22-05-2012, 06:01 AM
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Charles. As you remember, I was always supportive of you in the past, too. Whatever caused you to leave the EF (I thought you left of your own volition), I was sorry to see you go.
You may have done impressive work analyzing the writings of Colby, but again what purpose is ultimately served by that? Let's say you uncover undeniable proof that Colby is some kind of collective psyop; even if you got rid of him/them, wouldn't others arise? I just don't think this is a productive area of research. How could you ever conclusively prove someone was a disinfo agent? We know that numerous '60s "counterculture" icons like Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem were associated with the CIA. It's been acknowledged, and the few Americans who are aware of that don't really seem to care.
I'm glad you share my doubts about the figure in the doorway. That's all I was trying to argue in the EF thread started by Fetzer/Cinque. While Albert feels inexplicably positive that the figure is Lovelady, some of us disagree. Lovelady told the FBI he wore a short slieeved red and white striped shirt the day of the assassination, which clearly wasn't the one on the figure in the Altgens photo. He wore that and was photographed in it, because the FBI told him not to worry about wearing the same shirt he had on that day. Does that make any sense? The shirt was a vitally crucial piece of evidence, and the FBI says it really doesn't matter, just wear what you want?
Lovelady didn't want to be photographed, and he looked enough like Oswald to fool Marguerite and his own stepchildren. That's pretty impressive; have any of your co-workers ever looked enough like you to fool a close family member? Taken in conjunction with the fact Oswald was overtly being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination, I think the fact he just happened to have this lookalike co-worker is potentially very significant. Just because the case for conspiracy doesn't rely upon the figure being Oswald doesn't mean researchers should just allow neo-con types to force a group consensus that it wasn't when that just hasn't been established.
Albert, the reason I said Ralph Cinque made a good point about your timeline analysis of Fritz's notes is because he did. You attempted to take Fritz's notes in the order they were written in, and thus show that Oswald was referring to being "out front" with Shelley after the assassination. Ralph looked at the same information and correctly said that, if such was the case, then Oswald also ate his lunch after the encounter with Baker and Truly. Leave out any of his photographic claims; how is what he said there not logical?
I'm sorry, Albert, that my moderating skills are not up to your expectations. Are you even a member of the EF? If not, isn't it kind of absurd to be criticizing the way moderators on a forum you don't belong to do their job? I'm a hand's off guy, and tend to let everything go. I believe in censorship only in extremely rare instances. Thus, my inclination to defend someone's right to express their thoughts, even if they aren't doing a good job of proving their contentions. Maybe Cinque just really enjoys fighting with people. Do you not agree that the thread is as long as it is because people keep responding to the same claims with the same counterarguments? This is like one of Fetzer's threads- attracting more attention than anything else on the EF. Obviously, people are interested.
I recall clearly seeing either a color photo or film still of the TSBD doorway, taken from another angle, a few moments before the assassination. The figure in the doorway was seen to be wearing the same kind of shirt Oswald had on, with its distinctive rust/brown color. I thought the picture was in one of the numerous books in my personal library, but I have been unable to locate it. Years ago, on Rich Dellarosa's forum, poster Martin Barkely recalled it as well, but no one else seems to. Oh well, the search goes on....
Here's a link to a fine article on the Altgens figure controversy, by one time regular internet poster John J. Johnson: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ...tem 05.pdf
You may have done impressive work analyzing the writings of Colby, but again what purpose is ultimately served by that? Let's say you uncover undeniable proof that Colby is some kind of collective psyop; even if you got rid of him/them, wouldn't others arise? I just don't think this is a productive area of research. How could you ever conclusively prove someone was a disinfo agent? We know that numerous '60s "counterculture" icons like Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem were associated with the CIA. It's been acknowledged, and the few Americans who are aware of that don't really seem to care.
I'm glad you share my doubts about the figure in the doorway. That's all I was trying to argue in the EF thread started by Fetzer/Cinque. While Albert feels inexplicably positive that the figure is Lovelady, some of us disagree. Lovelady told the FBI he wore a short slieeved red and white striped shirt the day of the assassination, which clearly wasn't the one on the figure in the Altgens photo. He wore that and was photographed in it, because the FBI told him not to worry about wearing the same shirt he had on that day. Does that make any sense? The shirt was a vitally crucial piece of evidence, and the FBI says it really doesn't matter, just wear what you want?
Lovelady didn't want to be photographed, and he looked enough like Oswald to fool Marguerite and his own stepchildren. That's pretty impressive; have any of your co-workers ever looked enough like you to fool a close family member? Taken in conjunction with the fact Oswald was overtly being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination, I think the fact he just happened to have this lookalike co-worker is potentially very significant. Just because the case for conspiracy doesn't rely upon the figure being Oswald doesn't mean researchers should just allow neo-con types to force a group consensus that it wasn't when that just hasn't been established.
Albert, the reason I said Ralph Cinque made a good point about your timeline analysis of Fritz's notes is because he did. You attempted to take Fritz's notes in the order they were written in, and thus show that Oswald was referring to being "out front" with Shelley after the assassination. Ralph looked at the same information and correctly said that, if such was the case, then Oswald also ate his lunch after the encounter with Baker and Truly. Leave out any of his photographic claims; how is what he said there not logical?
I'm sorry, Albert, that my moderating skills are not up to your expectations. Are you even a member of the EF? If not, isn't it kind of absurd to be criticizing the way moderators on a forum you don't belong to do their job? I'm a hand's off guy, and tend to let everything go. I believe in censorship only in extremely rare instances. Thus, my inclination to defend someone's right to express their thoughts, even if they aren't doing a good job of proving their contentions. Maybe Cinque just really enjoys fighting with people. Do you not agree that the thread is as long as it is because people keep responding to the same claims with the same counterarguments? This is like one of Fetzer's threads- attracting more attention than anything else on the EF. Obviously, people are interested.
I recall clearly seeing either a color photo or film still of the TSBD doorway, taken from another angle, a few moments before the assassination. The figure in the doorway was seen to be wearing the same kind of shirt Oswald had on, with its distinctive rust/brown color. I thought the picture was in one of the numerous books in my personal library, but I have been unable to locate it. Years ago, on Rich Dellarosa's forum, poster Martin Barkely recalled it as well, but no one else seems to. Oh well, the search goes on....
Here's a link to a fine article on the Altgens figure controversy, by one time regular internet poster John J. Johnson: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ...tem 05.pdf