The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Albert Doyle]

To Doyle:

What is your problem? Do you like quibbling for the sake of quibbling? I have said that Black Tie Man is a fake, a mirage who was put there to cover up Doorman's collar on his left side. Now that's it! Period! If you can't understand it, get out of my face.

This is an argument of facts and points Dr Cinque. If I'm not mistaken you seem to assume the position of pronouncing what is real and what isn't above. My problem is not that I don't understand what you are contending but is instead that I understand it all too well. Better than you might realize. I feel you have regressed off my points and tried to resort to bulling-through your theory despite your being unable to defend the matter in factual argument.

Only have his hands up for a fraction of a second? What do you think he's doing, posing for a picture? He's watching the parade! Of course he's got his hands up for longer than a fraction of a second. So stupid!

This doesn't answer anything that was being said or why. What you didn't answer was that Raised Arms Man's shaded face is perfectly explainable by the shade-line off the lintel. None of the points you tried to make changed that, nor does the above.

I am through talking to you about the optics of the light and the shade etc. because you are getting more and more fanciful, more and more full of yourself. You know, you are not an engineer. You are not a scientist. Stop waxing on and on as if you know what you are talking about. And here's a suggestion: Why don't you tell us your theory of the crime?

I accept your less than graceful concession. It's a tough world out there Ralph. If you present a theory like yours you have to be able to defend it on its level. JFK Assassination CIA forgery is big time. Big time claims need big time proof. It is not a domain to be rushed in to without serious consideration.

You say you're not a lone gunman advocate. You've said it more than once. But, I presume you don't think Oswald was innocent. And I presume that because you trash him. You called him a "wild liar." And you trash and ridicule Dr. Fetzer who defends Oswald. And the only other option is that you think Oswald was guilty but had an accomplice, which, if true, makes you a very rare breed, as very few people believe that any more. But either way, if you don't believe he was the lone gunman, then it means that you think that the official theory of the crime is WRONG. And that means that you must think that the Magic Bullet theory is wrong, and therefore you must think that there was subterfuge involved in promoting that theory and in handling that evidence.

So, if you think there was subterfuge involving that piece of evidence, the Magic Bullet, then why are you fighting so hard to deny subterfuge in the handling of the Altgens photo?

Dr Cinque, I'm not doing this out of personal spite or vindictiveness, but you need to learn some basic rules of logic. I didn't really pay attention in my college Logic course, but I remember enough to know you just ran several serious red lights in the rules of logic above. If we stick to the subject, that is your claim that Oswald's shirt is seen on Doorman, I think my arguments have proven correct. But to answer your question I now think Oswald was most likely on the 2nd floor where Carolyn Arnold saw him at 12:25 and was later forced by FBI criminals to push it back to 12:15 to allow their deception to work. If you do some brain crunching you'll realize for Oswald to be at that spot right before the head shot means he would have to have headed back in to the lunchroom shortly before Baker and Truly followed right behind him. I don't think after witnessing Kennedy having his brains blown-out from the front steps Oswald would have gone back in and appeared casually calm 90 seconds later.

So, do tell us what exactly is your theory of the crime. It's time for you to lay your cards on the table. I've done it. Now you do it. Flip your cards over, Doyle!
DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD UNTIL YOU'VE DONE THAT.

I don't get it? Are you conceding your "Doorman" theory by this?

To answer your question, I believe most of Douglass. Right now I'm trying not to irritate Drago by emphasizing CIA too much at the expense of the greater sponsors. But in no way does that mean "Doorman" was Oswald. Lovelady was on the front steps. Why can't it simply be Lovelady? I don't think you've proven your way too unprofessionally presented shirt claims.

[Seamus Coogan]

[quote=Ralph Cinque]To Doyle:

What is your problem? Do you like quibbling for the sake of quibbling? I have said that Black Tie Man is a fake, a mirage who was put there to cover up Doorman's collar on his left side. Now that's it! Period! If you can't understand it, get out of my face.

This is an argument of facts and points Dr Cinque. If I'm not mistaken you seem to assume the position of pronouncing what is real and what isn't above. My problem is not that I don't understand what you are contending but is instead that I understand it all too well. Better than you might realize. I feel you have regressed off my points and tried to resort to bulling-through your theory despite your being unable to defend the matter in factual argument.

