The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Albert Doyle]

Jan: I preferred not to join.



Sorry for responding here. It's just that there's some murder being gotten away with over there that needs refuting.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Jan: I preferred not to join.

Sorry for responding here. It's just that there's some murder being gotten away with over there that needs refuting.

Albert - very happy for you to respond here on the forum to my public question.

[Dawn Meredith]

Now Judyth Baker has jumped the shark. She's saying Lovelady is too thin to be the real Lovelady and the pattern in his shirt has obviously been forged.


Funny how when Cinque needs Lovelady to be thin, like in the FBI shots, he's suddenly "scrawny" yet when this build shows up in Altgens it's suddenly too thin to be him.


The reason Lovelady's shirt looks loose in Altgens is because it's undone and he's leaning over while hanging on to the railing.


Again: Ask Fetzer to show the forgery marks in Weigman which shows Lovelady right in the same spot as Altgens.

Interesting how Judyth injects herslef into everything. There is a facebook page devoted to Harvey and Lee and she does have the book now and was going on and on about all the so called "mistakes". She just inserts herself into whatever story is being told. I used to believe her but now I cannot deal with her because she just has to be involved in things she could not have possibly have been, like where LHO lived growing up and the like. Now she's a Lovelady expert? She is telling people I drove her away from the discussion on Harvey and Lee when all I did was ask her questions. Her so called inital meeting of Lee (Harvery actually) in the post office is very suspect. Her story is that he spoke to her and she spoke back in Russian. Now who would converse for the first time in this manner? Does not pass the smell test.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

In a letter to Roger Feinman dated September 16, 1988, Harold Weisberg puts to rest the Lovelady "different" shirts issue. The important paragraph is taken out of the body of that letter and reproduced, replete with original typos, in bold below:

"Perhaps you remember the work I did on the shirt on the man in the doorway in
the altgene picture, in Whitewash II. Then, when Photographic Whitewash had been
Rfinted, save for the last sig, held for the index, on the Saturday afternoon before
!-onday publication, when had just finished typing that index, of all unexpected
things, Mrs. Billy Lovelady phoned me. She had the purest of purposes - money. She told
me that the FBI had not asked Billy to wear the shirt he wore 11/22 when he went to
iti.offices to be photographed, that he hadn't worn that shirt, that like many men he
paid no4 attention to what he wore. She said that the shirt he had worn that day is
of large red and 'lick squares and that she would sell it to me - for $5,000. Which
l didn't have and wouldn t have if I had. I added a note on this at the end of the
index and nobody paid any attention to it. Save maybe a few critics.

The entire letter, reproduced below, was posted on The Swamp by the estimable Michael Hogan -- who, by the way, would be VERY welcome here at DPF:

Mr. Roger Feinman 9.110.88
142-10 Hoover Ave. ,#4i)4
Jamaica, N.Y. 11435
Dear Rogery
For the moment, be,:ause it involves a promise I made to someone for an exclusive
JFK assassination story, plesae keep this in confidence intil after the anniveraary.
L'erhaps you remember the work I did on the shirt on the man in the doorway in
the altgene picture, in Whitewash II. Then, when Photographic Whitewash had been
Rfinted, save for the last sig, held for the index, on the Saturday afternoon before
!-onday publication, when 141 had just finished typing that index, of all unexpected
things, Mrs. Billy Lovelady phoned me. She had the purest of purposes - money. She told
me that the FBI had not asked Billy to wear the shirt he wore 11/22 when he went to
iti.offices to be photographed, that he hadn't worn that shirt, that like many men he
paid no4 attention to what he wore. She said that the shirt he had worn that day is
of large red and 'lick squares and that she would sell it to me - for $5,000. Which
l didn't have and wouldn t have if I had. I added a note on this at the end of the
index and nobody paid any attention to it. Save maybe a few critics.
Later, when Bob Richter was working on a CBS special, he spoke to me, as I just
recalled, and I suggested photographing Lovelady in the shirt she had described.
There came a time, and I can date it, I'm pretty sure later, I asked l'ob 'roden,
wh they had the overexposed Martin film, DCAIs Martin, to search the frames of the
doorway to see if such a shirt is in it. It is and he sent me a color print. So, for
some years I've had both aspects of this shirt business nailed down.
The reporter friend is coming Monday so, with a few minutes, I checked the file
to be sure this print is there. (Overexposed and so greatly enlarged from an amateur
film it is far from a good picture but it corroborates Mrs. L 19eA.)
However, I also found a color slide, taken from behind the back of a man who
was looking at Lovelady standing on the TSAI) steps, what I'm pretty sure Inauggested
to Richter. I also think that the man facing L is Richter. But I don't recall how I
got that slide. I'm writing to ask if you have any knowledge or recollection.
The cardboard framing of the slide is completely blank - no name or anything else
on it and no notation.
I was distressed to hear that Sylvia's health is again iopaied. After you told
me 1 heard that Mae oruesell was given only a oouple of months, advanced vaginal cancer.
Also heard that ''in arrieon has a book in page proof, due soon. So also do iroden
and Harry "ivingston. Latter being published in Candela
Best,

