As I tried to explained to Jim... you can have 10,000 points of self realized MATCHING going on in those PHOTOS... One 100% MISMATCH and the shirts CANNOT be the same...
You know Jim... On false statement in a series of truths still renders the statement false... even though PARTS are true...
1) Doorman's hair is more abundant, like Oswald's, and you can clearly see it going up from the top center of his head in Altgens6 and coming around from the left side of his temple; Doorman's hair is not real short and fuzzy like Lovelady's FBI photo. Lovelady's round dome topped head does not match the flat topped cranium of Doorman (Lee Oswald).
Please see posted image... Lovelady and Doorman's heads MATCH... 99%
2) The picture shown, of Oswald in the elevator, has his left cuff pushed up because he is in handcuffs. The photo of the bogus Lovelady at the Dallas PD is not legit. How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even distinguish between Billy Lovelady and this guy who looks like a gorilla? It's pretty embarrassing, since we have emphasized it so many places.
Lovelady is sitting at the desk arms completely bent and the sleeve STILL reaches his hand... PLUS fromthe notes YOU JIM USED to determine he was OUT FRONT, also tells us he changed his shirt...
Why do you ignore this repeatedly? Talk about playing games and misleading an audience.... FRITZ'S notes supplied you with this lead
FRITZ's notes destroys your analysis from the start... he changed his shirt... Altgens 6, even if it was Oswald, CANNOT be MATCHED using a shirt that had not yet been worn that day...
DEAL with it Jim... without the insults.
3) Doorman's (Oswald) T-shirt is a thumb-tugged V-neck, which we have shown in many photos and collages, which was confirmed not to be a shadow by Ralph Cinque during the Dallas photo shoot, which no one here is discussing.
My 6 points plainly shows how this shirt has a perfectly round collar... not until AFTER HIS ARREST does this shirt exhibit any PULLED collar...
MAYBE one of the 6 cops that wrestled him stretched his shirt... possible?
4) The bone structure of Doorman's head and face match Oswald; the Lovelady FBI photo was altered, where the bone structure was softened to look like Oswald.
BullSh!t Jim... Lovelady has cheekbones that almost cover his ears.... the right side face SHADOW is evident and MATCHES in BOTH Lovelady and Doorman...
5) Doorman's left cheek bone and ear are not clearly visible because the area is a mess of sloppy touch-up applied to Doorman's left cheek all the way over into Black Tie Man's neck.
uh... right... Cart - meet horse... Again Jim, you sound like Specter. "The headshot couldn't be from the front since the killer was shooting from behind"
6) Doorman's nose is crooked because it was altered; there are cut marks, in the shape of a cresent, across his nose bridge to his right ear and back under his nose to his left ear. The crescent cut-out was not centered correctly.
Now you're just grasping for ANYTHING... and it's pretty pathetic Jim. You were WRONG about the math, WRONG about the probability and WRONG about the MATCHES
You Dont' seem to want to address YOUR reliability with YOUR 50 matches to arrive an a reliable probability
not do you even consider the myraid of items that completely REFUTE your findings...
Did you recently attend a class given by Bugliosi on how to obscure reasonbing when supporting evidence is impossible to produce?
Jim - you have ESTABLISHED no such thing. YOU HAVE guessed and decided unilaterally what does and doesn't MATCH... and from what I saw you were not even CLOSE to 50/50 on the probability of a MATCH being real or imagined...
What's 50 to the 50th power Jim? [TABLE="width: 300"]
[TR]
[TD] 1,125,899,906,842,620 to 1.... and that's if you got it 50% right !
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Deciding on your own what is and isn't a MATCH is like letting the CIA tell us their role in the assassination.... it's BS.
Jim... the fact you are well known and others look to you for some direction in this case has now become a running joke.
You've used this position to promote a terribley poor excuse for an argument and photographic proof...
Even Lamson sees you for what you and Ralph are....
So if indeed there is a special place for those that expose supposed CONSPIRACY RESEARCHERS (one of our "own") for offering a misguided and ultimately incorrect assessment of the images and events from that day,
while glossing over all of the evidence AGAINST such a conclusion... I'm ready for my name tag...
HELLO, My name is DJ and I exposed Jim Fetzer's misrepresentations about Doorman in the Altgen 6 photo for the nonsense it is.
Now he's all defensive about it and behaving like a disgruntled 5 year old instead of the learned professor, author, & researcher he supposedly is...
One gets the impression that Jim Fetzer thinks he's never been wrong about ANYTHING....
When and if you attempt to rebutt the argument I put forth instead of tap dancing around with veiled ad homs and little girl tactics... let us know.
Jim... you sir have become one of the GREAT disappointments and laughing stocks of the JFK research community...