This is the same sort of bollocks Nelson used. What is it with Fetzerians? I doubt he'll listen and I wouldn't waste your time with the punk Al.

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Doyle,

It wasn't graceful because it wasn't a concession, but rather, a dismissal.

And Doorman can't simply be Lovelady because he is wearing Oswald's shirt. And I know enough about logic to realize that if he's wearing Oswald's shirt, he is, by LOGICAL necessity, Oswald, and can't be anyone else. Your arguments have not challenged that conclusion, nor the evidence that it's based on, one iota.

So, you think Oswald was on the 2nd floor during the shooting and had nothing to do with the crime? Is that correct? I have to ask because, frankly, you are not the most lucid writer in the world, and you don't always communicate that clearly.

But, let's go with that because it's a start. So, you think Oswald was set up as the patsy. That's good, very good.

But, if he was on the 2nd floor during the shooting, why did he lie and tell Detective Fritz that he was outside by Bill Shelley? It wasn't unlawful for him to be on the 2nd floor. He had to know that it would be very precarious for him to start lying during such an investigation when he was the prime and only suspect. And he had nothing to lie about. It wasn't unlawful for him to be on the 2nd floor. I don't know what you think he was doing on the 2nd floor. I don't know what you think his interest was to be on the 2nd floor rather than outside watching the President. But, whatever it was, why didn't he just tell Bill Fritz about it and be done with it? Why lie?

But regardless, you do think Oswald was framed, and you've already implicated the CIA and the FBI. And you've also referred to "greater sponsors." I presume you mean higher elements within the government. Surely, you wouldn't refer to, say, the Mafia has a "greater sponsor" than the CIA or the FBI. Would you?

So, according to you, there were all these government factions plotting to kill Kennedy and frame Oswald. And he, for some reason, wanted to hang out on the 2nd floor during the motorcade. And then afterwards, he felt compelled to lie about that. I guess he felt it would sound better if he said he was outside, so it was worth lying about. Is that your take?

You also admitted that Kennedy "had his brains blown out." I believe those were your exact words. And that is what every conspiracy theorist invariably says. But, lone gunman advocates don't say it because they refuse to accept the testimony of all the Parkland doctors who said Kennedy's brains were blown out- to the rear. Lone gunman advocates accept the autopsy photos which show an intact skull and a small neat entrance wound back there. But since you believe his brains were blown out, you must then believe that there was quite a lot of subterfuge and manipulation to hide the fact that his brains were indeed blown out. I find it strange that you would embrace such a gargantuan manipulation for that purpose but fight the idea that the Altgens evidence was manipulated at all. Hmmm.

And since you think Oswald was innocent, I presume you don't accept the Single Bullet Theory. And I'm sure you realize that they only gravitated to it after the existence of the first, missed bullet was discovered. It was a revisionist thing. But, you have no such reason to gravitate to it. It was done to implicate Oswald and align with his 3 bullet limitation. So again, the whole thing about finding the Magic Bullet on the stretcher at Parkland, and finding it unscathed after having caused 7 wounds in 2 men, and busting through 2 bones in Connally- that has got to rub you wrong. Yes? You must see terrible subterfuge involved with all that. Yet, you think they're clean as a whistle when it comes to the Altgens photo. Hmmm.

And if you believe Douglass, then I presume you believe that they had at least one Oswald double running around doing things to implicate and malign Oswald- and maybe more than one double. And you must know about Robert Vinson, who revealed that he rode on the Air Force cargo plane from Dallas to New Mexico immediately after the assassination with an Oswald double. So, with all that, and with the other things that Douglass reported, I take it you have no problem accepting that they would have gone TO ANY LENGTHS to frame Oswald. Yes?

Are you willing to admit that if he HAD been standing outside during the shooting and was photographed by Altgens, and they accidentally released that photo to the news wires of the world without realizing he was in it, that there was no way that they would have admitted it afterwards and declared Oswald innocent? I presume the answer is yes because it's not as though they had an alternative theory of the crime, a fallback theory. For them, it was Oswald or nothing. Isn't that true? So, they would have done whatever was necessary even after such a gargantuan mistake. Right?