[Albert Doyle]

Cinque is getting away with a strawman to avoid dealing with the Fritz notes. Before the subject was changed to Elbow Man Cinque was trying to say the suggestion that Oswald ate lunch after the Baker encounter dismisses all interpretations of the Fritz notes. It doesn't. Since Oswald was said to have left the Depository around 12:33 that means the post-Baker lunch issue is already dismissed by the facts. So therefore Cinque doesn't have the right to use the post-Baker lunch issue as an overly-long strawman to get around answering the point. If Baker encountered Oswald at 12:31 and 30 seconds then it isn't possible he went to the 1st floor to eat lunch. Besides, Carolyn Arnold said Oswald was eating lunch when she saw him at 12:25 on the 2nd floor. The Coke was obviously used to wash it down and Oswald obviously followed his usual routine by going to Geneva Hine for change before buying it.


So this still leaves us with the question of why Fritz wrote about the encounter with Baker two lines above this alleged visit to the front steps? And so far Cinque hasn't answered it.


The obvious interpretation of Fritz's notes is that Oswald was confronted by Baker on the 2nd floor. He then went down to the 1st floor in the act of leaving according to the known timeline. We know it was in the course of exiting the building because a secretary saw Oswald walk across the 2nd floor holding a Coke. It was then that Fritz noted "had lunch" because Oswald had probably told him that he had finished having lunch and left to go out front with Shelley on the front steps. The timeline prevents any interpretation of Oswald having lunch after the Baker encounter. It is Cinque who suggests this only because he needs to use it as a strawman. However once we realize it can't be used as such then an answer is due for the remaining questions. So far Cinque hasn't answered them.

[Phil Dragoo]

"For those open to the truth, existing proof is sufficient; for those closed to it, no amount will suffice."

Will no one help Cinque find his strawberries?


Have you at last no decency?


For a comparable mania, consider Colin Ferguson the convicted Long Island Railway Killer despite this delusional pro se performance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvOspp9gt...re=related


"Even in the face of so much evidence the defendant maintains he is innocent."

[Greg Burnham]

Cinque is getting away with a strawman to avoid dealing with the Fritz notes. Before the subject was changed to Elbow Man Cinque was trying to say the suggestion that Oswald ate lunch after the Baker encounter dismisses all interpretations of the Fritz notes. It doesn't. Since Oswald was said to have left the Depository around 12:33 that means the post-Baker lunch issue is already dismissed by the facts. So therefore Cinque doesn't have the right to use the post-Baker lunch issue as an overly-long strawman to get around answering the point. If Baker encountered Oswald at 12:31 and 30 seconds then it isn't possible he went to the 1st floor to eat lunch. Besides, Carolyn Arnold said Oswald was eating lunch when she saw him at 12:25 on the 2nd floor. The Coke was obviously used to wash it down and Oswald obviously followed his usual routine by going to Geneva Hine for change before buying it.


So this still leaves us with the question of why Fritz wrote about the encounter with Baker two lines above this alleged visit to the front steps? And so far Cinque hasn't answered it.


The obvious interpretation of Fritz's notes is that Oswald was confronted by Baker on the 2nd floor. He then went down to the 1st floor in the act of leaving according to the known timeline. We know it was in the course of exiting the building because a secretary saw Oswald walk across the 2nd floor holding a Coke. It was then that Fritz noted "had lunch" because Oswald had probably told him that he had finished having lunch and left to go out front with Shelley on the front steps. The timeline prevents any interpretation of Oswald having lunch after the Baker encounter. It is Cinque who suggests this only because he needs to use it as a strawman. However once we realize it can't be used as such then an answer is due for the remaining questions. So far Cinque hasn't answered them.

