The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Albert Doyle]

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.

Fetzer, like Cinque, once again using too many words to not answer the point.

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!

Ah, Dr Fetzer, previously I assumed you had some credibility. However I cannot save you now for you just said in public "he (Drago) has no basis whatsoever for dismissing Ralph Cinque, much less calling him a "fool"! "

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.

Granted while Savant talents are possible, any credible professor would run from "Dr" Ralph Cinque. You have just promoted and endorsed one of the most outrageously incompetent attempters of serious publicly-presented conspiracy theory I've ever witnessed. You can't be serious.

You're existing in an open fantasy land. We've seen Dr Cinque's explanations of this evidence and they're ridiculous. Credulous. They are mostly based on himself insisting he sees things in photos so blurry they are almost non-visible.

I don't know what you're seeing but the pattern on Lovelady's shirt that I see looks the same. And it is as obscured as everyone else's clothing in the area. It's rather foolish of you to suggest Lovelady's shirt was purposefully obscured when it is simply as fuzzy as everything else at that range. This could be shown with high tech analysis.

Frankly I'm stunned that a professor of your reputation would refer to an obvious quack like Cinque as "brilliant" and then offer reasoning that is so obviously flawed that it cannot do anything other than bring serious question over your competency. This is a childish level of analysis for someone who has written books about this subject.

We've seen Dr Cinque's claimed features on the shirt. It's rubbish. In no way can he show the features he claims to be seeing in those fuzzy shots. Anyone can see he's trying to conflate the coincidental resemblance of Lovelady's open shirt into claims of subtle features like "lapels" and collar hook loops. Those features are not there and Cinque can't point them out. You can see his rambling diversions when forced to show this. He's trying to force Lovelady's loose and open shirt into becoming Oswald's. And Dr Fetzerstein is trying to help him.

To further his own skewering Dr Fetzer then says: " 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. "

- The only problem with this is the shirt seen on Doorway Man has broad and bright stripes. The wonderful thing about claims forgery is that once you make them you can just add anything you like as Dr Fetzer does here. Look at the plaid box pattern on Lovelady's shirt. It matches the dimensions of that seen in Altgens.

There's a very good chance Oswald would not risk getting docked by wearing a shirt with three buttons ripped-out and missing at the top to work. A smart detective would realize this pattern is the exact pattern you would see with police handling at the theater as illustrated by Oswald's face.

I'm sorry, where exactly did you point out where "I didn't know what I was talking about"?

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.

Fetzer: " 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." "

- What are you talking about and where exactly is this second forged person?

"Unwarranted attacks"??? This man did not know that the object that he was referring to as the "strange white stripes" was actually the shirt of the man standing behind Lovelady with a black tie dividing it.

I want Dr Fetzer to avoid the overly long and worded responses and simply answer what he thinks about Dr Cinque saying there were no examples of Lovelady with his shirt open. James Gordon on Lancer promptly posted a photograph taken after Altgens 6 showing Lovelady on the front steps with his shirt open and looking identical to "Doorway Man". This didn't affect Cinque in the least. Fetzer's paragon of research not only makes fatal gaffs but then ignores them when shown. Surely Dr Fetzer doesn't seriously offer Dr Cinque's input here as credible and worthy of his endorsement? Is this a joke??? If Dr Fetzer intends to chase Assassination forgery evidence windmills with this particular Pancho I suggest he bring some rain gear to deflect the rotten fruit he's going to have thrown at him.

In the end Dr Fetzer has managed to write a lot without really saying anything. Too much evasive digression and irrelevant appeals. This is the sign of somebody who isn't being honest. And as far as Cinque, now I understand where he gets his reckless abandon. If you look closely above Dr Fetzer won't say the person in Lovelady's spot is Oswald. He won't say it directly. At that point I think we need Freud rather than Jack White. Or maybe Rorschach. Or perhaps the good doctors should apply for Ghost Adventures - but, alas, they probably have a stricter standard of debunking than the Fetzer Assassination School.


I think the JFK Community needs to post a highly visible public notice that it disassociates itself from Dr Fetzer. More and more I'm starting to feel my blood boil...