That you choose this worthless area to make a stand, belittle the JFK community and ruin a career is YOUR call.... just know that I will now think of you in the same breath as Posner, Myers and Bugliosi
Men who have used their positions to promote completely undefensible arguments all for self promotion...
Sad... just sad.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Here are some comments on your "six points", where none of you has even ever "explained away" the four major proofs of alteration, even before we reach the points of comparison. If you can't account for the obfuscated face, the missing shoulder, BTM being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time, and the black man's profile, it comes as no surprise you don't have anything serious to contribute.
1) Doorman's hair is more abundant, like Oswald's, and you can clearly see it going up from the top center of his head in Altgens6 and coming around from the left side of his temple; Doorman's hair is not real short and fuzzy like Lovelady's FBI photo. Lovelady's round dome topped head does not match the flat topped cranium of Doorman (Lee Oswald).
2) The picture shown, of Oswald in the elevator, has his left cuff pushed up because he is in handcuffs. The photo of the bogus Lovelady at the Dallas PD is not legit. How can anyone take you seriously when you can't even distinguish between Billy Lovelady and this guy who looks like a gorilla? It's pretty embarrassing, since we have emphasized it so many places.
3) Doorman's (Oswald) T-shirt is a thumb-tugged V-neck, which we have shown in many photos and collages, which was confirmed not to be a shadow by Ralph Cinque during the Dallas photo shoot, which no one here is discussing.
4) The bone structure of Doorman's head and face match Oswald; the Lovelady FBI photo was altered, where the bone structure was softened to look like Oswald.
5) Doorman's left cheek bone and ear are not clearly visible because the area is a mess of sloppy touch-up applied to Doorman's left cheek all the way over into Black Tie Man's neck.
6) Doorman's nose is crooked because it was altered; there are cut marks, in the shape of a cresent, across his nose bridge to his right ear and back under his nose to his left ear. The crescent cut-out was not centered correctly.
KEY: Moreover, Lovelady was wearing a short sleeve red and white stripe shirt on 22 November 1963, as he told the FBI, was photographed in, told researcher Jones Harris, was quoted saying such in The Herald Tribune, and was also quoted as saying as much in the Warren Commssion record. Check out "The Lovelady Caper" chapter by Harold Weisberg, which Larry Rivera noticed.
I don't understand the game you are playing, David Josephs. We have established the sameness of the right ear, the left eye, the shape of the skull and even the hairline. We have 50 points of identification, which would have a miniscule probability by chance. There is a special destiny for those, like you, who use your talents, such as they may be, to conceal truths and promote falsehoods.
David Josephs Wrote:Between my analysis showing 6 items of MISMATCH which lowers the possibility they are the same shirt to ZERO...
Also showing that Oswad changed his clothes with the same authenticity as he was out front with Shelley...
AND that the inventory from Beckley includes said clothes...
How again can a shirt Oswald puts on at 1:00pm at his room be the same short in the photo Altgens photo?
(btw - how many ofus have a nimber of similiar shirts that we wear religiously? Guys like their favorite clothes... there is no reason to believe that Oswald did not have a number of similiar shirts... sure be nice to see photos of ALL the clothes brought from Beckley...)
That an entire website and a handful of "supporters" are buying into this charade is the scary part...
How is this any different from Tom Hanks' desire to tell a fraudulent story about the assassination?
Guess I should just post my rebuttal on JF's site? Think he'd allow counterpoint? :banghead:
You really have a great deal of audacity questioning someone else's mental stability. Since I had the gall to admonish you for using offensive, juvenile terms like "short bus," you have kicked it up a gear. "Walking a straight line at the Special Olympics?" You do understand, do you not, that the Kennedy family is responsible for starting the Special Olympics?
Before Eunice Kennedy especially brought a new awareness to the subject, those who weren't fortunate enough to be born "normal" had to endure the ugly taunts of "retard." Do you call people "retard?" If you'd ever loved someone who rode the "short bus," believe me, you wouldn't find all this to be humorous.
I can't believe that a middle aged JFK assassination researcher would feel comfortable in cavalierly bandying about terms like "short bus" and using the Special Olympics for his own brand of lame "comedy." Do you laugh at children with Down's Syndrome? I broached this subject before, but again- to some of us this form of humor is akin to the "n" word.
How is no one else here offended by Charles' posts?
Don,
That you are offended by Charles' choice of words as he deflects some of the nonsense posted here by persons who should know better--in my view--is your problem. That Charles has, in no way, vilified those who are afflicted with unfortunate conditions--through no fault of their own--seems to have escaped you. Charles is not targeting the challenged soul; rather he is challenging those who are targeting honest research through the employment of fallacious arguments that are clearly disruptive and only are they innocent if explicable as due to impairment. However, if these arguments are being proffered by individuals who are "sound of mind" then there is no innocent explanation.
