Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Now THAT'S Albert Doyle!

I admire and respect Charles as the author of the Evica/Drago model that has taught me a lot. And post here in respect to it. But in the sense of fair debate I offer that this sort of evidences what is the 'twin' material. I am not trying to provoke (though I'm not sure that can be said for others). I think objective people can see what the facts are driving here. The topic is Piper and his book Final Judgment. Are we praising Albert or condemning him according to the points that are obviously being avoided?

[Charles Drago]

Now THAT'S Albert Doyle!

I admire and respect Charles as the author of the Evica/Drago model that has taught me a lot. And post here in respect to it. But in the sense of fair debate I offer that this sort of evidences what is the 'twin' material. I am not trying to provoke (though I'm not sure that can be said for others). I think objective people can see what the facts are driving here. The topic is Piper and his book Final Judgment. Are we praising Albert or condemning him according to the points that are obviously being avoided?

"Albert now refers to "himself" in the third person. Even "he" is getting confused!

More semi-coherence from, it would seem, the historic "Albert Doyle" -- Dig it: "I offer that this sort of evidences what is the 'twin' material."

Perhaps the decision has been made to let that particular head of the hydra post for a while in order to deflect attention from what Greg Burnham and I have uncovered.

[Greg Burnham]

Doylebey Noise Amplification Technology: Proudly insuring that the quantity and volume of noise remains inversely proportional to the quality of meaning.

As an aside, in the American legal system the failure of a suspect to deny the charges for which he is accused is considered incriminatory behavior. Imagine a police officer arresting an individual for suspicion of armed robbery and the suspect refuses to deny the charges so as to not dignify the accusation with a response!

[Charles Drago]

I admire and respect Charles as the author of the Evica/Drago model that has taught me a lot. And post here in respect to it. But in the sense of fair debate I offer that this sort of evidences what is the 'twin' material. I am not trying to provoke (though I'm not sure that can be said for others). I think objective people can see what the facts are driving here. The topic is Piper and his book Final Judgment. Are we praising Albert or condemning him according to the points that are obviously being avoided?

If the person who wrote the post above is indeed the historic "Albert Doyle" -- the individual who first came to DPF some time ago -- I address you thusly:

Come clean, Albert. Identify the person or persons who have been posting here over your name and with your permission. Explain your motives for allowing this deception to occur. If you do, you will regain the respect and legitimacy that, thanks to your perfidy, you now have lost. I shall personally champion your return to the fold of honorable JFK researchers and activists.

But if you choose to continue the now thoroughly exposed "Albert Doyle" charade, the JFK community will treat you as the pariah you surely have become.

The choice is yours.

Or "yours."

[Albert Doyle]

I admire and respect Charles as the author of the Evica/Drago model that has taught me a lot. And post here in respect to it. But in the sense of fair debate I offer that this sort of evidences what is the 'twin' material. I am not trying to provoke (though I'm not sure that can be said for others). I think objective people can see what the facts are driving here. The topic is Piper and his book Final Judgment. Are we praising Albert or condemning him according to the points that are obviously being avoided?

If the person who wrote the post above is indeed the historic "Albert Doyle" -- the individual who first came to DPF some time ago -- I address you thusly:

Come clean, Albert. Identify the person or persons who have been posting here over your name and with your permission. Explain your motives for allowing this deception to occur. If you do, you will regain the respect and legitimacy that, thanks to your perfidy, you now have lost. I shall personally champion your return to the fold of honorable JFK researchers and activists.

But if you choose to continue the now thoroughly exposed "Albert Doyle" charade, the JFK community will treat you as the pariah you surely have become.

The choice is yours.

Or "yours."

That's silly Charles. What is obvious here is a desperate attempt to avoid the subject matter of Piper. I think Mark and myself have won that issue as David's obvious concession shows.

I think what your post here shows is your realization, as I pointed-out, that if you really thought there was some kind of Colby entity posting under my name you wouldn't have given me the positive feedback you did in the post outlined. I think you realized that after I pointed it out and are now trying to compensate for it. Which is kind of silly and ridiculous. Especially when it is obvious it is being used for the sole purpose of avoiding Piper. As you yourself acknowledge here, albeit in a face-saving inverse way, there's no way the 'real' Albert you credit would have sat back and allowed any Colby types to post under his name. Hence you yourself disprove your absurd charges with your own words.

I think this has obviously been forced by the credibility of Piper's material (which has gone totally undiscussed by some). It's amazing what some otherwise highly credible people will do to avoid Piper's evidence. Colby's a Lone Nutter. It's obviously ridiculous to compare me to him. What I think is most obvious here is no person like David has ever backed-down from a Colby, Cinque, Fetzer, Rago-type. That right there proves what's what here. If we were honest the issue here isn't over imaginary witch's, it is over Piper and a deeply-resented topic. This is a simple matter of honesty.

[Albert Doyle]

Doylebey Noise Amplification Technology: Proudly insuring that the quantity and volume of noise remains inversely proportional to the quality of meaning.

As an aside, in the American legal system the failure of a suspect to deny the charges for which he is accused is considered incriminatory behavior. Imagine a police officer arresting an individual for suspicion of armed robbery and the suspect refuses to deny the charges so as to not dignify the accusation with a response!

Coming from a person who hasn't uttered a single on-topic word about the actual information we were discussing. Very poor Greg.

