10-01-2012, 06:13 PM
Anyone who defends Cinque is a bad judge of evidence in my opinion. I think most smart people would be able to see a crank when one shows up. I actually disagree that the issue of Oswald potentially being in the doorway should be ruled by a deep politics perspective. I think if there was any chance that it actually was Oswald it should be trumpeted on all Assassination sites. However anyone with even the most rudimentary analytical skills would see Cinque is woefully underqualified for the things he attempts to analyze. He's dangerous. His stubborn unwillingness to recognize even the most basic points about his so-called evidence is not based on any credible conviction or brave stand for difficultly-detected evidence, but is instead based on a willingness to push forth crank theory based on his own clearly bogus judgment. If there was real proof there I'd be leading the charge. However, people with a crush of other important conspiracy evidence to absorb don't need to be distracted by a clownish expert pointing-out ordinary dark spots in a picture and making grandiose claims based on strongly promoted sheer ignorance. The proof of Cinque's credulity is in the details that were being discouraged. Assassination investigation and research is difficult enough without unqualified internet experts jumping-in and making a mockery of valid efforts. I'm sorry but the Dr Ralph Cramden method of photographic analysis doesn't rise above the cut-off line. It shouldn't be defended on principle when it doesn't even deserve consideration. Even Horne gave ear to the Greer theory. He made a serious mistake doing that. He's attracted new bugs to that false light. As far as Cinque, even Fetzer doesn't defend him. - And Cinque doesn't have the sense to realize he's in serious trouble on that count alone...