This is not the first time we have seen this kind of ridiculous argumentation. Gary Severson was a master of double and even triple-think when he would write about global warming. Whether or not global warming is significantly contributed to by humans is not the issue: The issue is the disruptive nature of the arguments he made in support of that thesis. Only if such circular arguments occurred on the short bus would there be an innocent explanation. Get it?
To name just two family members that rode the short bus: I have a nephew who has down syndrome and I love him dearly. My sister was in a wheelchair her entire life as she was born spina bfida, and she is the best person I have ever known. I am not offended even a little--and neither would she be. It is all about CONTEXT. Make no mistake, I would speak up for her if I was.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
So MANY of the arguments hinge on minutia while forgetting completely about CONTEXT.
As in, Arnold say Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25.
Truly and Baker somehow get around to saying he was there at 12:31.
Nowhere does it mention him running out to the front to watch the motorocade
and then running quickly BACK....
The ONLY item that bothers me is that Baker and Truly were lying about seeing Oswald inthe 2nd floor lunchroom
they ran into someone on the stairs above the 3rd floor...
Between Baker's affidavit and his testimony... something happened to change his story.
Wow. So just because Charles is not ridiculing someone who is challenged, that makes his belittling references to "short bus" and "Special Olympics" okay? It's easy to aim humor at vulnerable targets. I guess some people think it's funny to laugh behind the backs of the hearing impaired. "Short bus" is an offensive term, period.
Monk is different from me. I recoil every time I hear the word "retard" or the obvious inferences in "humor" such as we've seen from Charles on this thread. And unlike your relatives, my niece instinctively knows what a bad word "retard" is and understands when someone is mimicking her.
Just as black people feel offended by the use of the "n" word, even when it's not directed at them, most of us who have loved ones with developmental difficulties (Monk being a very rare exception) feel offended by the very words "retard," or "short bus," regardless of the context. And even if I was being overly sensitive, any halfway decent person would respect someone's feelings and not want to offend them. Charles, however, clearly enjoys offending people.
Again, I am simply astounded that none of you have the courage to call this man out on his juvenile, offensive posts.
Don Jeffries Wrote:Wow. So just because Charles is not ridiculing someone who is challenged, that makes his belittling references to "short bus" and "Special Olympics" okay? It's easy to aim humor at vulnerable targets. I guess some people think it's funny to laugh behind the backs of the hearing impaired. "Short bus" is an offensive term, period.
Monk is different from me. I recoil every time I hear the word "retard" or the obvious inferences in "humor" such as we've seen from Charles on this thread. And unlike your relatives, my niece instinctively knows what a bad word "retard" is and understands when someone is mimicking her.
Just as black people feel offended by the use of the "n" word, even when it's not directed at them, most of us who have loved ones with developmental difficulties (Monk being a very rare exception) feel offended by the very words "retard," or "short bus," regardless of the context. And even if I was being overly sensitive, any halfway decent person would respect someone's feelings and not want to offend them. Charles, however, clearly enjoys offending people.
Again, I am simply astounded that none of you have the courage to call this man out on his juvenile, offensive posts.
Perhaps...NOT!
I DO HAVE THE COURAGE TO CALL YOU OUT ON YOUR IDIOTIC APPLICATION OF ETIQUETTE ON A FORUM WHERE THOSE WHO ARE SO IMPAIRED COULD NOT EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE OFFENDED BY IT!
Anyone riding the short bus due to the type of impairment sarcastically implied by Charles would not be offended. My nephew would not be offended for two reasons: The comment is not aimed at him and he cannot comprehend it even if it was. Same as you.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
07-12-2012, 04:06 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2012, 05:20 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
For a guy I used to like, you are committing one blunder after another. That you cannot see the obvious about Oswald as Doorman is bad enough. That you cannot bring yourself to condemn Charles Drago for his juvenile conduct is worse. And when you attack a fine man like Don Jeffries in a childish, immature fashion, which is simply and blatantly deplorable, I know that you, like Charles, have lost your way. That's a pity. You used to be an honorable man.
Greg Burnham Wrote:
Don Jeffries Wrote:Wow. So just because Charles is not ridiculing someone who is challenged, that makes his belittling references to "short bus" and "Special Olympics" okay? It's easy to aim humor at vulnerable targets. I guess some people think it's funny to laugh behind the backs of the hearing impaired. "Short bus" is an offensive term, period.
Monk is different from me. I recoil every time I hear the word "retard" or the obvious inferences in "humor" such as we've seen from Charles on this thread. And unlike your relatives, my niece instinctively knows what a bad word "retard" is and understands when someone is mimicking her.