Albert,

As a point of logic:

A straw man fallacy occurs when one participant in a debate exaggerates the argument of his opponent in order to more easily defeat that argument. I don't believe that you have demonstrated a straw man on Cinque's part in this instance.

[Seamus Coogan]

Now Judyth Baker has jumped the shark. She's saying Lovelady is too thin to be the real Lovelady and the pattern in his shirt has obviously been forged.


Funny how when Cinque needs Lovelady to be thin, like in the FBI shots, he's suddenly "scrawny" yet when this build shows up in Altgens it's suddenly too thin to be him.


The reason Lovelady's shirt looks loose in Altgens is because it's undone and he's leaning over while hanging on to the railing.


Again: Ask Fetzer to show the forgery marks in Weigman which shows Lovelady right in the same spot as Altgens.

Interesting how Judyth injects herslef into everything. There is a facebook page devoted to Harvey and Lee and she does have the book now and was going on and on about all the so called "mistakes". She just inserts herself into whatever story is being told. I used to believe her but now I cannot deal with her because she just has to be involved in things she could not have possibly have been, like where LHO lived growing up and the like. Now she's a Lovelady expert? She is telling people I drove her away from the discussion on Harvey and Lee when all I did was ask her questions. Her so called inital meeting of Lee (Harvery actually) in the post office is very suspect. Her story is that he spoke to her and she spoke back in Russian. Now who would converse for the first time in this manner? Does not pass the smell test.

Dawn

Dawn good on you for applying pressure to her. Oddly enough to few people have done it. Jack White did a superb job. If its any consolation mate I just read her book and I have to say it's awful. I mean in between her talking about her room mate having 'pendulous' breasts, her anxiety about losing her cherry, not to mention how many times she reminds the reader about how smart she is it's a wonder she had any time at all to meet Lee Oswald. Oh and when she does the story of the black woman and how her and Lee saw the child in the bag is just hilarious. I mean she always mentions how cautious Lee is with being noticed. Yet he makes a point of sitting at the back of the bus with the local black population. Lol If there is enough interest I will endeavour to do a review on the book at CTKA. Could be next year, but I dunno if Jim wants me to waste my time. Shame is that Ed Haslam who had a lot to do with the whole thing did a good effort for the most part Dr Mary's Monkey. An interesting little read that one.

[Don Jeffries]

Albert Doyle,

I'm glad I checked in on this thread. Didn't know I was getting this kind of attention from you.

First, I'm not "defending" Ralph Cinque. I don't find his photo interpretations convincing in the least, and none of my posts on that thread support his contentions. The point I've been trying to make is that this issue has NOT been settled definitively. There are serious questions about Lovelady, and the man in the doorway just should not be assumed to be him because Groden thinks so, or because internet posters like you keep yelling that the matter has been resolved, and no more debate can be permitted about it.

Just because Cinque and Fetzer are making an unpersuasive, specific argument doesn't mean that all those who believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway or, like myself and Greg Burnham among others, think there are reasonable doubts about the identify of the figure, are wrong. You are like Tink Thompson and others who proclaim that previously strong indicators of conspiracy like a bullet hole in the limo windshield or the bizarre Umbrella Man have been innocently explained away and can no longer be discussed. Lovelady has not been "proven" to be the figure in the doorway, no matter how many times you say it.

I've been a student of the JFK assassination since I was a volunteer for Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I know what I'm talking about. You, like too many others in this community (and ironically, obviously Cinque and Fetzer would fall into this category) simply cannot accept disagreement with others. I am as strong a believer in conspiracy as you're going to find on any of these forums. I have never wavered in my belief that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963. Yet you think I am "incompetent" and am "showing my true colors" because I agree with some of the points Cinque has made, all of them outside the realm of photo analysis?

I think the Education Forum is a great resource. They asked me to be a moderator, and I was happy to do so. I don't moderate much, because I believe adults should be able to engage in debates with little oversight from others. I believe in free speech for everyone, even Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer. If you don't, then your concept of liberty is different from mine. Charles Drago may want to figuratively "burn down" the EF, and probably doesn't see the frightening thought process behind his declaration, but when someone wants to take away YOUR right to express your views, I promise I'll be there to defend you, too.

