The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Charles Drago]

But, my main claim is that Doorman's shirt- the physical form of it, the lay of it, the way he's wearing it, the way it fits him, and the v-necked t-shirt underneath, together prove that he is Oswald.

Nonsense.

It proves no such thing.

Mr. Doyle: Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's? Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's? Why is Doorman's shirt so much like Oswald's?

Cinque: Open your mind. Learn the methods of deep political analysis. Imagine. Think. Imagine. Think. Imagine. Think.

[Albert Doyle]

I discovered in one of Dr Cinque's videos that you can actually see the shade-line from the lintel clip the edge of the very top of the right column opposite "Doorman". Sophisticated photo analysis would show that the angle established by this evidence continues and transects both Black Tie Man and Raised Arms Man exactly as is shown in the picture. This is mathematical proof.


Observe the shade angle off the lintel at the top of the column:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x4v12N6oY


.

[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.

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!

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?

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?

I will remind you that when you first posted on my video you said you were a "staunch conspiracy advocate" so you can't take that back.

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.

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Drago,

I am done talking to you. And I request that you stop talking to me.

Ralph Cinque

[Charles Drago]

DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD UNTIL YOU'VE DONE THAT.

Cinque, you've just dropped the last straw.

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Drago,

I am done talking to you. And I request that you stop talking to me.

Ralph Cinque

Cinque,

Request denied.

As a founder of the Deep Politics Forum and speaking for myself and not my partners, I find you to be in violation of the spirit and the letter of our rules of engagement. Since your appearance on these cyber-pages, you have done nothing but offer third-rate thinking and attempt to antagonize members in good standing.

In my estimation you are doing the enemy's work -- wittingly or not, I cannot say. Not that it matters.

There is no place for you here, and I intend to argue forcefully for your permanent banning.

I may not be successful; ours is a democratic partnership.

If you are allowed to remain, I shall continue to expose your intellectual limitations and to investigate your deeper motivations for behavior that is, in a word, unacceptable.

[Ralph Cinque]

To Mr. Drago:

Antagonize members? You think I've done more to antagonize Mr. Doyle than he has done to antagonize me? You think I have been more disrespectful of him than he has been of me? That is a terrible double standard that you are practicing, even if he is a "member in good standing."

Yes, put it in front of your partners. Let them read through the blogs. Let's see what they think. I am the one being who is being ganged up on here.

And if you succeed at getting me banned, then what it will amount to is censorship.

I have written substantively here- concerning concrete issues in this case. You may have the means to silence me on this forum, Mr. Drago. But frankly, I think to do so is contrary to the spirit of honest debate and open discussion. Ralph Cinque

[Ralph Cinque]

Mr. Doyle,

You really need to come clean about your theory of the crime. You have maligned me, and you have maligned Dr. Fetzer, but it's not enough to say that you think we are wrong. You need to say what you think is right. This will go far to clear the air and to clarify our differences.

And honestly, if you don't, it is going to reflect badly on your sincerity and credibility. Out of fairness alone, you should do it because you know very well that I have been very forthcoming that way.

For an avowed conspiracy advocate, you have been very critical of a leading conspiracy writer (Fetzer). And, your harsh, disdainful treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald also casts doubt on your sincerity as a conspiracy advocate. This seeming contradiction needs to be resolved.

So, I hope your silence reflects only that you are formulating your reply and that you will indeed be posting soon to reveal your position on the genesis of the crime, and hopefully in some detail. I don't think it's too much to ask, under the circumstances, considering how critical you have been of my theory.

So, I am waiting for this reply, and there may be others waiting for it too. Please don't disappoint us. Ralph Cinque

[Seamus Coogan]

Mr. Doyle,

You really need to come clean about your theory of the crime. You have maligned me, and you have maligned Dr. Fetzer, but it's not enough to say that you think we are wrong. You need to say what you think is right. This will go far to clear the air and to clarify our differences.

And honestly, if you don't, it is going to reflect badly on your sincerity and credibility. Out of fairness alone, you should do it because you know very well that I have been very forthcoming that way.

For an avowed conspiracy advocate, you have been very critical of a leading conspiracy writer (Fetzer). And, your harsh, disdainful treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald also casts doubt on your sincerity as a conspiracy advocate. This seeming contradiction needs to be resolved.

So, I hope your silence reflects only that you are formulating your reply and that you will indeed be posting soon to reveal your position on the genesis of the crime, and hopefully in some detail. I don't think it's too much to ask, under the circumstances, considering how critical you have been of my theory.

So, I am waiting for this reply, and there may be others waiting for it too. Please don't disappoint us. Ralph Cinque

Albert Doyle has no need to justify himself too an individual like you Mr Cinque. Al and I are on the same page at least 70 percent of the time and I believe most of his contributions have been invaluable or at the least interesting. Have a look at his posts here and at Lancer. He's done some great work on Allen Dulles with Gerald Ven and is a gentleman to discuss issues with. I consider Al a friend. I also think that the MODs here are pretty fair. If Al was saying anything libellous, inflammatory or untrue he would be told to cool it down.

What annoys me is that you are an outsider demanding redress from an established member.

Speaking of established members you have succeeded brilliantly in pissing off CD one of the big daddy/mommas of this fraternity. If you don't take the time to figure out how CD ticks, how to engage him in an argument or discussion with an alternative POV. Then you obviously don't care for this forum. Turning up and laying into him when he barely knows you or your work is a pretty dumb f###### thing to do. Trust me I've done it.

As for Mr Fetzer, please ask him why he has avoided commenting on my thread concerning some criticisms he made about a certain article I wrote about John Hankey. His silence on the matter and his refusal to debate the issue speaks volumes about JF. Not Albert or anyone else.

[Seamus Coogan]

Mr. Drago,

I am done talking to you. And I request that you stop talking to me.

Ralph Cinque

Get a dog you need the company.