21-05-2012, 10:39 AM
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?
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?