[Charles Drago]

I admire and respect Charles as the author of the Evica/Drago model that has taught me a lot. And post here in respect to it. But in the sense of fair debate I offer that this sort of evidences what is the 'twin' material. I am not trying to provoke (though I'm not sure that can be said for others). I think objective people can see what the facts are driving here. The topic is Piper and his book Final Judgment. Are we praising Albert or condemning him according to the points that are obviously being avoided?

If the person who wrote the post above is indeed the historic "Albert Doyle" -- the individual who first came to DPF some time ago -- I address you thusly:

Come clean, Albert. Identify the person or persons who have been posting here over your name and with your permission. Explain your motives for allowing this deception to occur. If you do, you will regain the respect and legitimacy that, thanks to your perfidy, you now have lost. I shall personally champion your return to the fold of honorable JFK researchers and activists.

But if you choose to continue the now thoroughly exposed "Albert Doyle" charade, the JFK community will treat you as the pariah you surely have become.

The choice is yours.

Or "yours."

That's silly Charles. What is obvious here is a desperate attempt to avoid the subject matter of Piper. I think Mark and myself have won that issue as David's obvious concession shows.

I think what your post here shows is your realization, as I pointed-out, that if you really thought there was some kind of Colby entity posting under my name you wouldn't have given me the positive feedback you did in the post outlined. I think you realized that after I pointed it out and are now trying to compensate for it. Which is kind of silly and ridiculous. Especially when it is obvious it is being used for the sole purpose of avoiding Piper. As you yourself acknowledge here, albeit in a face-saving inverse way, there's no way the 'real' Albert you credit would have sat back and allowed any Colby types to post under his name. Hence you yourself disprove your absurd charges with your own words.

I think this has obviously been forced by the credibility of Piper's material (which has gone totally undiscussed by some). It's amazing what some otherwise highly credible people will do to avoid Piper's evidence. Colby's a Lone Nutter. It's obviously ridiculous to compare me to him. What I think is most obvious here is no person like David has ever backed-down from a Colby, Cinque, Fetzer, Rago-type. That right there proves what's what here. If we were honest the issue here isn't over imaginary witch's, it is over Piper and a deeply-resented topic. This is a simple matter of honesty.

"You" are finished in the JFK community, "Albert Doyle."

"You" had "your" chance to confess to "your" involvement in this painfully obvious deception.

Instead, "you" have chosen to allow this charade to continue.

The identity of the person or persons posting over the "Albert Doyle" signature remain(s) a matter of informed conjecture. This collective entity's mannered writing style and impaired polemics reek of Jim Fetzer -- especially the desperate "if you don't agree with me, you haven't read the material" and the "if you challenge my legitimacy or sanity, it's because you cannot refute my argument" fallback positions.

But in the final analysis, this truth is now inescapable: "Albert Doyle" has joined the ranks of "Len Colby" as an outed agent provocateur. And I shall make it my personal business to expose "Albert Doyle's" perfidy to the larger JFK research community.

"You" are finished, "Albert Doyle."

[Greg Burnham]

I am now certain that the person posting under the name of Albert Doyle, may well be Jim Fetzer himself!

If another individual(s), whether Albert Doyle or not, they are doing so in a further attempt to completely sever from our collective memory the past good work of Jim Fetzer by mimicking his style nearly without flaw. The individual most certainly knew that their subterfuge would be exposed; indeed, they counted on it.

If it is Jim Fetzer, this is disgraceful and would histrionically display how far from grace he has fallen. If not, it is an interesting operation to be sure.

It is becoming a doppelganger gambit. I further believe it is destructive to the research community as a whole no matter the source.

[Don Jeffries]

I don't have the expertise that some of you have regarding Albert Doyle's writing style. However, I really don't see any traces of Jim Fetzer in his posts. Fetzer is very distinctive, and unless he's doing an Academy Award level job of hiding it, I think it's reckless to charge that he is the one posting under Doyle's name.

Fetzer has never been shy about advocating things that virtually everyone else slams him about. If he wanted to champion Piper, do you really think he'd shy away from doing that under his own name? This guy stood by Judyth Baker, for something like 200 pages of a record setting thread on the EF, and never backed away, despite almost everyone opposing him. The same thing happened with Cinque and the Oswald in the Doorway stuff. Which, btw, Albert Doyle was perhaps the foremost opponent of on this forum. Why would Fetzer choose now to use his passionate opponent's identity? And why would Doyle agree to let someone he obviously doesn't have much use for do so?

You really ought to think these things out before making such claims on a public forum. I'm as cynical as they come, but I think you're letting your distase for Fetzer cloud your judgment here.

[Charles Drago]

I don't have the expertise that some of you have regarding Albert Doyle's writing style. However, I really don't see any traces of Jim Fetzer in his posts.

Which is the equivalent of saying, "I'm not a physician, but I really don't see anything suspicious about that lump on your scrotum."

As I just posted to you on another thread:

Put on your deep politics thinking cap. And while you're at it, check past posts on this thread. You'll save yourself a whole lot of embarrassment.

What stops one or more individuals posting over the "Albert Doyle" signature from e-mailing or otherwise transmitting their copy to the historic "Albert Doyle," "who" then would post them here from "his" traceable, consistent e-mail address?

Your reasoning, in terms of your either/or alternatives, is laughable. Have you learned nothing from our shared labors in the deep politics theater of operations?

Examine the evidence. And as far as your own credibility is concerned: Do not attempt to dissect this operation with so dull an instrument as your perceptions as they are herein revealed.