I know you all love to refer to the EF as a "swamp," but imho it provides for the most wide ranging discussions you find on this subject presently on the internet. Sure, we could ban Colby, Lamson, DVP and others, but what purpose would that serve? To quote an episode of the Twilight Zone, "When everyone is beautiful, no one will be." Without wrong, there is no right. How often can one debate those he almost completely agrees with? What exactly would there be to discuss? At what point do you grow tired of patting each other on the back?

[Peter Lemkin]

Albert Doyle,

I'm glad I checked in on this thread. Didn't know I was getting this kind of attention from you.

First, I'm not "defending" Ralph Cinque. I don't find his photo interpretations convincing in the least, and none of my posts on that thread support his contentions. The point I've been trying to make is that this issue has NOT been settled definitively. There are serious questions about Lovelady, and the man in the doorway just should not be assumed to be him because Groden thinks so, or because internet posters like you keep yelling that the matter has been resolved, and no more debate can be permitted about it.

Just because Cinque and Fetzer are making an unpersuasive, specific argument doesn't mean that all those who believe Oswald was the figure in the doorway or, like myself and Greg Burnham among others, think there are reasonable doubts about the identify of the figure, are wrong. You are like Tink Thompson and others who proclaim that previously strong indicators of conspiracy like a bullet hole in the limo windshield or the bizarre Umbrella Man have been innocently explained away and can no longer be discussed. Lovelady has not been "proven" to be the figure in the doorway, no matter how many times you say it.

I've been a student of the JFK assassination since I was a volunteer for Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I know what I'm talking about. You, like too many others in this community (and ironically, obviously Cinque and Fetzer would fall into this category) simply cannot accept disagreement with others. I am as strong a believer in conspiracy as you're going to find on any of these forums. I have never wavered in my belief that Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963. Yet you think I am "incompetent" and am "showing my true colors" because I agree with some of the points Cinque has made, all of them outside the realm of photo analysis?

I think the Education Forum is a great resource. They asked me to be a moderator, and I was happy to do so. I don't moderate much, because I believe adults should be able to engage in debates with little oversight from others. I believe in free speech for everyone, even Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer. If you don't, then your concept of liberty is different from mine. Charles Drago may want to figuratively "burn down" the EF, and probably doesn't see the frightening thought process behind his declaration, but when someone wants to take away YOUR right to express your views, I promise I'll be there to defend you, too.

I know you all love to refer to the EF as a "swamp," but imho it provides for the most wide ranging discussions you find on this subject presently on the internet. Sure, we could ban Colby, Lamson, DVP and others, but what purpose would that serve? To quote an episode of the Twilight Zone, "When everyone is beautiful, no one will be." Without wrong, there is no right. How often can one debate those he almost completely agrees with? What exactly would there be to discuss? At what point do you grow tired of patting each other on the back?

Hey Don! Hello again. Well said above, but what of [for example] my having been silenced at EF without any due process? I realize you likely feel you can't speak to that here without jeopardizing your own position there, but that is exactly on example of the problem, and why some refer to it as the 'swamp'. You are correct, that moderators shouldn't 'moderate' based on content, only on protocol and manner of posting [playing fair and by the rules]. Free speech should reign. In my case and in that of others it did not. Some moderators and others behind them [who I shall charitably not mention here by name] see otherwise and make decisions based [from my experience - whether they realize it or not - I think they do, however] on ideology....and that is very sad. JFK dissonance is usually tolerated there, but 911 conspiracy talk [other than the official 911 conspiracy] is suppressed to cite just one example. I pointed out the bullying and ideological biases by Walker [both used to control what is and is not debated on the EF] and was pilloried for it...my IP blocked, lies made up about me, a non-standard by any rules then extant 'vote' was taken to remove me and all my posts disappeared - never able to speak or defend myself - even be presented with the alleged and hinted, but never listed 'crimes'. Even those who would speak up for me or post my thoughts were threatened. Free speech at the EF....ONLY when it has been 'approved'. Take care of yourself. You are one of the good guys there....but many blackards are members, agents posing as members, moderators and 'staff'. IMHO. A swamp is a swamp, even if there are a few patches of dry ground.