Just as black people feel offended by the use of the "n" word, even when it's not directed at them, most of us who have loved ones with developmental difficulties (Monk being a very rare exception) feel offended by the very words "retard," or "short bus," regardless of the context. And even if I was being overly sensitive, any halfway decent person would respect someone's feelings and not want to offend them. Charles, however, clearly enjoys offending people.
Again, I am simply astounded that none of you have the courage to call this man out on his juvenile, offensive posts.
Perhaps...NOT!
I DO HAVE THE COURAGE TO CALL YOU OUT ON YOUR IDIOTIC APPLICATION OF ETIQUETTE ON A FORUM WHERE THOSE WHO ARE SO IMPAIRED COULD NOT EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE OFFENDED BY IT!
Anyone riding the short bus due to the type of impairment sarcastically implied by Charles would not be offended. My nephew would not be offended for two reasons: The comment is not aimed at him and he cannot comprehend it even if it was. Same as you.
I've been waiting for you, James. In the tall grass. Keep it up.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:For a guy I used to like, you are committing one blunder after another. That you cannot see the obvious about Oswald as Doorman is bad enough. That you cannot bring yourself to condemn Charles Drago for his juvenile conduct is worse. And when you attack a find man like Don Jeffries in a childish, immature fashion, which is simply and clearly deplorable, I know that you, like Charles, have lost your way. That's a pity. You used to be an honorable man.
Greg Burnham Wrote:
Don Jeffries Wrote:Wow. So just because Charles is not ridiculing someone who is challenged, that makes his belittling references to "short bus" and "Special Olympics" okay? It's easy to aim humor at vulnerable targets. I guess some people think it's funny to laugh behind the backs of the hearing impaired. "Short bus" is an offensive term, period.
Monk is different from me. I recoil every time I hear the word "retard" or the obvious inferences in "humor" such as we've seen from Charles on this thread. And unlike your relatives, my niece instinctively knows what a bad word "retard" is and understands when someone is mimicking her.
Just as black people feel offended by the use of the "n" word, even when it's not directed at them, most of us who have loved ones with developmental difficulties (Monk being a very rare exception) feel offended by the very words "retard," or "short bus," regardless of the context. And even if I was being overly sensitive, any halfway decent person would respect someone's feelings and not want to offend them. Charles, however, clearly enjoys offending people.
Again, I am simply astounded that none of you have the courage to call this man out on his juvenile, offensive posts.
Perhaps...NOT!
I DO HAVE THE COURAGE TO CALL YOU OUT ON YOUR IDIOTIC APPLICATION OF ETIQUETTE ON A FORUM WHERE THOSE WHO ARE SO IMPAIRED COULD NOT EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE OFFENDED BY IT!
Anyone riding the short bus due to the type of impairment sarcastically implied by Charles would not be offended. My nephew would not be offended for two reasons: The comment is not aimed at him and he cannot comprehend it even if it was. Same as you.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
If anyone is cynically using those afflicted with physical and/or mental illnesses to forward despicable agendas, it is the likes of Jeffries and Fetzer.
So be it. The former presents as a prig, the latter as a demented old fool. If not worse.
Name calling ... and so it goes.
Thank you, Greg and David, for standing with me. I am in your debt. The only way to remain unsoiled in this fight is to withdraw from it. None of us are prepared to do so.
The very term "short bus" was unknown until recent years, just as it used to be considered way out of line for ANY adult to use the word "retard." The bar has been lowered considerably however, to accommodate the needs of the idiocracy. "Short bus" can only be used in a disparaging way; there is no "context" in which it doesn't refer to the sad fact that some children are forced to ride in buses which literally identify them as being less than "normal." If you aren't offended by it, I assure you that most of us with loved ones who rode such buses are.
Charles continues to prove just how devoid he is of decency and empathy, as his response to my post was yet another mean-spirited reference to mental retardation, "drool." In what intellectual "context" are you using "short bus," "Special Olympics" and "drool," Charles? I guess it was better than his typical childish response of "yawn." And I haven't been given an elitist lecture in a foreign language yet.
Try joking about the "short bus" or "Special Olympics" in front of any member of the Kennedy family. I believe their reaction would be much closer to mine than yours. Charles again refers to this war we're in, and intimates that being able to joke about the buses mentally challenged people ride to school in is an essential part of his arsenal in that war. So the "enemy" you refer to would be above using such offensive terms? How does this "humor" fit into the battle?
And you are worried that the likes of Jim Fetzer are embarrassing the research community. Charles has publicly come out in support of ad hom attacks, and now insists on ridiculing those who are offended by terms like "short bus." He should be embarrassed. I'm glad to see that Jim Fetzer understands this. Doesn't anyone else?