So, that takes us back to Oswald being on the 2nd floor. You say he was on the 2nd floor based of the testimony of Carolyn Arnold. But didn't she go outside to watch the motorcade herself? And once she did that, how exactly would she have known where Oswald was? If she saw him there shortly before the motorcade and then she went out to watch it, why couldn't he have slipped down there too behind her, without her seeing him?

And what was he doing on the 2nd floor? This is really an important question for you. And you can't be glib about it. Why wasn't he interested in seeing the President? You figure he was apolitical? Based on what? Again, what was he doing on the 2nd floor, Doyle? And whatever it was, why couldn't he tell Fritz about it? Whatever it was, it couldn't have been as bad as shooting the President, as he was being accused, right? And it's hard to imagine that he was doing anything of a criminal nature on the 2nd floor such that he had to lie about it. So, why didn't he just say he was there?

But, getting back to the Altgens photo and the identity of the Doorman, why doesn't it bother you that they didn't try to identify Black Tie Man? Why doesn't it bother you that they didn't try to establish and verify Lovelady's buttoning behavior that day? It's a little unusual standing there with your shirt unbuttoned with the President driving by. Don't you think? Now, if it happened to be Oswald, as I believe, it's perfectly understandable because his buttons were missing. But Lovelady's were not. So, why didn't somebody ask him about it, and why didn't somebody ask others about his buttoning practices that day? And why doesn't it bother you that there was no inquiry into this at all?

All we know from the Warren Report is that they showed him "a" picture, without identifying the picture, and they asked him to point to himself in the picture, which he did, but they never identified which figure he pointed to. We really have no way of knowing if it was the Altgens photo, and we have no way of knowing whether the person he pointed to was the Doorway Man. But if it was, why didn't they follow it up with: "Well, why were you unbuttoned?" And why are you unperturbed by that glaring omission ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU MUST ACCEPT SUBTERFUGE IN REGARD TO MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION?- since you are, indeed, a conspiracy theorist who rejects the official theory of the crime.

Have you read Weisberg's PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH? He maintains that Warren Commission Chief Counsel Rankin was appalled because J. Edgar Hoover refused to take possession of and examine the shirt that Lovelady claimed he wore. And Rankin actually used the word "whitewash" to describe what was going on. That's a good book. You should read it.

[Ralph Cinque]

To Mr. Drago,

In light of your efforts to have me expelled, I request that you look at Mr. Coogan's recent remark. To come on here just for the sake of calling me a "punk" is hardly the caliber of discourse that you are looking for on this forum. It certainly does not contribute anything constructive to the debate. And in terms of being rude and crude, I think it is worse than anything I have ever said to Mr. Doyle or yourself or anyone else. To banish me, after that, would surely be hypocritical, and it would evince a double standard for "members in good standing."

And if any of the other controlling members are reading this, I ask for their intervention. I really think that Mr. Coogan should be admonished for what he said, and I am appealling to you about it instead of responding to him in kind. Thank you. Ralph Cinque

[Charles Drago]

This is typical agent provocateur behavior: Stir the rhetorical pot, then cry foul and hurl accusations of unfairness against forum ownership.

Cinque, your kimono is wide open now.

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Drago, you tickle me. An agent provocateur? Who do you think I am? An agent of whom? I am not an agent of anybody. Only myself. And the only thing I am promoting is an idea: the idea that the Doorman in the Altgens photo had to be Oswald because he was wearing Oswald's clothes. And the only reason I am promoting it is because I think it is the truth, and I think others should know.

You could say that I am promoting my videos, but I am not selling them. They're free. I have no financial motive or other motive.

Believe it or not: that is all there is to it. It really is. I have no other agenda. I have no plot against your forum. I participate on quite a few forums and for the same reason.

My motive is as clear and visible as the Oswaldian shirt that Doorman is wearing.

But, thanks for the chuckle about me being an agent provacateur. That's a good one. You're a heck of a conspiracy theorist in your own right.

Cheers,

Ralph Cinque

[Charles Drago]

And the only thing I am promoting is an idea: the idea that the Doorman in the Altgens photo had to be Oswald because he was wearing Oswald's clothes.

