to a lunatic like yourself? Yes that's what you are. Charles and Al's and eveyone elses opinions are the same as mine. So please go have a long cool drink of shut the F*** up. CD can we please boot this smear off of here?