21-05-2012, 03:17 PM
Don Jeffries Wrote: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.
Again Don, this answer alone reflects why I said what I did. There is much more information than you acknowledge to show the figure is indeed reasonably Lovelady. Because you fail to reflect the numerous levels of evidence to show it is Lovelady in your overly-general response does not mean what you say is valid. What you describe as "because you keep yelling" is actually pages of posts showing some very intelligently researched and vetted information that proves within reasonable doubt that the figure is indeed Lovelady. Meanwhile your forgery advocate Cinque is the one who runs roughshod across the offerings of some serious JFK Assassination researchers. And you are defending Cinque whether you admit it or not. Go back and read your recklessly conciliatory posts.
Don Jeffries Wrote: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 disagree with Greg's approach and think it gives too much leeway to people who don't deserve it. I think Greg's rules of logic refereeing is regressive and has the unintended effect of giving license to people in contempt who don't deserve that license. If anyone has noticed Cinque and Fetzer are ignoring Greg's admonitions.
I'm sorry Don but you keep referring to your reasonable belief in Oswald being in the doorway but it is backed by anemic material similar to what you offer here. Everything points towards Lovelady being the man in the door. Nothing points towards it being Oswald, yet you seem to think you hold some kind of superior logically-sound position when the facts say otherwise. Your position is entirely theoretical. Of the two leaps yours is the one that fails to land on the stage of reality.
Don Jeffries Wrote: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?
Yes I do, I'm sorry. I don't think you should be allowed to exert moderator authority with such weak points. I'm sorry. Assassination tenure is no replacement for sound argument. Whether you take responsibility for it or not YOU are the one who has cracked open the door to one of the most credible Assassination public forums to a credulous troll in the form of Ralph Cinque. Truth is you show more resentment and protest towards myself than you do towards this risible character. No principle or theory can justify that. Your argument exposes itself in its once-removed theoretical nature. You are arguing the idea of the Cinque debacle instead of arguing his points. If you look at my entries they argue Cinque's points directly. So there's two types of "disagreement". Yours, removed and theoretical, and mine direct. I hope you can understand why I reject yours.
I believe my points about the Fritz notes were sound. You came in and criticized them in defense of Cinque. You didn't protest Cinque not answering the main point nor did you protest Cinque totally ignoring my original post, posted by Jerry Dealey, criticizing his silly Lovelady imposter theories. There's different kinds of criticisms with different values Mr Jeffries. I hope people are wise enough to see which are the most important. Some may think their theoretical "tolerance" is noble and not see what price it comes at.