And this idea is ludicrous on its face. Its "logic" suggests that A) there was no one else there who could have been wearing LHO's clothes, B) that LHO did not have any other clothes, C) that the photo is not altered.

For starters.

This idea is fatally uninformed by a deep politics perspective -- and absent such a point of view, an event which by its nature is a deep political event cannot be analyzed meaningfully.

Your ignorance is understandable and even forgivable. Your arrogance is neither. Your posts fit the mold of posts made by individuals intending to disrupt and/or discredit forums such as DPF. You declare your ignorance with an air of pride, and you are blind to other, more informed, more mature, more valuable points of view.

Whether motivated by pride of ignorance or by a commitment to disrupt and/or discredit DPF, your actions here are indistinguishable from those of a witting agent provocateur. And in the final analysis, a man who shoots you in the head because he honestly believes that it's the only way to cure your migraine still blows your brains out.

You're not ready for prime time, Cinque or swim.

Go back to the kiddie's pool.

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Doyle,

I would like to delve deeper into your position because I'm trying to make sense of it. Again, one is hardpressed to explain why an innocent man would lie to the police and claim to be outside when he was really on the 2nd floor. I dare say that only guilty people lie to the police. Innocent people have nothing to hide. And you clearly believe that Oswald was innocent. So why would he lie? You really need to give an explanation because that behavior was so contrary to his best interest at the time. What is your compelling reason for believing that Oswald remained on the 2nd floor during the motorcade? And I don't consider Carolyn having reported seeing him there beforehand to be a compelling reason. It may be a reason, but it is not a compelling one.

And what could he possibly have been doing there on the 2nd floor? Eating? Drinking? Practicing self-gratification? Excuse me for saying that but I'm racking my brain here trying to figure it out. People don't just sit in a room and dwiddle their thumbs. If they're there, they're there for a reason, and they're doing something. So, if you have the notion that he was there, and that he remained there during the parade, you have to give a reason for his being there.

Some have suggested that he remained inside to eat. But, he could have taken his food outside, as others did. One such person was Billy Lovelady. He said that he went outside and sat down on a step to eat his lunch. But, if Oswald really did prefer to remain inside to eat, why didn't he just say so?

"I wasn't interested in watching the motorcade, and I preferred to remain inside on the 2nd floor to eat my lunch."

Was that so hard? Was there any reason why he could not and would not have said that, had it been the truth?

Please respond to this, as I am trying to understand the basis of your position. Thank you. Ralph Cinque

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Drago,

There was no one else who could have been wearing LHO's clothes? Do you really have a problem with that?

Yes, there was no one else who could have been wearing LHO's clothes. No one else.

And what is the point of referring to his other clothes? I'm sure he had other clothes. But, we're talking about the clothes he wore that day. He claimed to have changed his pants later at the boarding house, but not his shirt. So, we are talking about the shirt that he was wearing and in which he was photographed numerous times. And that is the shirt that I am comparing to Doorman's shirt.

And, of course, I maintain that the Altgens photo was altered.

But, I am really not trying to disrupt. I am just trying to defend. Mr. Doyle started this thread, and he started it with disparagement of me and my videos and Dr. Fetzer. In your deep political perspective, don't you think I have a right to defend myself? Surely, it cannot be your vision for this forum that somebody can come on and trash someone else without the other person having the right to defend.

So yes, there was "discreding" involved, but it was I who was being discredited. And that's why I came here, and that's why I am participating here. Would you rather have a forum where somebody can discredit someone, ridicule their work, and that person not have an opportunity to respond? What kind of forum is that? What is "deep" about it?

So again, maybe you are going to prevail and have me banished. Personally, I don't see the integrity of this forum benefitting from that. And I hope the other founding members agree with me. Ralph Cinque

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Even a five year old kid knows that Oswald was innoncent, and we have long past the stage of proving that he did not assassinate JFK. We do not need to prove that he was the man outside the TSBD to validate the above. It is not necessary. But the wilderness of mirrors was designed with the purpose to confuse us and divide us by keeping us busy with insignificant details, that cannot be proved or disproved. Some people should come to terms with it and move on to the most important matters of the assassination.
Let's remind Mr. Cinque, Vince Salandria's timeless words of wisdom:
"I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless."